Technology and Criminal Law29 August 2026

Online Child Sexual-Abuse Material: Section 15 POCSO After Just Rights for Children Alliance

By C&C Law Chambers Editorial Desk · 7 reads

Digital child sexual-abuse material raises legal questions that cannot be reduced to whether a file was manually downloaded. Storage, viewing, control, sharing, facilitation, reporting duties and commercial purpose may engage different statutory provisions. In Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, decided on 23 September 2024, the Supreme Court examined Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Procedural background

The Madras High Court had used Section 482 CrPC—corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—to quash a chargesheet under Section 15(1) POCSO and Section 67B IT Act. Because the underlying proceeding began before the new procedural code commenced on 1 July 2024, the historical CrPC reference remains material; the Supreme Court judgment itself uses Section 482 CrPC.

The Supreme Court set aside the quashing order and restored the criminal proceedings. It emphasised that the High Court, at the threshold stage, had gone beyond deciding whether a prima facie case emerged and had evaluated defences that ordinarily required trial.

Three distinct offences under Section 15

Section 15 creates three separate offences, distinguished by their required intention and conduct. Sub-section (1) concerns failure to delete, destroy or report stored or possessed material where the specified intention to share or transmit is present. Sub-section (2) addresses storage or possession connected with actual transmission, propagation, display or distribution, or facilitation of those acts. Sub-section (3) concerns storage or possession for a commercial purpose.

These routes should not be blended. The prosecution must identify the applicable sub-section and establish the foundational facts relevant to its particular mental element. If one sub-section is not attracted, that does not automatically answer whether another may apply; equally, the existence of material on a device cannot remove the need to prove the statutory ingredients.

Constructive possession and online control

The Court treated possession as capable of extending beyond permanent physical storage. Online viewing or control may amount to constructive possession where the person exercises a sufficient and invariable degree of control over the material. The analysis is fact-sensitive: accidental exposure, lack of control, deliberate access, repeated use, ability to transmit, device records and reporting or deletion conduct may bear differently on the statutory enquiry.

Section 67B of the IT Act was read as a comprehensive provision addressing electronic forms of child sexual exploitation, including specified acts of creation, collection, browsing, downloading, advertising, promotion, exchange and distribution. Its precise clauses must be matched to the alleged conduct rather than cited generically.

Presumption and the quashing stage

Section 30 POCSO creates a presumption of culpable mental state when prosecution for an offence requiring that mental state is undertaken, subject to the statutory framework. The Court held that foundational facts are necessary before the presumption operates. In the case before it, the material was sufficient at the prima facie stage, and the asserted absence of knowledge or intention was not a proper basis for terminating the prosecution without trial.

This does not mean that culpability is presumed from any allegation or internet trace. Courts must identify foundational facts; the accused retains the opportunity to contest possession, control, knowledge, intention, integrity of electronic evidence and other elements through the legally appropriate process.

Evidence and current procedure

Electronic-record proof may engage the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, including Section 63 and its certificate requirements, or the saved Indian Evidence Act framework depending on Section 170 BSA. Investigators and parties should preserve device identity, acquisition method, hash information, platform records, custody and the exact file or link relied upon.

For proceedings governed by BNSS, Section 528 preserves the High Court’s inherent power. The renumbering does not make threshold scrutiny unnecessary, but the power remains exceptional and should not become a trial of disputed defences on an incomplete record.

Conclusion

Just Rights for Children Alliance supplies a structured reading of Section 15 POCSO and online possession while preserving the distinction between a prima facie threshold and final guilt. Reliable adjudication requires precise identification of the alleged conduct, the relevant sub-section, the required intention, electronic-evidence foundations and the procedural law governing the case.

This article provides general legal information and is not advice on an individual matter.

Sources

- [Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, Supreme Court of India, 23 September 2024](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/8562/8562_2024_1_1501_56073_Judgement_23-Sep-2024.pdf) - [Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—official India Code text](https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2079/1/AA2012-32.pdf) - [Information Technology Act, 2000—official India Code text](https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1999/3/A2000-21.pdf) - [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 528 and 531](https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/20099/1/eng.pdf) - [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Sections 63 and 170](https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/bitstream/123456789/20063/1/aa202347.pdf)

#IndianLaw #SupremeCourt #LegalAwareness