LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. vs S. Harish & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 716Decided 23 Sept 2024
Not available
Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Background

Acting on a Cyber Tipline report from the National Crime Records Bureau, police in Chennai registered an FIR against the respondent (S. Harish) for allegedly downloading and watching child sexual abuse material, and filed a chargesheet under Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 15(1) of the POCSO Act. The Madras High Court quashed the entire chargesheet, reasoning essentially that merely viewing or downloading such material for personal use (without further transmitting, propagating, or storing it for commercial purposes) did not amount to an offence. Two child-rights NGOs (who were not parties before the High Court) sought and obtained leave to challenge this quashing before the Supreme Court, given the wider public importance of the issue.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the Madras High Court had fundamentally misread Section 15 of the POCSO Act, which creates three distinct offences (storage/possession for (i) failing to delete/destroy/report such material, (ii) transmitting or propagating it, or (iii) commercial use) meaning that mere possession coupled with failure to report or delete the material can itself be an offence, contrary to the High Court's view that only onward transmission was punishable. It clarified how "possession" and "constructive possession" apply to digital material, and how the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 30 of the POCSO Act operates once foundational facts are shown, even at the quashing stage. Concluding that the High Court had committed an "egregious error," the Supreme Court set aside the quashing order and restored the criminal case for trial. The Court also made wide-ranging policy suggestions, including that the term "child pornography" should be replaced in law and in all judicial orders by "Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material" (CSEAM), and it directed that social media intermediaries independently owe reporting obligations to Indian authorities (SJPU/local police) under Section 19-20 POCSO in addition to reporting to NCMEC.

Lesson Learnt

Downloading, storing, or viewing child sexual abuse material is itself a punishable offence under Indian law if the person fails to report and delete it, it is not necessary to prove onward sharing or commercial use, and courts, media, and the public should stop using the term "child pornography," replacing it with "child sexual exploitation and abuse material" (CSEAM) to reflect the real harm involved.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case