SC Condemns Madras HC's Take On Viewing Child Porn In Private As 'Atrocious'

During a recent legal development, the Madras High Court stirred controversy by declaring that downloading and viewing child pornography is not an offense, raising eyebrows and prompting the Supreme Court to express its disapproval. The Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, deemed the ruling "atrocious," setting the stage for a legal battle that could have far-reaching implications for child welfare.

The  Madras High Court was dealing with the case of S. Harish, who was booked under the Protection of Children Under Sexual Offences (POCSO) and Information and Technology Act (IT Act) for watching child porn. Reportedly, he downloaded and watched two child pornography on his mobile phone. However, the bench headed by N. Anand Venkatesh said that it is not an offence to just watch child porn unless someone engages in using a child for pornographic purposes. 

Background of the Case

The case revolves around a 28-year-old man from Chennai, whose involvement in explicit material involving a child led to the quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings by the Madras High Court. The accused, who downloaded the material on his mobile phone, benefited from the High Court's interpretation that watching child pornography does not fall under the purview of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Madras High Court's Reasoning

The Madras High Court's decision rested on several key points. Firstly, it emphasized that the accused had downloaded the material for private viewing with no intention of publication or transmission. Secondly, the court argued that merely downloading and watching child pornography is not an offense under Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Importantly, the court highlighted that to trigger POCSO Act offenses, a child or children must have been used for pornographic purposes. In this case, the accused had watched explicit videos but had not involved a child in any pornographic activity, leading the court to categorize it as moral decay rather than a criminal offense.

The court said, "To make out an offence under Section 14(1) of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, a child or children must have been used for pornography purposes. This would mean that the accused person should have used the child for pornographic purposes. Even assuming that the accused person watched a child pornography video, that strictly will not fall within the scope of Section 14(1) of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.."

It further added, "In order to constitute an offence under Section 67-B of Information Technology Act, 2000, the accused person must have published, transmitted, created material depicting children in a sexually explicit act or conduct. A careful reading of this provision does not make watching child pornography, per se, an offence under Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000." 

The court reinstated the judgement made by the Kerala High Court that Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code will be applicable only when a person publicly exhibits, distributes, or shares pornographic videos. 

Moreover, the court also lamented the fact that pornography addiction is growing among youth in Generation Z. It said that rather than punishing them, the best way to grapple with the situation is to educate them and counsel them to get rid of the addiction. The judge said, "There used to be addiction to smoking, drinking, etc. and there is a growing rise in addiction to watching porn photos/videos. This, is in view of the fact that it is easily available on electronic gadgets, and by repeatedly watching the same, it becomes a habit, and ultimately, the person gets addicted."

Potential Ramifications and Legal Battle

The Just Rights for Children Alliance, a coalition of NGOs, voiced grave concerns about the potential social impact of normalizing child pornography. They argued that the Madras High Court's order could inadvertently encourage the consumption of child pornography by creating an impression that individuals downloading and possessing such material will not face prosecution. The alliance emphasized the possible harm to innocent children and the negative impact on overall child welfare. They contended that the order might increase the demand for child pornography and encourage individuals to involve innocent children in such illicit activities.

In response to the Madras High Court's decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, heard a plea filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance. The bench issued notice on the petition, returnable within three weeks.