SC seeks Centre reply on social media platforms’ child abuse reporting duties

The Supreme Court said the issue is “extremely serious” and reminded the Centre of its 2024 judgment which casts this obligation on social media intermediaries.

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre to inform it about the steps being taken to ensure social media intermediaries are held accountable for reporting and removing content relating to child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) and the precautions to be taken if they fail to do so.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance (JRCA)

A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the issue is “extremely serious” and reminded the Centre of its 2024 judgment which casts this obligation on social media intermediaries.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance (JRCA) that sought compliance of the 2024 judgment and a uniform standard operating procedure (SOP) to be framed to ensure timely reporting by intermediaries. On August 14, the court directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the ministry of law and justice to file a response.

As no response was forthcoming, the bench granted one last opportunity to the Centre to file an affidavit by October 15.

“The matter before us is extremely serious. The counter to be filed should explain what steps have been taken by the two ministries to give meaningful effect to the directions in our judgment of 2024 and what steps have been taken to curb this menace as highlighted in the application filed by the petitioner (JRCA),” the bench said.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj appearing for Centre informed that the Union government is taking the matter seriously and is in the process of finalising its response. Google and Meta are the only two companies which have agreed to directly report CSEAM to the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) – the nodal agency of the ministry of home affairs to report cybercrime.

ASG Nataraj said that in the case of another intermediary, notice has been issued and the Centre has initiated proceedings. He said that a response will be filed within a week.

The court said, “The counter affidavit should also indicate, in so many words, what precautions the government would be taking in future to prevent lapses on part of the social media intermediaries.”

Advocate Bhuwan Ribhu appearing for the petitioner informed the court that despite the judgment passed two years ago, there is hardly any enforcement of the court’s direction by the Indian authorities.

The court said that its judgment passed on September 23, 2024 was very clear that social media intermediaries have a duty to report cases of child abuse and exploitation to the local authorities under Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act (Pocso).

The judgment had said, “In view of the salutary object and the mandatory character of the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Pocso read with Rule 11 of the Pocso Rules, we are of the considered view, that an intermediary cannot claim exemption from the liability under Section 79 of the IT Act for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it, unless due diligence is conducted by it and compliance is made of these provisions of the Pocso.”

This compliance includes not only removal of child pornographic content but also making an immediate report of such content to the concerned police units in the manner specified under the Pocso Act and the accompanying Rules, the judgment had held.

The application filed by JRCA referred to a news report alleging that Instagram carried paid advertisements promoting CSEAM, raising concerns over compliance of the top court’s judgment.

The JRCA sought a comprehensive mechanism to ensure effective implementation of obligations of social media platforms and prevent the online circulation and exploitation of children. It sought a uniform SOP for intermediaries covering detection and mandatory reporting of CSEAM, preservation of evidence and inter-agency coordination among relevant agencies.

It further demanded prompt uploading of offenders’ particulars to the National Database of Sexual Offenders (NDSO), timely action by law-enforcement agencies on every report received from an intermediary, and initiation of criminal proceedings against intermediaries that fail to comply with mandatory reporting obligations, in accordance with law.

The petitioner even sought the establishment of a centralised online reporting portal to facilitate reporting of CSEAM by intermediaries.