The Supreme Court has ruled that even viewing, possessing, and not reporting child pornographic content is punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act regardless of whether it is shared or transmitted further.
In a 200-page judgement, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala outlined a strict interpretation of what constitutes an offence of “storage of child pornography”. The Bench expanded the interpretation of Section 15 of the POCSO Act, which deals with the “Punishment for storage of pornographic material involving child”.
This decision of the apex court comes months after the Madras High Court single-judge Bench quashed criminal proceedings against a 28-year-old man who had downloaded two pornographic videos involving children on his phone.
Originally, the provision was restricted to cases where a person stored child pornographic material “for commercial purposes”. In 2019, the POCSO Act was amended to introduce three connected offences under Sections 15(1), (2) and (3) with increasing grades of punishment — from fines to a three to five year jail sentence.
The court said that Section 15 was not limited to punishing the sharing or transmitting of child pornographic material, and could even be used to punish the “intent” to commit such an act.
The law in these cases, the court held, punishes “overt steps” taken towards committing a crime and not “the mere thought of committing an offense”. For instance, the court held that a failure to “delete or destroy or report” child pornography would allow the court to “indirectly” infer that the concerned individual intended to share or distribute it under Section 15(1).
In the January 11 verdict, the Madras HC had confined it’s ruling to Section 14 alone and held that “mere possession” of child pornography would not violate the provision “since he has not used a child or children for pornographic purposes”.
The court had also held that the offences under the POCSO Act could only be made out if the accused had transmitted or published the material, and there was no evidence to suggest that this took place.
The Supreme Court in turn expanded the definition of “possession” in child pornography cases to include cases where the individual may not have physical possession of child pornographic material, but they have “the power to control the material in question and the knowledge of exercise of such control”. The court termed this “constructive possession” and held that “viewing, distributing or displaying” such material would still amount to it being in the accused’s “possession” under Section 15.
Justice Pardiwala provided some illustrations of such possession. On viewing child pornography, he said: “Say for instance, ‘A’ routinely watches child pornography over the internet, but never downloads or stores the same in his mobile.
Here ‘A’ would still be said to be in possession of such material, as while watching he exercises a considerable degree of control over such material including but not limited to sharing, deleting, enlarging such material, changing the volume etc. Furthermore, since he himself on his own volition is viewing such material, he is said to have knowledge of having control over such material.”
Another illustration dealt the responsibility of an individual who receives child pornography unwittingly from an external source: “For instance, say, ‘A’ is sent an unknown link by ‘B’, which upon clicking opens a child pornographic video on the phone of ‘A’. Now if ‘A’ immediately closes the link, although once the link is closed ‘A’ is no longer in constructive possession of the child pornography, this by itself does not mean that ‘A’ has destroyed or deleted the said material by merely closing the link. ‘A’ will only be absolved of any liability if he after closing the link further reports the same to the specified authorities”.
This puts emphasis on reporting of child pornographic content. The penalty for not reporting is a fine “not less than five thousand rupees and in the event of second or subsequent offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.”
The court also held that the offence under Section 15 will apply even if the accused does not have physical possession of child pornography at the time when the FIR is filed. Charges can be made if it is established that the accused possessed child pornographic material “at any point”.
The court held that the intention of an accused can be determined based on the “manner in which such material is stored or possessed and the circumstances in which the same was not deleted, destroyed or reported”. From these actions and circumstances, the court will determine intention of the accused.
The court also cautioned the police and courts from limiting their inquiry to one of the sub-sections under Section 15. Even if an offence under one sub-section is not made out, the court held that the police and courts must not “jump to the conclusion” that there is no offence at all. Instead, the police must see if an offence has been out in one of the other sub-sections.
Also Read: Ahmedabad Private University Official Held For Molesting Foreign Student
