🚨 UPSC EXAM NOTES presents the July edition of our comprehensive monthly guide. Access it  to enhance your preparation. We value your input - share your thoughts and recommendations in the comments section or via email at Support@upscexamnotes.com 🚨

Critical Topics and Their Significance for the UPSC CSE Examination on September 30, 2024

Daily Insights and Initiatives for UPSC Exam Notes: Comprehensive explanations and high-quality material provided regularly for students

Why has the SC clarified POCSO provisions?

For Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance

For Mains Examination: GS II - Indian Polity & Governance

Context:

In a far-reaching verdict that clarifies the penal consequences of dealing with online sexual material involving children, the Supreme Court has underscored that viewing, downloading, and storing of such content are all offences under the Protection of Sexual Offences Against Children (POCSO) Act, and that criminal liability not be limited to creating, uploading and transmitting the material.

Read about:

What is the age of Consent?

Significance of the POCSO Act

Key takeaways:

• In a significant ruling that clarifies the legal consequences of engaging with online sexual content involving children, the Supreme Court has emphasized that viewing, downloading, and storing such material are all punishable offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
• The Court stressed that criminal liability should not be restricted to the creation, uploading, or transmission of such material. This decision came after a coalition of non-governmental organizations appealed against a Madras High Court ruling, which had dismissed criminal charges against a man accused of viewing and storing videos of child sexual exploitation.
• The police had charged him based on information from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), which revealed that the individual had downloaded the material onto his phone. The police later filed charges under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 15(1) of POCSO.
• Section 67B of the IT Act, introduced in 2009, imposes a prison sentence of up to five years for a first-time offence and up to 10 years for subsequent offences related to publishing or transmitting child sexual abuse material electronically. It also allows for a fine of up to ₹10 lakh.
• Section 15(1) of POCSO, which mandates a three-year jail term for those who store child pornography for commercial purposes, was expanded to include other offences related to online child sexual abuse material.
• The NGOs were discontented with the High Court’s decision to dismiss the criminal case, and the Supreme Court allowed them to appeal, even though they were not involved in the original case.
• The High Court had ruled that simply possessing or storing pornographic content was not an offence under POCSO. It further held that Section 67B of the IT Act only criminalized the transmission, publication, or creation of child pornography, and that merely watching or downloading such content in private was not punishable.
• Thus, the High Court quashed the case, stating that no offence was committed under either POCSO or the IT Act. In other words, possession or storage of child pornography was not deemed a crime, but its transmission or publication was.
• The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the High Court’s interpretation and clarified the scope of offences under Section 15 of POCSO, which was amended in 2019 to criminalize a broader range of acts related to child sexual abuse material. It explained that the amended section encompasses three types of offences related to child exploitative content.
• Section 15(1) penalizes the failure to delete, destroy, or report child pornography that a person has in their possession or storage with the intent to share or distribute it. Sub-section (2) criminalizes the transmission, propagation, display, or distribution of child pornography, while the third aspect punishes the possession or storage of such material when done for commercial purposes.
• The Court also invoked the concep