Bengaluru police rescue 11-year-old boy from kidnappers in 24 hours

New Delhi: Downloading and watching child pornography is an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Supreme Court ruled today in a landmark judgment on the stringent law to prevent child abuse.

The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala set aside the Madras High Court order that had ruled that merely downloading and watching child pornography was not an offence under the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court noted that the high court had committed an "egregious error" in passing the judgment.

The Madras High Court's order had come in a case in which a 28-year-old man was charged with downloading child pornography on his phone. The court had quashed the criminal proceedings against the man and said children these days are grappling with the serious issue of watching pornography and society must be mature enough to educate them instead of punishing them.

The Supreme Court today restored the criminal proceedings against the man.

At the outset, Justice Pardiwala thanked the Chief Justice for the opportunity to pen this judgment. The order focused on Section 15 of the POCSO Act which lays down punishment for the storage of pornographic material involving children.

"Any person who stores any pornographic material involving a child and fails to report or destroy it is punishable with a fine of not less than five thousand rupees., and repeat offence will be punishable with fine of not less than ten thousand rupees. If the material is stored for further transmitting or propagating, then along with fine, it is punishable with upto three years of imprisonment. For storing child pornographic material for commercial purpose is punishable with three to five years of imprisonment, and in subsequent conviction, upto seven years of imprisonment," the Section says.

Justice Pardiwala said that in this case, mens rea is to be gathered from actus rea -- mens rea refers to the intent behind the crime and actus rea is the actual criminal act.

"We have said on the lingering impact of child pornography on the victimisation and abuse of children... We have suggested to the Parliament to bring an amendment to POCSO... so that child pornography can be referred to as child sexually abusive and exploitative material. We have suggested an ordinance can be brought in. We have asked all courts not to refer to child pornography in any order," the bench said.

The Chief Justice called it a "landmark judgment" and thanked Justice Pardiwala.

In a significant development, a special court tasked with handling cases against Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MP/MLAs) has ordered that a First Information Report (FIR) be filed regarding the Muda case.

Additionally, the Karnataka Lokayukta, which is an anti-corruption body, has been tasked with investigating allegations against Siddaramaiah, who is reportedly involved in the case.

The court instructed the Lokayukta (an anti-corruption authority) to provide a report within three months. It also ordered the relevant authorities to file a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the case.

Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat issued the directive, compelling the Mysuru Lokayukta police to commence an investigation following a formal complaint lodged by Snehamayi Krishna. 

The Karnataka Lokayukta in Mysuru is required to carry out the investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thawarchand Gehlot's decision to sanction the complaint and investigation against him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said the facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation.

The court has also said that the Governor's order approving sanction to investigate against Siddaramaiah under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not suffer from application of mind, instead has abundance of application of mind.

Meanwhile, the court rejected the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to stay the order of the court. The court has vacated the interim order passed on August 19. In the interim order the trial court was directed not to take any precipitative action against Siddaramaiah. On August 17, Governor had approved sanction under section 17 A  of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS), citing three applications.

The court said the private complainants were justified in registering the complaint and seeking approval from the governor.

Insofar as private complainants seeking sanction under section 17A, the court said the provision nowhere requires only a police officer to seek sanction from a competent authority. The court further said it is in fact the duty of the private complainants to seek such approval.

Earlier, The High Court had completed its hearing in the case on September 12, and reserved its orders. It had also directed a special court in Bengaluru to defer further proceedings and not to take any precipitative action against the Chief Minister.

The case pertains to allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru that had higher property value as compared to the location of her land that had been "acquired" by MUDA.