In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India directed judges on Monday not to use the term “child pornography” in their rulings, orders or observations. The top court bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala said “child pornography” is a misnomer.
Hearing a case — Just Right for Children Alliance and Anr v S Harish and Ors — the CJI-led bench said the term, often used in judiciary, media and political discourse, fails to capture the full extent of the crime against children.
In its direction to all courts across the country, the Supreme Court asked to replace the term with “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (CSEAM) in all judicial orders and judgments. The court also explained that the term trivialises the gravity of the offence, as pornography is typically associated with consensual acts between adults.
These observations were part of the judgment where the Supreme Court ruled that mere watching or storing of digital material involving child sexual exploitation can constitute an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), provided there is intent to share, transmit, or make commercial gains from such material.
This means that mere possession of any child pornographic material will constitute offences under the POCSO and the IT laws even if they are not disseminated further.
Here’s why the top court barred judiciary from using the term ‘child pornography’:
What can be done about “child pornography”? Top court offers suggestions
Violence against children has been an issue of grave concern for the government in India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), police registered nearly nine per cent rise in child abuse cases across the country, reaching a total of 162,000 incidents. Its data also showed that sexual violence against children surged by 96 per cent from 2016 to 2022. In 2022 alone, police registered 38,911 cases of child rape and penetrative assaults compared to 36,381 cases recorded in 2021.
(With inputs from agencies)
Link to article –
Why has SC barred judiciary from using the term ‘child pornography’?