Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court addressed the challenges of proving the age and identity of models in child pornography cases, emphasizing the practical difficulties posed by the anonymity of the internet. The case, Parthasarathi M v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, involved petitions seeking to quash charges under Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act against individuals accused of possessing or disseminating child pornography. The Court’s decision focused on balancing the need for stringent measures against child pornography with the practical limitations of establishing the age and identity of models depicted in such material.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the prosecution failed to establish the age of the models depicted in the pornographic material, contending that strict proof of age was necessary to invoke the provisions of the POCSO Act. On the other hand, the amicus curiae emphasized that the appearance of the model as a child should suffice for determining whether the material constitutes child pornography. They highlighted the challenges posed by the internet’s anonymity and the impracticality of proving the age and identity of every model.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice K Babu, presiding over the case, underscored the legislative intent behind the provisions prohibiting child pornography and the need to interpret them in a manner that aligns with societal norms and values. The Court recognized the difficulty of proving the age and identity of models due to the nature of internet anonymity and the virtual nature of the material. It held that strict proof of age for every model is not necessary and that the appearance of the model as a child should suffice. The Court further outlined guidelines for determining the age of models in pornographic material, emphasizing the role of expert opinion when necessary. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petitions while laying down guidelines to address the challenges posed by child pornography cases.