Abstract
Online child sexual abuse material can be copied, traded and resurfaced long after the original abuse. The harm is therefore both the exploitation captured in the material and its continuing circulation. This article reviews India’s principal criminal provisions, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of possession and storage, and the duties of reporting and response. It argues for a child-centred system that combines prompt removal, sound digital evidence, trained investigators, survivor support and prevention.
I. The harm and the terms used
The phrase “child sexual abuse material” (CSAM) describes depictions of sexual exploitation involving children. It avoids language that can suggest consent or ordinary adult sexual expression. Indian statutes still use older terms in some provisions, but that statutory wording should not obscure the underlying abuse. A child is a person under eighteen under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
Digital distribution changes the scale of the harm. A file can be saved, copied and sent across platforms or borders within minutes. Repeated circulation may renew the child’s fear of exposure even after the original offending has ended. Prevention therefore requires more than punishment of the person who first created the material: it requires a reliable chain of reporting, preservation of evidence, removal and support for the affected child.
II. India’s criminal law framework
POCSO addresses using a child for sexual purposes in media under Section 13 and provides punishment under Section 14. Section 15 addresses storage or possession of material involving a child in different circumstances, including where there is intent to share or transmit it or a commercial purpose. Those distinctions matter: criminal responsibility cannot be stated as if every technical copy of a file triggers the same offence. The statute also contains duties to report suspected offences and special procedures intended to protect children during investigation and trial.
Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 separately addresses electronic material depicting children in sexually explicit conduct and related online acts, including creating, collecting, seeking, browsing, downloading, advertising, promoting, exchanging or distributing the covered material. The elements of the offence and the surrounding facts must be proved. POCSO and the IT Act may apply to the same course of conduct, but investigators should identify precisely which acts support each charge.
In Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024), the Supreme Court examined the relationship between POCSO Section 15 and IT Act Section 67B. The Court rejected an approach that would treat intentional storage or possession as legally irrelevant merely because the material had not yet been forwarded. At the same time, the statutory mental elements and factual setting remain central. The judgment supplies guidance for investigators and courts dealing with files saved on phones, computers or other digital services.
III. Reporting, investigation and evidence
Effective response begins when a child, caregiver, teacher or platform can report suspicious material safely. India’s National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal provides a route for reporting online offences. POCSO also places reporting obligations on persons who know or apprehend that an offence has been committed. Reporting systems should direct urgent cases to trained personnel while limiting unnecessary viewing, copying or circulation of the material.
Digital evidence is fragile. Investigators may need to preserve account information, upload and download records, device images, timestamps and a clear chain of custody. A removal request should be coordinated with lawful preservation so that stopping further circulation does not destroy proof. The child’s identity must be protected throughout; the need to investigate never justifies wider dissemination of the material.
Cross-border storage and communication create further difficulties. A platform, uploader, server and child may be in different jurisdictions. Cooperation between law-enforcement agencies and service providers therefore matters, as do timely and specific requests for preservation and disclosure under applicable law. Speed is useful only when requests identify the material and legal basis accurately.
IV. Platform responsibility and prevention
Platforms should provide accessible reporting channels, prioritise credible child-safety reports and act on unlawful material under the intermediary rules. Technical tools can identify known files and reduce repeated uploads, but automated systems can also make errors. Human review, privacy safeguards and an avenue to correct mistaken removals are needed. The legal obligation of an intermediary must be assessed under the Information Technology Act and the applicable rules, rather than assumed from the mere presence of harmful content on a service.
Children also need practical digital literacy. Age-appropriate education should explain grooming, coercion, privacy settings and how to seek help without blaming a child for what an offender has done. Parents, teachers and schools should know how to respond calmly, preserve relevant information and contact appropriate authorities. Support for a child should include psychological care and protection from repeated questioning or exposure.
V. A stronger child-centred response
First, reporting channels should be easy to find and should route child-safety complaints quickly to trained staff. Second, investigators need specialist digital-forensics capacity and standard procedures for preserving evidence while restricting access to it. Third, service providers and authorities should coordinate removal and evidence preservation with clear legal requests, including across borders where necessary. Fourth, children and families need support that continues beyond a criminal complaint, because material may reappear after an initial takedown.
India already has significant legal tools in POCSO and the Information Technology Act. The gap is often in consistent, sensitive implementation: identifying the conduct correctly, preserving proof, avoiding renewed harm to the child and making lawful material removal effective. A response measured only by the number of files removed or arrests made will miss the longer task of protecting the child.
Conclusion
Online child sexual abuse material is evidence of harm to a child, and its continued circulation can compound that harm. The law must address creation, possession and distribution according to their distinct statutory elements. Prompt reporting, careful investigation, platform cooperation, survivor support and prevention together offer a more durable response than any single takedown or prosecution.
Primary sources
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Information Technology Act, 2000
Supreme Court: Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024