Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and certain provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, together form India’s strongest legal framework against online child pornography and child sexual exploitation material (CSEM). Both laws criminalize the creation, possession, transmission, and viewing of sexually explicit content involving minors. However, their punishments, scope, and applicability sometimes overlap. The Supreme Court, in a landmark 2024 judgment, clarified how these two laws coexist and apply simultaneously when the offence involves digital sexual exploitation of children.
What Does Section 67B of the IT Act Prohibit?
Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, prohibits any person from publishing, transmitting, or causing to be published or transmitted, in electronic form, any material that depicts children engaged in sexually explicit acts. It criminalizes all related activities, including creating, collecting, browsing, downloading, advertising, promoting, or distributing such material online. The section also covers situations where an adult induces, entices, or participates in sexually explicit online communication with a child.
The term “child” refers to any person below 18 years of age. The section thus extends to all online behaviors that exploit or harm minors, whether the acts are real or simulated. It makes not just producers and distributors liable but also consumers, those who intentionally access, store, or view such content. This wide coverage ensures accountability across the entire digital chain of exploitation.
What Punishments Are Prescribed Under Section 67B?
Section 67B imposes severe punishment for any involvement in child pornographic activity online. For a first conviction, the offender faces imprisonment of up to five years and a fine up to ₹10 lakh. For subsequent convictions, the imprisonment may extend to seven years with the same fine amount.
The punishment covers both active and passive participation. A person who uploads or shares child sexual content faces the same legal consequences as one who downloads or stores it knowingly. The Supreme Court clarified in 2024 that possession and consumption of child pornography are punishable under Section 67B. This interpretation expanded the section’s scope to include mere viewing or downloading of such material.
The Court observed that digital possession contributes to the circulation of exploitative material, indirectly encouraging its creation. Hence, even passive involvement, such as saving or repeatedly viewing such videos or images, is treated as a serious criminal act.
How Does the POCSO Act Address Child Pornography?
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, specifically targets sexual offences involving minors, including pornography. Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Act deal with child pornography in detail.
Section 13 defines the offence of using a child for pornographic purposes. It includes engaging a child in the creation of sexually explicit material, coercing a child to participate in such acts, or exploiting them for commercial sexual purposes. Section 14 prescribes punishment for using a child for pornography, with imprisonment between five and seven years along with a fine. If the offender repeats the crime, the punishment increases. Section 15 further criminalizes the storage, possession, or viewing of child pornographic material. It imposes imprisonment of up to three years or a fine, or both.
The POCSO Act thus covers both the creation and consumption of pornographic content involving minors. It also introduces preventive measures, making parents, guardians, and digital platforms responsible for ensuring child safety in cyberspace.
How Do the Two Laws Overlap?
The IT Act and POCSO Act overlap in several ways. Both criminalize the publication, transmission, possession, and viewing of sexually explicit content involving minors. Section 67B of the IT Act primarily focuses on online or electronic dissemination, while POCSO covers the use of children for pornography in both physical and digital settings.
The overlap occurs when the same conduct violates provisions of both laws. For example, if a person records a video of a child engaged in a sexual act and uploads it online, they commit an offence under Section 67B for transmission and under Sections 13 and 14 of the POCSO Act for using a child in pornography. Similarly, if someone downloads or stores such material, they may face charges under Section 67B and Section 15 of POCSO.
The 2024 Supreme Court judgment clarified that mere viewing, storing, or possessing child pornography can be prosecuted under both statutes. The Court emphasized that a person need not distribute or publish the content to be held liable. Mere digital possession reflects participation in the exploitative cycle and therefore attracts punishment.
What Did the Supreme Court Rule in 2024?
In a landmark ruling delivered in September 2024, the Supreme Court resolved conflicting High Court interpretations regarding whether viewing or possessing child pornographic content constituted a criminal offence. The Court held that mere viewing or storing such content amounts to an offence under both Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 15 of the POCSO Act.
The Court overturned a 2023 Madras High Court decision that had earlier ruled that simply watching such content without sharing it was not punishable. The Supreme Court rejected this narrow interpretation, reasoning that child pornography is inherently exploitative and that even private viewing perpetuates harm to minors.
The Court stated that the IT Act and POCSO Act serve complementary purposes and can be invoked together if the ingredients of both offences are met. It reaffirmed that the two laws are not mutually exclusive but operate concurrently to provide broader protection to children.
Which Law Takes Precedence?
While both laws apply to child pornography cases, courts generally give precedence to the POCSO Act when the offence involves child victims directly. This is because POCSO is a special statute enacted exclusively to protect children from sexual offences. However, if the case involves digital transmission or online publication, Section 67B may also be invoked.
The prosecution often charges offenders under both laws to ensure comprehensive coverage. This dual application ensures that no offender escapes liability due to a technical loophole. The IT Act covers the electronic aspects of the crime, while POCSO focuses on the protection and rehabilitation of the child victim.
The Supreme Court also observed that invoking both statutes does not violate the principle of double jeopardy, as each law punishes distinct aspects of the offence, POCSO for sexual exploitation of a child, and the IT Act for the mode of dissemination.
What Are the Key Differences in Punishment?
Under Section 67B of the IT Act, the punishment for publishing, transmitting, or possessing child pornography is imprisonment of up to five years and a fine up to ₹10 lakh for the first offence, increasing to seven years for repeat offenders.
Under Section 14 of the POCSO Act, using a child for pornographic purposes attracts imprisonment ranging from five to seven years with a fine. Section 15 of POCSO, which penalizes possession or viewing of child pornographic material, prescribes imprisonment up to three years and/or a fine.
Thus, while both laws criminalize similar acts, the IT Act emphasizes digital publication and possession, whereas POCSO directly addresses the exploitation and victimization of the child. The punishments may vary based on the severity and nature of the act.
How Does the Dual Framework Strengthen Child Protection?
The coexistence of Section 67B IT Act and the POCSO Act strengthens India’s response to online child exploitation. The dual framework ensures that every stage of the offence, from creation to consumption, is punishable. It empowers authorities to prosecute offenders comprehensively, preventing them from exploiting legal technicalities.
The IT Act facilitates digital investigations, allowing law enforcement to trace IP addresses, recover deleted content, and block websites hosting illegal material. The POCSO Act, on the other hand, focuses on the welfare of victims, ensuring counseling, rehabilitation, and confidentiality. Together, they establish a victim-centric and technology-sensitive legal approach.
The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling also directed the government to enhance cyber monitoring infrastructure, improve cross-border data access, and educate citizens about the criminal implications of viewing child sexual abuse material.
Conclusion
Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 13 to 15 of the POCSO Act, 2012, together form the backbone of India’s legal framework against child pornography. Both laws criminalize the creation, possession, and transmission of sexually explicit material involving children, imposing strict penalties to deter offenders.
While Section 67B targets the digital aspects of the crime, POCSO ensures holistic protection and rehabilitation of the victim. The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling reinforced that mere viewing or storing child pornography is punishable under both laws, closing any interpretative gaps.
This overlapping legal framework ensures zero tolerance for child exploitation and establishes that every act, whether digital or physical, that violates a child’s dignity and safety will face strict punishment. It reflects India’s unwavering commitment to protecting children in the digital age and maintaining the sanctity of cyberspace.
