SC to issue orders on preventive steps taken by Centre to curb online child sexual abuse content

Child sexual exploitative and abuse material, or CSEAM, means digital content connected with the sexual abuse or exploitation of children. The article discusses its dissemination through online platforms, including paid advertisements. Its circulation matters because it can continue harming children, enable exploitation and obstruct investigations. The Supreme Court has treated the issue as extremely serious.

The court’s September 2024 judgment said intermediaries must comply with Sections 19 and 20 of the POCSO Act and Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules. Compliance includes removing such material and immediately reporting it to the concerned police. The article also refers to amended Information Technology Rules requiring specific due diligence for preventing and reporting CSEAM.

The legal duty therefore goes beyond deleting a post. Platforms must detect, report and preserve relevant evidence under proposed procedures. The Centre is developing a uniform SOP, while the Supreme Court is seeking further preventive measures from the government and other stakeholders.

The Supreme Court is asking the Centre and online platforms to build a preventive system against CSEAM. The goal is to stop dissemination earlier and ensure every detected case reaches authorities quickly. The court wants the Union government to take the issue seriously and develop practical measures with other stakeholders.

MeitY’s draft SOP covers prevention, direction, removal and reporting of CSEAM to the government’s Sahyog portal. The broader mechanism includes enhanced monitoring by intermediaries, mandatory reporting to police, preservation of evidence and coordination among agencies. The Centre also points to amended Information Technology Rules that impose specific due-diligence obligations.

The system is not final yet. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said more time was needed to finalise the SOP. The Supreme Court posted the matter after a month, allowing the Centre to present further developments. The proposed approach could create more consistent action across platforms and agencies.

Sahyog is a government portal named in MeitY’s draft Standard Operating Procedure. The article presents it as the destination for reports about CSEAM identified by online intermediaries. Its purpose is to give platforms a common reporting channel and support a more organised government response.

The draft SOP would set out procedures for prevention, direction, removal and reporting. In practice, an intermediary would monitor its service, act against detected CSEAM and report the matter to Sahyog. The article also describes wider expectations, including reporting to police, preserving evidence and coordinating among relevant agencies. Sahyog is therefore one part of a larger compliance process.

The procedure remains under development. MeitY prepared the draft after consultation with MoWCD and other stakeholders, including MHA and DoT. Tushar Mehta said the Centre needed more time to finalise it. The Supreme Court has allowed a month for further developments and may suggest additional measures.

The article identifies six broad institutional roles: the Union government, MeitY, other ministries and departments, online intermediaries, police and law-enforcement agencies, and the courts. These groups must work together because prevention, reporting, investigation and legal enforcement cannot be handled by one body alone.

MeitY drafts the SOP and coordinates with MoWCD, MHA and DoT. Platforms monitor content, remove CSEAM, report it and preserve evidence. Police and local authorities receive reports under the POCSO framework, while law-enforcement agencies are expected to act on them. The proposed Sahyog portal would support centralised reporting and coordination.

The Supreme Court sets the legal direction and reviews government progress. It ordered the Centre to develop preventive measures and posted the case after a month. The JRCA petition also sought action against non-compliant intermediaries, prompt recording of offenders’ particulars in the NDSO and stronger inter-agency coordination.

The Supreme Court’s September 23, 2024 judgment required social media intermediaries to report child abuse and exploitation to local authorities under the POCSO Act. It rejected the idea that removing material alone was sufficient. The ruling connected platform responsibility directly to mandatory child-protection reporting duties.

The judgment referred to Sections 19 and 20 of POCSO and Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules. It said an intermediary could not claim exemption under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act for third-party content unless it conducted due diligence and complied with those POCSO provisions. That compliance included removing child pornographic content and immediately reporting it to concerned police.

The ruling forms the background to the JRCA application. The petitioner sought a uniform SOP after concerns that Instagram carried paid advertisements promoting CSEAM. The Supreme Court is now considering preventive procedures to make the 2024 duties work consistently across platforms.

Removal is necessary, but it does not by itself identify who created, promoted or distributed CSEAM. Police need a timely report to investigate the suspected abuse and exploitation. Reporting also connects online evidence with local authorities and the broader child-protection process required under POCSO.

The article says the JRCA petition sought preservation of evidence, mandatory reporting and inter-agency coordination. It also demanded timely action by law-enforcement agencies on every intermediary report and criminal proceedings against platforms that fail to comply. These steps are meant to keep investigations from ending when content disappears from public view.

The September 2024 judgment made the distinction clear: intermediaries must remove the material and immediately report it to concerned police. The proposed SOP would give platforms a common process for prevention, removal and reporting. Its final form may strengthen how evidence and cases move between platforms, the Sahyog portal and authorities.

The legal framework gives platforms a role in protecting children while recognising that intermediary protection is conditional. The POCSO Act requires reporting of child abuse and exploitation. The Information Technology Act can protect intermediaries from liability for third-party content, but the Supreme Court said that protection does not apply when required due diligence and POCSO compliance are missing.

The September 2024 judgment relied on Sections 19 and 20 of POCSO and Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules. It required platforms to remove CSEAM and immediately report it to police. The article also notes that the 2021 Information Technology Rules were amended in February to add specific duties for preventing and reporting CSEAM.

This approach balances platform responsibility with enforcement rather than treating deletion as the complete answer. Platforms must monitor and act, while police and other agencies investigate reports. The proposed SOP and Sahyog portal could make those duties more uniform, but MeitY still has to finalise the procedure.