Child Abuse Material Online: Supreme Court Gives Centre 4 Weeks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 27 October, gave the Centre four weeks to place on record a policy for dealing with child sexual abuse material and non-consensual intimate content online. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the direction while hearing petitions filed by Uday Mahurkar and the NGO Prajwala, after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court the government was working on a legal mechanism.

Third Parties Could Complain, Platforms Could Face Duties

Mehta said the framework under consideration would let anyone who comes across such content raise a complaint, not only the person shown in it. Subject to Parliament passing a Bill, an intermediary such as a social media platform might have to remove the material and also inform the police, according to Verdictum and LiveLaw reports of the hearing.

The Solicitor General also pointed to AI-generated content and morphed images that put one person’s face on another’s body. “I am in consultation with the Ministry and we must do something; there is no doubt about it,” Mehta told the court, as quoted by Verdictum.

Also read Airfare Pricing Rules Finalised, Centre Tells Supreme Court

Petitioners Offer Proposals

Both petitions are against the Union of India. Advocate Aparna Bhat, appearing for Prajwala, said the NGO was ready to give suggestions and help on the policy. The bench said it had no reason to doubt that Union authorities would invite suggestions from all stakeholders before finalising the regime.

Separately this week, the court sought the Centre’s reply on the Digital Personal Data Protection Act; more court coverage is on the Daily Updates page.

Policy Due Within Four Weeks

The Centre must file the policy within four weeks of the 27 October hearing. The court listed the matters for a further date, which the reports do not specify. The final shape of the framework is still open: Mehta said a statutory mechanism is under consideration and he could say nothing more until it comes before Parliament.

Source: Based on reporting by Verdictum and LiveLaw.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.