The Supreme Court in a landmark verdict held that watching and downloading child pornography are offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the information technolog🌼y law. While also suggesting to stop using the term 'child pornography' and highlight exploitation of children in the term itself.
A plea challenging the Madras High Court order which said watching child pornography was not an offence and suggesting society to be 'mature'🎶 enough was heard🍌 by Supreme Court today. The apex court had earlier called this ruling 'atrocious' and agreed for the hearing today.
What Did Supreme Court Say On 'Child Pornography'?
The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, made some notable changes to th𓆏e Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Information Technology (IT) Act regarding the guidelines on child pornography and how to prevent exploitation of children.
"We have said ꧃about lingering impact of child pornography on victimisation and abuse of children and on role to report an offence, including role of society and stakeholders," the bench said.
"We have suggested to Parliament to bring an amendment to POCSO... so that definition of child po♏rnography can be referred to as 'child sexually abusive and exploitative material'. We have suggested an Ordinance can be brought in," it added.
According to Supreme Court verdict -
Watching and ꩵdownloading child pornography are offences underꦰ the POCSO Act and IT Act.
The term "child sexually abusive and exploitative material" to be used instead of 'child pornography'.
A person who opened a child pornographic link without knowledge will be lia⛦ble on failure to 🌊report to authorities.
"Any form of intangible or constructive possession of any child pornograph🐓ic material will also amount to “possession” under Section 15 of the POCSO in terms of the Doctrine of Constructive Possession", said SC bench.
Certain guidelines to be follow♒ed on child 🐽pornography and the bench laid its legal consequences.
What Was Madras High Court Order All About?
The Madras High Court on January 11 quashed the criminal proceedings against a 28-year-old man who was charged with downloading pornog🦄raphic content involving children on his mobile phone.
While pronouncing the verdict, theꦜ apex court restored 𝓀the criminal proceedings in the case saying the high court had erred in quashing it.
The bench said the sessionꦯꦏs court will now deal with the case afresh.
The high court had also said that children these days were grappling with the serious issue of watching pornography and instead of punishing them, the society must be "mature enouꦗgh" to educate them.
The high court had quashed the criminal case against S Harish under the POCSO Act, 2012 and IT Act,✤ 2000.
In order to constitute an offence under section 67B of the IT♛ Act, an accused must have published, transmitted or created material depicting children in a sexually-explicit act or condu🦩ct, it had said.
"A careful reading of this provis🃏ion does not make watching child pornography, per se, an offence under s♛ection 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000," the high court had added.
Even though the said section of the IT Act has been widely worded, it does not cover a case where a person has me𒆙rely downloaded child pornography in an electronic gadget and watched the same, without doing anything more,♑ it had said.
Admittedly, two videos involving boys were♋ downloaded and were available on the petitioner's mobile phone, and those were neither published nor transm🌊itted to others and were within the petitioner's private domain, it had said.
The Madras High Court had, however, expressed concern over children wat﷽ching ওpornography.
Viewing pornography can have negative consequences on teenagers dow🧔n the line, affecting both their psychological and physical well-being, it had said.
The high court had advised the petitioner to attend coun🎉selling if he was still afflicted with the addiction of watching pornography.
Petitioners Challenging Masdras HC Ruling
The Supreme Court had taken note of the submissions made in the matter by senior advocate H S Phoolka, who represeꦿnted two petitioner organisations, that the high court verdict was contrar🥀y to the laws in this regard.
The senior lawyer appeared in the court on Monday on behalf of NGOs Just Rights for Children A🅷lliance, based in Faridabad, and the New Delhi-based Bachpan Bachao Andolan. The organisations work for the welfare of children.
