Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
“Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that downloading, watching, or possessing child pornography (now termed "Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material" - CSEAM) is a serious criminal offence under Section 15 of POCSO and Section 67B of IT Act. The Court overturned a High Court order that had dismissed such conduct as mere "moral decay." The judgment also recommended replacing the term "child pornography" with "CSEAM" to reflect the true nature of the crime.
The Bottom Line
Downloading, storing, or watching child pornography is a CRIME, not just "moral decay." Even if you didn't create or share it, mere possession is punishable. The law presumes you had criminal intent, and YOU must prove otherwise. Every viewer creates demand that leads to more children being abused.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
NCMEC Report Received
NCRB received Cyber Tipline Report identifying the accused as consumer of child pornography
NCMEC Report Received
NCRB received Cyber Tipline Report identifying the accused as consumer of child pornography
FIR Registered
FIR No. 03/2020 registered at All-Women's Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai
FIR Registered
FIR No. 03/2020 registered at All-Women's Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai
Chargesheet Filed
Chargesheet filed under Section 67B IT Act and Section 15(1) POCSO
Chargesheet Filed
Chargesheet filed under Section 67B IT Act and Section 15(1) POCSO
High Court Quashes Case
Madras High Court quashed proceedings calling it mere "moral decay"
High Court Quashes Case
Madras High Court quashed proceedings calling it mere "moral decay"
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court reversed High Court order, restored criminal proceedings, issued landmark guidelines
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court reversed High Court order, restored criminal proceedings, issued landmark guidelines
The Story
In January 2020, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) received a Cyber Tipline Report from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a US-based organization. The report identified S. Harish, a 24-year-old resident of Chennai, as having downloaded child pornography on his mobile phone over a period of two years.
Based on this report, the All-Women's Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai registered FIR No. 03/2020 under Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 14(1) of POCSO. Investigation revealed two videos depicting children in sexual activity were found on the accused's phone. The accused admitted he was "addicted to watching pornography."
A chargesheet was filed under Section 67B of IT Act and Section 15(1) of POCSO (storage of child pornography). However, the Madras High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that: 1. Merely watching child pornography doesn't constitute an offence under Section 14(1) POCSO (which requires "using" a child) 2. Downloading without transmitting/publishing doesn't attract Section 67B of IT Act 3. The conduct was merely "moral decay" on the part of the accused
The High Court's order was challenged by Just Rights for Children Alliance (a coalition of 5 NGOs working against child exploitation) and Bachpan Bachao Andolan. The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, reversed the High Court's order and restored the criminal proceedings.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Section 15 POCSO covers possession
Section 15(1) explicitly penalizes storage and possession of child pornography. The State failed to properly invoke this provision before the High Court.
Section 67B covers downloading
Section 67B(b) criminalizes creating text, digital images, or advertising that "creates" child pornography. Downloading creates demand and is covered.
Presumption under Section 30
The High Court failed to apply Section 30 presumption of culpable mental state. The accused must prove he lacked criminal intent, not the prosecution.
International obligations
India is signatory to UN Convention on Rights of the Child. Article 34 requires protection from sexual exploitation. Quashing such cases violates these obligations.
Respondent
State of Haryana
FIR was under Section 14, not 15
The FIR was lodged under Section 14(1) POCSO which requires "using" a child for pornography. The accused only watched, didn't use any child.
Auto-download via WhatsApp
The videos were automatically downloaded via WhatsApp's auto-download feature. The accused was unaware of their existence.
No transmission or publication
Section 67B requires publishing or transmitting. Mere downloading without sharing doesn't attract the provision.
Ignorance of law
The accused was unaware that possessing such material was illegal due to government's failure to publicize the law.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court conducted an exhaustive analysis of POCSO and IT Act provisions, international conventions, and the psychology behind child pornography consumption. The Court emphasized that every viewer of child pornography is complicit in the abuse of children because demand drives supply. The judgment is notable for its victim-centric approach, detailed examination of the harm caused by such material, and progressive recommendations including renaming "child pornography" to "CSEAM."
The term "child pornography" is a misnomer. It should be replaced with "Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material" (CSEAM) to reflect the true nature of such content which depicts crime scenes of child abuse.
Reframes the terminology to emphasize criminal nature.
Every individual who watches, downloads, or possesses child pornography creates a demand for such material, which in turn leads to more children being sexually abused and exploited.
Establishes the link between consumption and continued abuse.
The High Court committed an egregious error in passing the impugned judgment. Calling the possession of child pornography mere "moral decay" trivializes the exploitation and abuse of children.
Strongly criticizes the High Court's approach.
Section 30 of POCSO raises a presumption of culpable mental state. The burden is on the accused to prove absence of such mental state. This presumption applies even at the stage of quashing proceedings.
Clarifies application of presumption in quashing petitions.
Ignorance of law is no excuse. The maxim ignorantia juris non excusat applies with full force to offences under POCSO.
Rejects ignorance as defence.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The criminal proceedings against the accused were restored. The case will now proceed to trial. The judgment also laid down important guidelines for future cases and recommended legislative amendments.
Directions Issued
- Criminal proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 170 of 2023 restored before Sessions Judge, Mahila Neethi Mandram, Tiruvallur District
- Parliament should consider amending POCSO to replace "child pornography" with "child sexual exploitative and abuse material" (CSEAM)
- Courts should not use the term "child pornography" in judicial orders—use "CSEAM" instead
- Union of India to consider constituting Expert Committee for comprehensive child protection program
- Parliament should consider amending Section 15(1) POCSO to enable online reporting of CSEAM
- Copy of judgment sent to Ministry of Law & Justice and Ministry of Women and Child Development
Key Legal Principles Established
Downloading, watching, or possessing child pornography is a criminal offence under Section 15 POCSO and Section 67B IT Act.
Every viewer of child pornography creates demand that leads to more children being abused.
Section 30 POCSO creates presumption of culpable mental state—accused must prove innocence.
Ignorance of law is no defence for possessing child sexual abuse material.
"Child pornography" should be called "Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material" (CSEAM).
Quashing petitions in POCSO cases must consider Section 30 presumption.
High Courts cannot dismiss such cases as mere "moral decay"—it trivializes child abuse.
Mandatory reporting obligations under Section 19 POCSO apply to all who know of such offences.
Social media platforms must report to Indian authorities, not just foreign NGOs.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- Watching, downloading, or storing child pornography is a CRIME—you can go to jail.
- Even if you didn't create or share it, mere possession is punishable.
- Saying "I didn't know it was illegal" is NOT a valid defence.
- If you receive such material (even accidentally), you MUST delete it immediately and report it.
- Every viewer creates demand—you are complicit in child abuse if you consume such material.
- If you know someone possessing such material, you have a legal duty to report under Section 19 POCSO.
- Failure to report is itself a crime under Section 21 POCSO.
- If you struggle with such urges, seek professional help—it's a recognized disorder that can be treated.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: Right to life includes right to live with dignity—children have right to be protected from sexual exploitation.
Article 39(f)
Constitution of India
“The State shall direct its policy towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation.”
Relevance: Directive Principle mandating child protection.
Statutory Provisions
Section 15
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
“(1) Any person, who stores or possesses pornographic material in any form involving a child for commercial purposes shall be punished... (2) Any person who stores or possesses pornographic material involving a child for the purpose of distributing or transmitting... (3) Any person who stores or possesses pornographic material involving a child for purposes other than (1) and (2)...”
Relevance: Core provision criminalizing possession of child pornography at different levels.
Section 30
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
“In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state.”
Relevance: Creates presumption of guilty mind—burden on accused to prove otherwise.
Section 67B
Information Technology Act, 2000
“Whoever, (a) publishes or transmits material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic form; (b) creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, promotes, exchanges or distributes material depicting children in sexually explicit act...”
Relevance: Criminalizes browsing and downloading child pornography.
Section 19
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
“Any person who has apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, he shall provide such information to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police.”
Relevance: Mandatory reporting obligation for all persons.
Related Cases & Precedents
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra
cited(2013) 5 SCC 546
Discussed the presumption provisions and burden of proof in criminal cases.
State of Maharashtra v. Maroti
cited2024 SCC OnLine SC 1
Held that length of punishment is not the only indicator of gravity of offence.
Nipun Saxena v. Union of India
cited(2019) 2 SCC 703
Discussed protection of identity of child victims and witnesses.
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India
cited(2018) 17 SCC 291
Discussed measures for protection of children from sexual abuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2015) 5 SCC 450
When Borders Cannot Shield a Parent Who Flees with Children
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.