Introduction:

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, through a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, issued stringent observations and guidelines regarding the storage and consumption of Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material (CSEAM). The court’s judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance vs. S. Harish (Diary No. 8562-2024) emphasized the deeply intertwined nature of CSEAM with child sexual abuse, asserting that even viewing or storing such material involves an inherent intention to exploit children sexually.

CSEAM has been labeled a particularly heinous crime, involving not just the creation and distribution of explicit content but also the degradation of children into mere objects for wrongful gratification. The ruling stresses the urgent need for laws that punish not only the creators and distributors of CSEAM but also its consumers, as their actions perpetuate the demand-supply cycle that leads to further child exploitation.

This judgment is a cornerstone in India’s legal landscape, building on the framework provided under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, particularly Sections 13, 14, and 15, which address the creation, distribution, and storage of CSEAM. The court underscored that while a practical difference may exist between producing and consuming CSEAM and engaging in child sexual abuse, both acts share a common intent: the sexual exploitation and degradation of a child.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner, Just Rights for Children Alliance, argued that the storage and consumption of CSEAM were not passive activities but carried a dangerous potential for harm to children. They contended that viewing such material creates demand, fueling further production and abuse, thus fostering a vicious cycle of exploitation. Additionally, the petitioner emphasized that Section 15 of the POCSO Act, which penalizes the storage of child pornographic material, was often perceived as too lenient and required stricter interpretation to ensure that consumers of CSEAM are appropriately penalized.

They further argued that consumers of such material indirectly contribute to child abuse, as their consumption incentivizes the creation of more exploitative content. The petitioner highlighted that the punishment for storing or consuming CSEAM should reflect the gravity of the offense and its impact on victims, particularly the violation of children’s dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent, S. Harish, argued that there is a clear distinction between merely viewing CSEAM and engaging in direct acts of child sexual abuse. The defense maintained that while both actions are condemnable, viewing or storing CSEAM should not be equated with the heinous crime of sexually abusing a child. The respondent contended that Section 15 of the POCSO Act should be interpreted in a balanced way, recognizing that some individuals may consume such material without an intent to exploit or harm children physically.

They further argued that individuals caught with stored CSEAM often require psychological rehabilitation rather than severe penal measures. Viewing and storing such material, the respondent insisted, did not necessarily foster a desire to engage in child sexual abuse and should not be punished as severely.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling that penalized not only the creation and distribution of CSEAM but also its consumption and storage. The court rejected the respondent’s claim that merely viewing or storing CSEAM was a lesser offense, stating that consuming such material carried a “common, malevolent intent” akin to direct acts of child sexual abuse.

The bench, led by Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Pardiwala, emphasized that both the production and consumption of CSEAM reduce children to objects for wrongful gratification. The court observed that while there may be a physical difference between creating and viewing CSEAM, the “latter desire is always inherent in the former.” This intent, the court argued, makes both acts equally harmful, as they both involve the exploitation and degradation of children.

One of the court’s most notable observations concerned the desensitizing effect of CSEAM on its viewers. The court noted that consuming such material could lead to individuals becoming desensitized to the horrors of child abuse, potentially encouraging them to seek more extreme forms of exploitation or engage in abusive acts themselves.

The court also examined the devastating psychological impact of CSEAM on victims, particularly the anxiety, depression, and PTSD that often follow. Victims’ knowledge that images of their abuse are in circulation can make recovery all the more difficult.

In reaffirming the legal framework under the POCSO Act, the court reiterated that Sections 13, 14, and 15 must be interpreted strictly to ensure both consumers and creators of CSEAM are held accountable.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment marks a significant step in India’s fight against child sexual exploitation. By equating the storage and consumption of CSEAM with the intent to abuse, the court has underscored the severe consequences of these actions. The judgment serves as a powerful reminder that both creators and consumers of CSEAM are complicit in the abuse and exploitation of children, necessitating stringent measures to combat this growing menace.

In acknowledging the far-reaching psychological trauma caused by CSEAM to its victims, the court emphasized the importance of protecting children from both direct acts of abuse and the exploitation inherent in creating and consuming such material. This judgment sets a critical precedent for protecting children’s  rights in India.