Published on: 13th December 2025
Authored by: Kadapala Moksha Sree
Christ Academy Institute of Law
COURT– SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH– TWO JUDGE BENCH
- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
- Justice J.B. Pardiwala
DATE OF THE JUDGMENT- September 23, 2024
INTRODUCTION
The case of Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2025) was an important landmark in the jurisprudence of child protection in India, as the Supreme Court of India examined whether possession of child pornographic material was an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, particularly after the amendment in 2019. The Supreme Court addressed the tension in enforcement in the digital age of privacy and the freedom of expression against protection of children from sexual exploitation.
In a judgment of a division bench, the case set down important guidelines on determining criminal liability for possession in the digital domain and clarified the terms ‘use’ and ‘storage’ as they relate to child pornographic material in section 15 of the POCSO Act. The ruling also reiterated India’s responsibilities under international law including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case arose from an incident in 2023 in Bengaluru, Karnataka, where the respondent, S. Harish, a 27-year-old software engineer, was found to have stored more than 150 indecent images and films involving minors on his personal laptop and mobile phone. The fact was discovered by the cybercrime investigation wing during the course of its investigations into broader online networks sharing material involving children who have been sexually abused.
The accused argued that the files were unintentionally downloaded through peer-to-peer sharing software and that he had no intention of distributing or commercially benefiting from the material. The accused claimed he came into possession of the material without intending to obtain it, while asserting his constitutional right to privacy, referencing the judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
The trial court rejected these contentions, and charges were framed under POCSO for possessing and transmitting sexually explicit content involving minors as well as Information Technology Act, 2000, under sections 67B and 67 respectively relating to the transmission of indecent content involving a minor. The High Court quashed the charges under section 15, stating that “mere possession without intent to distribute” does not amount to offence.
Just Rights for Children Alliance, a child protection advocacy group, filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court to impugn the High Court’s decision.
LEGAL ISSUES
I. What is the scope of Section 15 of the POCSO? In other words, what is the underlying distinction between sub-section(s) (1), (2) and (3) respectively of the POCSO?
II. Whether mere viewing, possessing or storing of any child pornographic material is punishable under the POCSO?
III. What is the true scope of Section 67B of the IT Act?
IV. What is the scope of Section 30 of the POCSO? In, other words, what are the foundational facts necessary for invoking the statutory presumption of culpable mental state in respect of Section 15 of the POCSO?
V. Whether the statutory presumption contained in Section 30 of the POCSO can be invoked only at the stage of trial by the Special Court alone established under the POCSO? In other words, whether it is permissible for the High Court in a quashing petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to resort to the statutory presumption of culpable mental state contained in Section 30 of the POCSO?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Petitioner (Just Rights for Children Alliance)
The POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019 expressly made it punishable to possess, store, or download child sexual abuse material, even absent any intent to share it, in section 15.The clear intention of the law is to eliminate all child sexual abuse material regardless of motive or use. Permitting mere possession would only lead to passive consumption leading to demand and consequently lead to more children being exploited. International treaties, including the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (2000), obligate State parties to prohibit “possession of child pornography” by every means necessary.
Respondent (S. Harish)
The mere existence of files on a personal device does not constitute knowledge of possession, as for example files can automatically sync, or cache data. Section 15 must be read with mens rea, which means knowledge of possession or intent. To criminalize unintentional possession would violate both Article 21 (Right to Privacy) and Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Expression).The respondent did not share or disseminate, thus he should not be classified with child sexual offenders.
Amicus Curiae
The Supreme Court assigned an Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, to aid in the interpretation of the legislative purpose of Section 15. She contended that:
The aim of the law was preventative, not just punitive; it was for the purpose of discouraging the production or retention of CSAM.
The Court should distinguish between accidental possession and purposeful collection of child pornographic material, utilizing a “knowledge and control” test.
Legal Provisions Involved
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
- Section 13: Defines “use of a child for pornographic purposes.”
- Section 14: Prescribes punishment for using a child for pornographic purposes.
- Section 15: Punishes “storage, possession, or distribution” of child pornographic material for commercial or non-commercial purposes.
Information Technology Act, 2000
- Section 67B: Punishes publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit acts in electronic form.
Constitutional Provisions
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty (includes right to privacy).
- Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 15(3): Permits special provisions for children.
JUDGMENT-
The Supreme Court, via a unanimous judgment authored by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, overturned the Karnataka High Court’s ruling and stated that possession of child pornography, whether intended or not, is a sufficient offence under section 15 of the POCSO Act, with exceptions for accidental possession and forensic possession by law enforcement.
Key Findings
Purpose of Section 15:
The Court noted that the 2019 amendment was introduced to expand culpability to include possession or storage of child pornography even if it was not shared, as a measure to cut off the demand side for child sexual abuse material; the Presiding Justice explained that every time someone stores child pornography, it further exacerbates the exploitation.
Definition of “Possession”:
The Court held that possession means “knowing control over data or material showing children in sexual acts.” Thus, if a person simply has the files sitting in a temporary cache while they are not aware of them and that they exist, they would not route into criminal liability.
No Mens Rea requirement:
The Court noted that while Section 15 did not explicitly provide mens rea, knowledge of the possession itself satisfies culpability – the test is whether there was knowledge of the content and if the person opted to keep the content.
Constitutional Validity:
The Court held that the provision was valid, stating that possession as a criminal offense does not breach the right to privacy when the possession concerns illegal materials that cannot be protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment discussed K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), explaining that privacy is not an absolute right, and can be limited in compelling state interest (in this case child protection) situations.
Digital Evidence and Traceability:
The Court ordered that in future prosecutions, evidence obtained through a digital forensic analysis should demonstrate user knowledge, access logs and metadata so as to differentiate between intentional and unintentional possession.
International Law Alignment:
The judgment notes India’s domestic regime is now aligned with Article 9 of the Optional Protocol to the UNCRC which provides for the prohibition of possession of CSAM.
Sentencing Guidelines:
The Court noted that trial courts should take a rehabilitative approach in sentencing first-time offenders and should convey the distinction between viewers and producers of child pornography.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi of the case is that:
“The possession, storage, or retention of child pornographic material, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes, constitutes a punishable offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act, 2012, as amended in 2019, provided the person has knowledge and control over the content.”
This established that the offence is knowledge-based, not necessarily intention-based, and that the act of storage itself perpetuates exploitation.
Obiter Dicta
Justice Nagarathna noted the alarming growth of child abuse in a digital environment, advocating for greater government oversight of the situation and educational interventions, which go beyond punitive interventions. She suggested that the Union Government ought to create a National Child Cyber Protection Unit to track CSAM and generate a youth-oriented program to engage young people on digital literacy and digital ethics.
Significance and Impact
Resolution of Legal Ambiguity:
The ruling settled lingering ambiguity about whether mere possession is criminal in nature, and provides consistency across jurisdictions.
Deterrent Effect:
The ruling is a deterrent to anyone thinking about keeping or consuming CSAM by making it clear that even passive possession contributes to contributing to abuse.
Energizing Policing:
Law enforcement now has judicial endorsement to prosecute anyone in possession of CSAM and therefore will provide enforcement against people using the internet for cybercrime.
Striking balance between Privacy and Protection:
The ruling affirmed that rights to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution are qualified rights and can be reasonably restricted especially where the content in question was illegal.
International Alignment:
India’s ruling aligns India with international norms and conventions on child protection, improves India’s compliance with international human rights standards.
Policy Recommendations:
The ruling encourages Government to consider creating clear standard operating procedures regarding forensic collection of digital evidence in child pornography cases, and tries to reduce possibility of either misuse or wrongful implication.
Critical Analysis
The ruling is highly viewed as a forward-looking advancement in Indian child protection law. By emphasizing the preventive nature of Section 15, Court reinforced the principle that child autonomy and safety take precedence over adult privacy interests regarding exploitative material.
Scholars expressed concerns about:
Overcriminalization concerns for unintentional downloaders or researchers.
The likelihood of a chilling effect on digital freedoms if ‘knowledge’ is generously interpreted.
The absence of clear protections from unintentional possession from algorithmic caching or malware.
Despite these concerns, the ruling has certainly advanced India’s anti-child pornography framework by centring child rights in digital-based jurisprudence.
CONCLUSION
The apex court’s ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2025) has established that possession of child pornographic material, knowing and intentional, is a punishable offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act. The court upheld the integrity of a child’s dignity and the responsibility and duty of the State to take prevent measures for all forms of sexual exploitation. It aligned the Indian law with global norms and clarified that privacy cannot be a defence against unlawful conduct.
The judgement is an unequivocal pronouncement of the obligations of digital citizens in the age of cybercrime. It drew a legal and moral line, signaling that no one may have, knowingly store, or retain material of child exploitation, for any purpose or intent.
REFERENCE
- Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, (2025) SCC Online SC 422.
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (as amended by Act 25 of 2019).
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, 2000.
- The Hindu. (2025, March 12). Supreme Court upholds criminal liability for possession of child porn under POCSO Act.
- Indian Express. (2025, March 14). SC clarifies scope of Section 15, holds possession of CSAM punishable.
- The Legal Quorum. (2025, April). Possession of Child Pornography: A Violation of Child Rights and Digital Ethics. Retrieved from https://thelegalquorum.com
- Law Journal of India. (2025). Privacy vs. Protection: A Constitutional Balancing Act under POCSO.
