The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Union of India, through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice, in an application raising serious concerns regarding lapses on the part of social media intermediaries in complying with the due diligence obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000; and the mandatory reporting obligations the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.<\/p>\n
An application was filed in an appeal where the Court set aside<\/a> a Madras High Court’s ruling, which said that mere downloading and watching of child pornography is not an offence under the POCSO Act and the Information Technology Act.<\/p>\n While delivering the landmark judgment on the POCSO Act, the Court had highlighted<\/a> the widespread misconceptions about sex education in India, including beliefs that it encourages promiscuity or conflicts with traditional values, that have limited its implementation.<\/p>\n The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while referring to its previous judgment, observed, “The above observations should leave no manner of doubt in the minds of social media intermediaries as to their obligations under the law. That said, given the valid concerns raised regarding alleged violations of these obligations, it is necessary that the Union of India through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice be called upon to respond to the issues arising in the present matter…Therefore, we permit the learned counsel appearing for the applicants to implead the Union of India through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice as party respondent in the present application.”<\/p>\n Senior Advocate H.S. Phoolka appeared for the Applicants, while Advocate Prashant S Kenjale appeared for the Respondents<\/p>\n The Court had also made several key suggestions to the Union Government, specifically the Ministry of Women and Child Development, to amend the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Bench had advised the Parliament to consider amending the POCSO Act, with the Union of India possibly issuing an ordinance to implement the change in the interim. In addition, the Court had directed that the term “child pornography” should no longer be used in judicial orders or judgments, and that “Child-Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material” (CSEAM)” be adopted instead.<\/p>\n The Applicants submitted that there are news reports flagging alleged incidents of paid advertisements promoting Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (\u201cCSEAM\u201d) on social media platforms, whereby users are redirected to other websites or social media platforms, where such material is offered for monetary consideration.<\/p>\n The Court said, “…the applicants have brought to our attention certain serious concerns regarding lapses on the part of social media intermediaries in complying with: (i) the due diligence obligations cast upon them under the Information Technology Act, 2000; and (ii) the mandatory reporting obligations under Section(s) 19, 20 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (\u201cPOCSO Act\u201d) read with Rule 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 (\u201cPOCSO Rules\u201d).”<\/p>\n It was alleged that such incidents have been on the rise, despite certain advertising review mechanisms in place by the intermediaries.<\/p>\n Further, it was submitted that the social media intermediaries are reporting the incidents of CSEAM to the National Centre for Missing & Exploited Children, United States of America, but are failing to report to the authorities specified under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, i.e., the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or the local police.<\/p>\n The Application has prayed for directions to the Union of India to formulate and notify a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribing a uniform protocol to be followed by all intermediaries covering the end-to-end process of user interface or content uploading, inter alia, including detection or reporting of CSEAM, mandatory reporting to the competent law enforcement agency, reporting formats and timelines for compliance, preservation of electronic evidence, identification and preservation of IP address information, sharing of such information with investigating agencies, inter-agency coordination, and victim-centric safeguards.<\/p>\n It was prayed, “Issue an appropriate direction directing the Union of India to ensure that, upon identification of any person involved in the creation, uploading, publishing, transmitting, storing, accessing, viewing, downloading, advertising, promoting, or dissemination of CSEAM, the particulars of such person are promptly uploaded to the National Database of Sexual Offenders (NDSO), in accordance with law, to facilitate investigation, inter-agency coordination, and prosecution… Issue an appropriate direction directing the Union of India to ensure that every report received from an intermediary is promptly acted upon by the designated law enforcement agency by way of registration, investigation and all other necessary legal action in accordance with law”<\/p>\n The Application also prayed for directions to the Union of India to ensure that, where any social media intermediary or online platform fails to comply with the mandatory reporting obligations under Sections 19 and 20 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012, read with Rule 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020, immediate appropriate criminal proceedings are initiated against such intermediary. <\/p>\n The Court remarked, “By the next date of hearing, we expect the Union of India through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice to file their counter affidavits, copies of which shall be served to the applicants two weeks in advance.”<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Court issued notice and listed the matter for further consideration on September 24, 2026.<\/p>\n On April 19, 2024, the Court had reserved<\/a> its verdict in the SLP. It is to be noted that on March 11, the Bench issued<\/a> notice in the SLP. The Court had also sought the response of S. Harish, a resident of Chennai, and the Tamil Nadu Police.<\/p>\n