The Priyank Kanoongo bench of the NHRC observed that, if established, the allegations would not merely concern objectionable online content but could involve sexual exploitation of children, recording, circulation, promotion and monetisation of such material, and possible organised criminal activity. The Commission has emphasised examination under the POCSO Act, 2012, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the applicable intermediary framework, including preservation and forensic scrutiny of electronic evidence, identification of persons involved, tracing of financial trails, and the rescue, protection and rehabilitation of child victims.
The Commission has asked whether, after acquiring knowledge of the alleged offences, the matter was reported to the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or the local police. Additional Report Sought from Delhi Police The NHRC has directed MeitY, MIB and the Delhi Police, along with the concerned authorities, to submit specific and point-wise reports within two weeks. The Commission has made it clear that the responses should not be general or omnibus in nature and must be supported by contemporaneous records.
The bench has specifically sought a response from MeitY regarding compliance with Section 19 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which provides for mandatory reporting of offences.
The Commission has also taken note of the Supreme Court judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors., which emphasised prompt reporting, preservation of electronic evidence, coordinated investigation, and identification, rescue and protection of child victims. The Commission has observed that this determination should not depend merely on the nomenclature used for the platform, but on the actual editorial and publishing functions performed by the platform and the degree of its involvement and control over the content. The Commission has attached particular significance to the risks arising from content curation, recommendation, targeted amplification and monetisation in matters involving children and CSAM/CSEAM.
The Commission has further noted that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act does not, by itself, absolve an entity from its obligations under the POCSO Act.
