Child Pornography : Supreme Court Directs Another Meeting Of Expert Committee For Measures To Remove Offensive Videos From Internet

Internet platforms, such as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, and WhatsApp, offered anonymity, and easy and cheap access, which is why cybercrime was rampant on such platforms, Bhat submitted. "The amount of offensive material posted on these is enormous," she exclaimed. The counsel added, "Unfortunately, commensurate action that is needed to be taken, is not being taken." Both Bhat and Napinnai pointed out that the cybercrime portal launched by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2018 was not "functioning the way it ought to".

"All this may not be necessary. While a lot of good work has happened with this court holding our hands, now, a number of guidelines, standard operating procedures, et cetera have been formulated. There is a statutory mechanism in place," Additional Solicitor-General Aishwarya Bhati interjected, explaining why the oversight of the highest court was no longer required. In this connection, she drew the attention of the court to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2022 that was notified under the Information Technology Act, 2000 in October of this year. "The 2022 Rules amended the 2021 Rules that were in place before, and set out certain technology-enabled and process-enabled solutions for victim rights as well as the prosecution," the amicus supplied. "If the statutory regime takes care of the problem, then we do not have to do day-to-day monitoring. This court has its own limitations," Justice Gavai observed.

The Bench was also informed by the Additional Solicitor-General that a status report on the compliance of the government and the internet intermediaries with the recommendations of the expert committee, was placed before it pursuant to an earlier order of the apex court. "Some compliances are remaining, but broadly, everything has been complied with," the law officer told the Bench.

Bhat countered this claim, saying, "The consensus proposal of the committee had certain significant steps that the intermediaries had agreed to at that time, but have not taken yet. The state too has only accepted the recommendations, and not actually implemented them." The cybercrime portal, for instance, was "a mere repository", and was not empowered to "take any action", the counsel submitted. "They can only forward a complaint to the local police, which then records the statement of the complainant. In most cases, if the place of crime is beyond the jurisdiction of the local police, the case is closed," Bhat said. She remonstrated, "The portal has become a mere eyewash. The rules they have come up with only look good on paper." Agreeing with this contention, Justice Nath said, "The portal should not only be for registration of complaint. There should be some degree of central coordination between the local law enforcement agencies and a national-level setup. The purpose of the portal should not be defeated."

The Additional Solicitor-General conceded, "There are limitations with law enforcement agencies. I am not saying there are none. There is room for improvement." But the complaints, she explained, have to go through the state agencies because both 'police' and 'public order' are state subjects under the Constitution. Bhati also assured the court that the government would try to strengthen the mechanism of registering a complaint on the Ministry portal. "These are things which you will have to streamline to ensure its seamless functioning without any obstruction or further harassment to the victim," Justice Nath instructed.

Justice Gavai, speaking for the Bench, dictated the order as follows : "There should be another meeting of the experts appointed by this court in which the counsel for the petitioner and the learned amicus curiae would be present. The committee would specifically address the issue as to whether the earlier recommendations made by the central government have been accepted. The committee will also give its opinion with regard to the non-consensus issues."

Finally, the Bench also directed the expert committee to submit its report within six weeks in a sealed cover and the court registry to list the matter after eight weeks.

Case Title

In Re: Prajwala Letter Dated 18.02.2015 Videos of Sexual Violence and Recommendations & Anr. v. …& Ors. [SMW (Crl.) No. 3/2015]