Madras High Court: In a Public Interest Litigation concerning the easy availability of pornographic content to children, the Division Bench of Dr. G. Jayachandran* and K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ., held that the authorities concerned shall accelerate their awareness campaign more effectively and take the message to the vulnerable group through all available medias. The Court further observed that the Union of India may explore the possibility of passing legislation similar to that enacted by Australia prohibiting internet usage by children below the age of 16. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of without costs.
Background
The petition was filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (‘Commission’) and the Tamil Nadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights to invoke their powers under Section 13(1)(c) and (j) of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (‘the Act’). The prayer was to compel Internet Service Providers to provide “Parental Window” services as stipulated by the Union of India’s communication dated 27-03-2017, and to prosecute non-compliant ISPs under Section 14(2) of the Act.
Counter affidavits were filed by the respondents, but the Court found them unimpressive and not convincing to show that the authorities were adequately discharging their responsibilities under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act. The petitioner emphasised that the Commission is duty to spread child rights literacy and promote awareness of safeguards. It was argued that while certain awareness campaigns are conducted in schools, they are not adequate, and publications, media, and seminars are not fully utilised.
It was further stressed that parental windows in devices and awareness to stakeholders would substantially control the menace of pornographic material accessible to children. Reference was also made to recent legislation passed by the Australian Government prohibiting internet usage by children below 16, suggesting that similar measures be considered in India.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the counter affidavits filed by the respondents were not impressive to convince that they were discharging adequately their responsibilities as mandated under Section 13 & 14 of the Act. The Court highlighted that the Commission has a statutory duty and responsibility to spread child right literacy among various sections of the society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for protection of these rights. The Court also noted that though certain awareness campaigns are conducted focusing on children at schools, the said campaign is not adequate.
The Court observed that when a similar situation came before the Supreme Court in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2611, the Supreme Court formulated suggestions to the Union of India and other stakeholders in respect of the rights of POCSO victims. It was further noted that Internet Service Providers are governed by separate statutes and, pursuant to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, necessary actions are taken to block objectionable websites whenever brought to their notice.
The Court emphasised that awareness to stakeholders and parental windows in devices will substantially control the menace of obnoxious pornographic material accessible to children. The Court also referred to the recent legislation passed by the Australian Government prohibiting internet usage by children below the age of 16 and suggested that the Union of India may also pass similar legislation. The Court observed that while dynamically updated websites containing URLs of online Child Sexual Abuse Material (‘CSAM’) are available and active, control at the user end can only be achieved if there is a parent control app available in the device.
The Court highlighted that ultimately, it is the individual choice and right to access such obnoxious material or to avoid it and as far as children are concerned, the vulnerability is high, so the parents’ responsibility is higher. The Court also stressed that compulsorily for the said purpose, end users should be made aware about the menace of child pornography and measures to prevent it.
Consequently, the Court held that till such legislation is passed, the authorities concerned shall accelerate their awareness campaign more effectively and take the message to the vulnerable group through all available medias. The Court expressed hope that the Commission both at State and Central level will draw an action plan in this aspect and implement the same in letter and spirit.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, with no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
[S. Vijayakumar v. Union of India, W.P.(MD) No. 23323 of 2018, decided on 09-12-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice G. Jayachandran
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: K.P.S. Palanivel Rajan, Senior Counsel for K. Prabakaran
For the Respondents: B. Deepa, J. Ashok, Additional Government Pleader, Chevanan Mohan, Madhan Babu, R.G. Shankar Ganesh, M.D. Poornachare