Child watching porn may not be an offence but using child in porn will be, says top court

A CHILD watching porn may not be an offence but children being used in pornography is a matter of “serious” concern and may be an offence, the Supreme Court said on Friday.

The observations came from a bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and J us ticeJB Pardiwala while reserving the verdict on an appeal filed by NGOS — Just Rights for Children Alliance of Faridabad and New Delhi-based Bachpan Bachao Andolan — challenging a Madras High Court verdict.

The organisations work for the welfare of children.

“A child watching porn may not be an offence but children being used in pornography may be an offence and is a matter of serious concern,” the bench said.

The Madras High Court has ruled that mere downloading and watching child pornography is not an offence under the POCSO Act and the Information Technology law.

The high court, on January 11, also quashed the criminal proceedings against a 28-year-old man charged with downloading on his mobile phone porno graphic content involving children.

On March 11, the top court the Madrash HC ruling as as “atrocious”.

Senior advocate HS Phoolka, appearing for two organisations, assailed the high court verdict and referred to the provisions of the POCSO Act and the Information Technology Act.

The bench said if one gets such material in the in box then it has to be deleted or destroyed to avoid scrutiny under the relevant laws. If one continues to breach the IT provisions by not deleting or destroying the child pornographic materials then it makes out an offence, it said.

The bench was responding to the submissions of the lawyer, representing the person who was accused of downloading child porn, that the alleged clip came to him on June 14, 2019. The counsel for the accused, who was exonerated by the HC, said the material was downloaded automatically on his Whatsapp.

The top court, meanwhile, allowed child rights body NCPCR to intervene in the matter.

“Arguments concluded, and judgement reserved,” the CJI said.