The Madras High Court’s controversial decision that downloading and owning sexually explicit material featuring minors is not illegal was overturned by the Supreme Court on Monday. Meanwhile, the court called on Parliament to pass an ordinance that would replace the term “child pornography” in all applicable legal documents with “child sexual exploitative and abuse material (CSEAM).” According to the ruling, the word change would represent a dramatic departure from how society and the legal system see and handle the serious problem of child exploitation.
A bench made up of Justice JB Pardiwala and Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud emphasized the serious concerns about child pornography while emphasizing the fine line that must be drawn between technological advancements and children’s legal protections. The court ordered all courts to use the term “CSEAM” to refer to such offences instead of “child pornography” in all decisions and judgments going forward.
The bench offered a thorough interpretation of the pertinent sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act pertaining to exploitative material against children in a detailed ruling. It recommended that Parliament replace the term “child pornography” with CSEAM in order to significantly alter legal frameworks, public perception, and the fight against child abuse in general.
On April 19, the bench postponed making a decision in the case, stating that it needed to provide answers to important queries regarding how laws meant to protect minors from exploitation in the digital era should be interpreted.
The case started when Madras High Court Judge N Anand Venkatesh dismissed criminal charges against a 28-year-old man who was suspected of downloading and viewing child-oriented pornography in January 2024.
According to Justice Venkatesh’s ruling, merely viewing child pornography is not considered a violation of the Information Technology Act of 2000 or the POCSO Act. The judge indicated that charges under the POCSO Act cannot be brought against a kid unless the youngster was utilized for pornographic objectives; this suggests that passive consumption without direct engagement does not qualify as criminal activity.