Introduction:
In a notable judgment, the Karnataka High Court clarified the scope of Section 67B of the Information Technology (IT) Act, ruling that merely watching child pornography online does not constitute an offense under this provision. The case involved **Inayathulla N**, who was accused of viewing child pornography, leading to legal proceedings against him. The judgment was delivered by a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, who quashed the charges, emphasizing the distinction between viewing and transmitting or publishing such material.
The case arose from a complaint registered by the CEN police station on May 3, 2023, alleging that Inayathulla N had viewed a website containing child pornographic material on March 23, 2022. The prosecution charged him under Section 67B of the IT Act, which penalizes the publication and transmission of material depicting children in sexually explicit acts.
Arguments:
The petitioner, represented by Advocate S Jagan Babu, argued that he was a porn addict and had no intention of circulating or transmitting any material. He emphasized that his actions were limited to viewing the website content and did not involve any form of publication or transmission, which are critical elements required to constitute an offense under Section 67B of the IT Act.
The prosecution, represented by HCGP Harish Ganapathi, opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner had engaged in watching child pornography, an act they argued should be penalized to prevent such behavior from continuing. They stressed the importance of upholding the law to deter individuals from accessing child pornographic material.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice M Nagaprasanna, after reviewing the arguments and relevant legal provisions, ruled in favor of the petitioner. The court clarified that Section 67B of the IT Act specifically targets the publication and transmission of child pornographic material, not merely viewing it. The judgment highlighted:
“The soul of the provision is publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit acts.”
The court found that the prosecution’s allegations did not meet the necessary criteria under Section 67B, as there was no evidence that the petitioner had published or transmitted the material in question. The court emphasized that, at most, the petitioner could be considered a porn addict, but this alone does not satisfy the requirements for an offense under the cited provision. Justice Nagaprasanna stated:
“If the facts are pitted against the ingredients necessary to drive home Section 67B of the IT Act, what would unmistakably emerge is, further proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued, as it would become an abuse of process of law.”
Thus, the court quashed the proceedings against Inayathulla N, allowing the petition.