Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 14-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – Just Rights for Children (Alliance & Anr.); Respondent – S. Harish & Ors.
  • Diary No.: 41028/2026; Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161‑2162 of 2024.
  • Interim Applications: IA No. 196488/2026 (Appropriate Orders/Directions) and IA No. 218386/2026 (Condonation of Delay).
  • Counsel for Petitioners: H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv.; Bhuwan Ribhu, Adv.; Rachna Tyagi, Adv.; Saksham Maheshwari, Adv.; Shashi, AOR; Taruna Panwar, Adv.; Surabhi Katyal, Adv.; Surpreet Kaur, Adv.; Kartik Goyal, Adv.; Jasraj Singh Chhabra, Adv.
  • Counsel for Respondents: Prashant S. Kenjale, Adv.; Damini Vishwakarma, Adv.; Juristrust Law Offices, AOR.

Observations & Findings

1. The Court condoned the delay in filing the application.

2. Applicants highlighted serious lapses by social‑media intermediaries:

  • Failure to fulfil due‑diligence obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
  • Non‑compliance with mandatory reporting under Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules, 2020.

3. Allegations include paid advertisements promoting Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) that redirect users to other sites for monetary gain, with a reported rise in such incidents.

4. Intermediaries reportedly report incidents to the US‑based National Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) but not to the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or local police as required under Section 19 of the POCSO Act.

5. Applicants prayed for the following reliefs:

  • (a) Direction to the Union of India to formulate and notify a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for intermediaries covering detection, reporting, preservation of evidence, IP address capture, inter‑agency coordination, and victim‑centric safeguards.
  • (b) Direction to upload details of persons involved in creation, dissemination, or promotion of CSEAM to the National Database of Sexual Offenders (NDSO).
  • (c) Direction to ensure prompt action by law‑enforcement agencies on every intermediary report.
  • (d) Direction to initiate immediate criminal proceedings against any intermediary that fails to comply with reporting obligations under Sections 19 and 20 of the POCSO Act and Rule 11.
  • (e) Direction to establish, operationalise, and maintain a secure centralised online reporting portal for mandatory reporting of CSEAM and other digital child sexual abuse offences, capturing comprehensive technical details (URL, timestamps, IP addresses, device identifiers, metadata, etc.).
  • (f) Any further directions deemed fit for effective implementation of the judgment dated 23‑09‑2024.

6. The Court reiterated its 23‑09‑2024 judgment, emphasizing:

  • The pivotal role of intermediaries under Section 2(w) of the IT Act in curbing child pornography.
  • The safe‑harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act is contingent upon compliance with due‑diligence and the reporting obligations of the POCSO Act.
  • Detailed exposition of Section 79, including conditions for exemption and circumstances where exemption lapses.
  • Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules obliges intermediaries to report offences to the SJPU, local police, or the cyber‑crime portal, not merely to NCMEC.
  • An MOU between the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and NCMEC requires reporting to NCMEC, which then forwards cases to NCRB and state authorities, but this does not satisfy POCSO reporting duties.
  • The Court observed that intermediaries are currently not reporting to the local authorities as mandated.
  • Section 42A of the POCSO Act gives it overriding effect over any inconsistent law, meaning compliance with POCSO reporting is mandatory even if an intermediary claims safe‑harbour under the IT Act.

7. The Court warned that intermediaries cannot claim exemption from liability under Section 79 unless they also comply with POCSO reporting requirements.

8. The Court directed that the Union of India, through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Ministry of Law and Justice, be impleaded as a party respondent.

9. The cause title shall be amended accordingly.

10. Notice to be issued to the Union of India (MeitY and Ministry of Law and Justice), returnable on 24‑09‑2026.

11. The Union must file counter‑affidavits by the next hearing date, with copies to be served to the applicants two weeks in advance.

12. Dasti service is permitted.

Final Outcome

  • Delay in the application is condoned.
  • The Union of India (MeitY and Ministry of Law and Justice) is impleaded as a respondent.
  • Notice is issued, returnable by 24‑09‑2026, and the Union must file counter‑affidavits.
  • The Court reaffirmed that intermediaries must comply with both IT Act due‑diligence and POCSO reporting obligations, failing which safe‑harbour protection is lost and criminal proceedings may be initiated.

Topics: Child Protection, Intermediary Regulation