Don't use term "child pornography" in judgments: Supreme Court directs all courts

The Supreme Court on Monday emphasized that the term "child pornography" is a misnomer as it fails to capture the full extent of the crime against children. [Just Right for Children Alliance and Anr v S Harish and Ors]

Hence, it directed all courts across the country to replace the term with "child sexual exploitative and abuse material" (CSEAM) in all judicial orders and judgments.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala explained that the term trivializes the gravity of the offence, as pornography is typically associated with consensual act between adults.

"It undermines the victimization because the term suggests a correlation to pornography — conduct that may be legal, whose subject is voluntarily participating in, and whose subject is capable of consenting to the conduct," the Court explained.

These observations were made in the judgment where the Court ruled that mere watching or storing of digital material involving child sexual exploitation can constitute an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), provided there is intent to share, transmit, or make commercial gains from such material.

The Court emphasized that the term "child sexual exploitative and abuse material" (CSEAM) more accurately reflects the reality of these images and videos, which are not just pornographic but are records of incidents involving the sexual exploitation and abuse of children or portrayals of such abuse through self-generated visual depictions.

"The term "child sexual exploitative and abuse material" (CSEAM) rightly places the emphasis on the exploitation and abuse of the child, highlighting the criminal nature of the act and the need for a serious and robust response," it added.

As a result, the apex court directed all courts across the country to cease using the term "child pornography" and instead adopt the term CSEAM in their orders and judgments.

Senior Advocate HS Phoolka appeared for the appellant-NGO.

Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi appeared for the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

Advocate Prashant S Kenjale appeared for the accused.

Advocate D Kumanan appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu.

[Read Judgment]