The Supreme Court has clarified that viewing, downloading, and storing child sexual abuse material are all offenses under the POCSO Act.
The court emphasized that criminal liability extends beyond creating, uploading, and transmitting such material.
Background of the Case
An alliance of NGOs appealed against a Madras High Court decision that quashed charges against a man for possessing child pornography.
The police had booked the accused after discovering child sexual abuse material on his mobile phone.
The case involved Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 15(1) of POCSO.
Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with the punishment for publishing or transmitting material that depicts children in a sexually explicit manner in electronic form.
Section 15(1) penalises the failure to delete, destroy or report any child abuse material found to be stored or in possession of any person with an intention to share or transmit it
The High Court ruled that mere possession or storage of child pornography was not an offense under POCSO.
The court limited criminal liability to the transmission, publication, or creation of such material.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, deeming it erroneous.
The court clarified the scope of various offenses under Section 15 of POCSO, as amended in 2019.
The court identified three distinct offenses related to child sexual abuse material: failure to delete or report, transmission or distribution, and storage or possession for commercial purposes.
The court introduced the concept of "constructive possession" to broaden the scope of liability.
Constructive possession was defined as an "inchoate" offense, a criminal act done in preparation for a further offense.
The court emphasized that even without physical possession, individuals who exercise control over child sexual abuse material can be considered in possession.
Court Suggestions
The court highlighted the significance of POCSO as a special legislation to combat child sexual abuse and exploitation.
Use of "CSEAM": The court suggested using the term "child sexual exploitative and abuse material" instead of "child pornography" to better reflect the nature of the offense.
COMMENTS