JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE VS S. HARISH ON 23 SEPTEMBER,2024
5
125
0
AUTHOR: Srijan Vishwakarma
CITATION
Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr v. S. Harish & Ors [2024] INSC 716 (SC India).
YEAR OF JUDGMENT
23rd September 2024
STATUTES REFERRED IN THIS CASE
1. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)
Section 14(1): Use of children for pornographic purposes.
Section 15(1): Punishment for storage of pornographic material involving a child.
Section 19: Mandatory reporting of offences.
Section 21: Punishment for failure to report or record the offence.
Section 30: Presumption of culpable mental state.
2. Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 67: Publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Section 67A: Publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit acts.
Section 67B: Punishment for publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit acts, etc.
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Section 292: Sale, distribution, and publication of obscene material.
4. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.
5. Constitution of India
Article 15(3): Special provisions for children.
Article 39: Protection of children from abuse and exploitation.
6. Other Relevant Conventions and International Standards
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Convention on Cybercrime.
PLAINTIFF
Just Rights for Children Alliance
DEFENDANTS
S. Harish – The sole accused in the criminal proceedings.
State of Tamil Nadu – Represented by the respective authorities involved in the investigation.
Inspector of Police, All-Women's Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai
BENCH
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Supreme Court of India
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India heard the case Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr v. S. Harish & Ors ([2024] INSC 716) in 2024, addressing critical issues under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). The judgment explores the legal interpretations of statutory provisions meant to protect children from exploitation, specifically the possession and use of child pornographic material. This groundbreaking decision examines the extent of liability for possessing, storing, or viewing child pornography, contrasting societal interests with individual rights.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The first respondent, S. Harish, was suspected of downloading child pornographic material. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime Against Women and Children Branch) advised the All-Women’s Police Station in Ambattur, Chennai, of this suspicion.
Under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the POCSO and Section 67B of the IT Act, an FIR was registered on January 29, 2020. The police confiscated Harish’s mobile phone during the investigation, which was found to contain more than 100 pornographic videos, two of which depicted child pornography.
A forensic report determined that the recordings had been downloaded and stored on Harish’s device for an extended period. Chargesheets were filed under Section 15(1) of the POCSO and Section 67B of the IT Act based on these discoveries.
However, the criminal proceedings were annulled by the High Court of Madras, which contended that the mere possession of such material does not constitute an offense under the relevant sections. Incensed by the decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court for redress.
ISSUES RAISED
Several principal concerns required resolution:
Is the mere possession or storage of child pornographic material, without evidence of intent to share or transmit, an offense under Section 15(1) of the POCSO and Section 67B of the IT Act?
The extent of the presumption of culpable mental state specified in Section 30 of the POCSO.
Whether the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction was justified.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF (PROSECUTION)
Senior counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court misinterpreted the provisions of the POCSO and IT Act. They contended that:
Section 15(1) of the POCSO penalizes failure to report or delete child pornographic material, regardless of whether it is disseminated or transmitted.
The respondent’s assertion of ignorance about the material on his device was refuted by forensic evidence and his admission to viewing pornography during college.
The High Court neglected the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 30 of the POCSO, which shifts the burden of proof to the accused.
The judgment could potentially allow leniency in cases of child pornography possession, posing a substantial threat to child protection.
ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT
The defense contended that:
The respondent was unaware of the videos on his mobile phone, claiming they were automatically downloaded via WhatsApp.
There was no intent to distribute or transmit the material, a necessary element under Section 15(1) of the POCSO.
The videos were created before the 2019 amendments to Section 15, making the allegations retrospective and invalid.
The respondent’s ignorance of the law and lack of intent should absolve him of liability.
The High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of legal process.
PRINCIPLES APPLIED
The Supreme Court scrutinized critical provisions under the POCSO and IT Act, emphasizing:
Section 15 of the POCSO: Storage or possession of child pornography without reporting or deleting it is an offense.
Section 67B of the IT Act: Explicitly prohibits the transmission, publication, or viewing of child pornography.
Section 30 of the POCSO: Shifts the burden of proof to the accused in cases requiring intent.
Judicial Precedents: The Court upheld a purposive interpretation to align child protection laws with their legislative intent.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s ruling, concluding that:
Possession or storage of child pornography, regardless of intent to share, is a criminal offense under Section 15(1) of the POCSO.
Forensic evidence refuted the respondent’s claim of ignorance.
Section 30 of the POCSO established a presumption of culpable mental state, which the respondent failed to rebut.
The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings, as prima facie evidence supported a trial.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
This judgment reinforces the legislative intent of the POCSO and IT Act, ensuring that passive possession of child pornography is punishable if not reported. The Court prioritizes child protection over individual liberties in such cases.
The ruling also raises concerns about potential misuse of these laws. To address this, contextual evaluation and forensic evidence must be given precedence in similar cases.
The Supreme Court’s decision establishes a strong precedent for combating child pornography under Indian law, upholding justice for child victims while maintaining legal safeguards.
