A Critical Analysis of the Information Technology Act, 2000 vis-à-vis Mitigation of Child Pornography
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.13.1Keywords:
Budapest Convention 2001, Child pornography, Cyberspace, Information Technology Act 2000, Victim-centred approachAbstract
This paper investigates the efficacy of the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealing with child pornography which has been, more often than not, considered to be a victimless crime. The author argues that the ambiguity in the provisions of the Act has led to arbitrariness in investigations and procedures dealing with the offence of child pornography. This paper, by critically analysing the provisions of the aforementioned legislation vis-à-vis child pornography, attempts to show that the menace can be mitigated by following a victim-centred approach and also by incorporating certain procedural standards, as per the Budapest Convention, 2001. The authors also make an attempt to propose certain changes which are required in the existing legislation, in order to effectively deal with the said crime i
References
1. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Preamble, ¶10, opened for signature Nov.20, 1989, http://www.ohchr.org/ EN/ Professional Interest/ Pages/CRC.aspx(last visited on Mar. 10,2018).
2. M.M. Singh et al., An epidemiological overview of child sexual abuse, 3(4) J Family Med Prim Care 430-435 (2014), https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC4311357/ (last visited on Mar. 10, 2018).
3. Amlan Mohanty, New Crimes under the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 7 IJLT 118, 119 (2011).
4. Audrey Rogers, Child Pornography’s Forgotten Victims, 28 PACE L. REV. 847,864 (2008).
5. Convention on Cybercrime, 2001, November 23, 2001, ETS No. 185, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/libe/dv/7_conv_budapest_/7_conv_budapest_en.pdf (last visited on Feb.20, 2018)
6. Shashank Shekhar, Despite crackdown, India emerges as one of biggest contributors, consumers of child porn, INDIA TODAY, (Sept. 6, 2017),http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/child-pornography-kerala-haryana-csam/1/1041706.html (last visited on Oct.16,2017)
7. Ministry of Home Affairs, National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2016, 200 (October, 2017).
8. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,art.2(c), May 25, 2000, http://www.ohchr.org/ EN/Professional Interest/ Pages/ OPSCCRC.aspx ( Last visited on Mar. 10, 2018)
9. Convention on Cyber Crime, art. 9(2), opened for signature November 23,2001, ETS No. 185, https://rm.coe.int/1680081561(last visited on Mar. 10, 2018)
10. The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament,2000, (India) Preamble, ¶1.
11. Mohanty, supranote3, at 103-105.
12. Id.at 119.
13. See Vallishree Chandra and Gayathri Ramachandran, The Right to Pornography in India: An analysis in light of individual liberty and public morality, 4 NUJS L Rev 323(2011).
14. Mohanty, supra note 3, at107.
15. The Information Technology Act, 2000, §2(w), inserted vide The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (w.e.f. October 27, 2009), No.09, Acts of Parliament, 2009 (India).
16. Devesh K. Pandey, Pornography cases up 100 percent last year, THE HINDU (New Delhi), August 07, 2014, http:// www.thehindu.com/ news/national/pornography-cases-up-100-per-cent-last-year/ article 6288856.ece (last visited on Mar. 10, 2018); See Ministry of Home Affairs, National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2016, 201-204 (October, 2017), http://ncrb.gov.in/ Stat Publications/CII/ CII2016/ pdfs/ NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete% 20PDF%20291117.pdf (last visited on Mar. 10, 2018).
17. Avnish Bajaj v. State(NCT of Delhi), (2008) 150 DLT 769 (India)
18. See ChinmayiArun, Gatekeeper Liability and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 7 NUJS L Rev 73(2014).
19. SharatBabuDigumarti v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18,¶ 39 (India).
20. Avnish Bajaj v. State(NCT of Delhi), (2008) 150 DLT 769 (India)
21. See The Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011, Preamble.
22. Id. at Rule 3.
23. KamleshVaswani v. Union of India &Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 592 (India).
24. See Tata Sky Ltd. v. Youtube LLC &Ors., 2016 SCCOnline Del 4476 (India).
25. Supra at 22.
26. Arun, supranote 18.
27. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 (India).
28. SharatBabuDigumarti v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18,¶28 (India).
29. Id.
30. (2017) 2 SCC 18 (India).
31. SharatBabuDigumarti v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18,¶ 32.
32. Google v. M/s. Visaka Industries Ltd., 2016 SCC Online Hyd 393 (India).
33. The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000, (India),§ 67.
34. Id. at § 67A.
35. Supra note 7,at 196.
36. SeeMaqboolFida v. Rajkumar Pandey, (2008) Cri LJ 4107 (India).
37. The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000, (India), § 80.
38. Convention on Cyber Crime, art. 18, opened for signature November 23, 2001, ETS No. 185, https://rm.coe.int/1680081561 (last visited on Mar. 10, 2018).
39. Id.atart.23.
40. Id.atart.25.
41. Id.atart.19.
42. Id. at art.24.
43. Government of India, Countries with which India has Extradition Treaties/Arrangements, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, (May 11, 2017), http://www.mea.gov.in/leta.htm (last visited on Feb. 20, 2018)
44. Convention on Cyber Crime, art. 26, opened for signature November 23, 2001, ETS No. 185, https://rm.coe.int/1680081561 (last visited on Mar. 10, 2018).
45. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §§ 65A & 65B.
46. Id.at§ 65B (4)(c).
47. (2014) 10 SCC 473 (India)
48. The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000, (India),§ 79A.
49. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 34, opened for signatureNov. 20,1989, http:// www.ohchr.org/ EN/ Professional Interest/ Pages/CRC.aspx (last visited on Mar. 10,2018).
50. Id. at art. 3.
51. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, No.2, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India),§2(13).
52. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974, (India),§357B.
53. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No.32, Acts of Parliament, 2012, (India), §11.
54. Id.at §12; See Rajesh Mulchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8577(India), See also Babu Ram v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9336 (India).
55. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No.32, Acts of Parliament, 2012, (India),§13.
56. Id. at §14.
57. Id. at§35, §36 & §37.
58. Id. at §40.
59. Press Trust of India, US-based private body helping India curb child porn: Centre to Supreme Court, July 16, 2017, HINDUSTAN TIMES, http:// www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/us-based-private-body-helping-india-curb-child-porn-centre-to-supreme-court/story-4vDZCOFLphtYH62IykRfCI.html (last visited on Oct. 16, 2017)
60. KamleshVaswani v. Union of India &Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 592 (India).
61. Chandra &Ramachandran, supra note13.
62. See GeethaHariharan, Our unchained sexual selves: A case for the liberty to enjoy pornography privately, (2014) 7 NUJS L Rev 89.
63. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 (India).
64. See Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India &Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 762 (India).
65. SeeIn re, Prajwala, SMW (Crl.) No (s).3/2015, 7- 15 (October 23, 2017)
66. Id. at 16.
67. See In re, Prajwala, SMW (Crl.) No (s).3/2015, (December 11, 2017).
68. SeeIn re, Prajwala. SMW (Crl.) No (s).3/2015, (January 08, 2018); See alsoVijaita Singh, Centre to launch portal to redress online abuse, fraud, THE HINDU (January 08, 2018), http:// www.thehindu.com/ news/ national/ centre-to-launch-portal-to-redress-online-abuse-fraud/article22398484.ece (last visited Feb. 28, 2018).
69. See Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 1 (India).
2. M.M. Singh et al., An epidemiological overview of child sexual abuse, 3(4) J Family Med Prim Care 430-435 (2014), https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC4311357/ (last visited on Mar. 10, 2018).
3. Amlan Mohanty, New Crimes under the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 7 IJLT 118, 119 (2011).
4. Audrey Rogers, Child Pornography’s Forgotten Victims, 28 PACE L. REV. 847,864 (2008).
5. Convention on Cybercrime, 2001, November 23, 2001, ETS No. 185, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/libe/dv/7_conv_budapest_/7_conv_budapest_en.pdf (last visited on Feb.20, 2018)
6. Shashank Shekhar, Despite crackdown, India emerges as one of biggest contributors, consumers of child porn, INDIA TODAY, (Sept. 6, 2017),http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/child-pornography-kerala-haryana-csam/1/1041706.html (last visited on Oct.16,2017)
7. Ministry of Home Affairs, National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2016, 200 (October, 2017).
8. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,art.2(c), May 25, 2000, http://www.ohchr.org/ EN/Professional Interest/ Pages/ OPSCCRC.aspx ( Last visited on Mar. 10, 2018)
9. Convention on Cyber Crime, art. 9(2), opened for signature November 23,2001, ETS No. 185, https://rm.coe.int/1680081561(last visited on Mar. 10, 2018)
10. The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament,2000, (India) Preamble, ¶1.
11. Mohanty, supranote3, at 103-105.
12. Id.at 119.
13. See Vallishree Chandra and Gayathri Ramachandran, The Right to Pornography in India: An analysis in light of individual liberty and public morality, 4 NUJS L Rev 323(2011).
14. Mohanty, supra note 3, at107.
15. The Information Technology Act, 2000, §2(w), inserted vide The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (w.e.f. October 27, 2009), No.09, Acts of Parliament, 2009 (India).
16. Devesh K. Pandey, Pornography cases up 100 percent last year, THE HINDU (New Delhi), August 07, 2014, http:// www.thehindu.com/ news/national/pornography-cases-up-100-per-cent-last-year/ article 6288856.ece (last visited on Mar. 10, 2018); See Ministry of Home Affairs, National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2016, 201-204 (October, 2017), http://ncrb.gov.in/ Stat Publications/CII/ CII2016/ pdfs/ NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete% 20PDF%20291117.pdf (last visited on Mar. 10, 2018).
17. Avnish Bajaj v. State(NCT of Delhi), (2008) 150 DLT 769 (India)
18. See ChinmayiArun, Gatekeeper Liability and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 7 NUJS L Rev 73(2014).
19. SharatBabuDigumarti v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18,¶ 39 (India).
20. Avnish Bajaj v. State(NCT of Delhi), (2008) 150 DLT 769 (India)
21. See The Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011, Preamble.
22. Id. at Rule 3.
23. KamleshVaswani v. Union of India &Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 592 (India).
24. See Tata Sky Ltd. v. Youtube LLC &Ors., 2016 SCCOnline Del 4476 (India).
25. Supra at 22.
26. Arun, supranote 18.
27. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 (India).
28. SharatBabuDigumarti v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18,¶28 (India).
29. Id.
30. (2017) 2 SCC 18 (India).
31. SharatBabuDigumarti v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18,¶ 32.
32. Google v. M/s. Visaka Industries Ltd., 2016 SCC Online Hyd 393 (India).
33. The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000, (India),§ 67.
34. Id. at § 67A.
35. Supra note 7,at 196.
36. SeeMaqboolFida v. Rajkumar Pandey, (2008) Cri LJ 4107 (India).
37. The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000, (India), § 80.
38. Convention on Cyber Crime, art. 18, opened for signature November 23, 2001, ETS No. 185, https://rm.coe.int/1680081561 (last visited on Mar. 10, 2018).
39. Id.atart.23.
40. Id.atart.25.
41. Id.atart.19.
42. Id. at art.24.
43. Government of India, Countries with which India has Extradition Treaties/Arrangements, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, (May 11, 2017), http://www.mea.gov.in/leta.htm (last visited on Feb. 20, 2018)
44. Convention on Cyber Crime, art. 26, opened for signature November 23, 2001, ETS No. 185, https://rm.coe.int/1680081561 (last visited on Mar. 10, 2018).
45. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §§ 65A & 65B.
46. Id.at§ 65B (4)(c).
47. (2014) 10 SCC 473 (India)
48. The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000, (India),§ 79A.
49. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 34, opened for signatureNov. 20,1989, http:// www.ohchr.org/ EN/ Professional Interest/ Pages/CRC.aspx (last visited on Mar. 10,2018).
50. Id. at art. 3.
51. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, No.2, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India),§2(13).
52. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974, (India),§357B.
53. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No.32, Acts of Parliament, 2012, (India), §11.
54. Id.at §12; See Rajesh Mulchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8577(India), See also Babu Ram v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9336 (India).
55. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No.32, Acts of Parliament, 2012, (India),§13.
56. Id. at §14.
57. Id. at§35, §36 & §37.
58. Id. at §40.
59. Press Trust of India, US-based private body helping India curb child porn: Centre to Supreme Court, July 16, 2017, HINDUSTAN TIMES, http:// www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/us-based-private-body-helping-india-curb-child-porn-centre-to-supreme-court/story-4vDZCOFLphtYH62IykRfCI.html (last visited on Oct. 16, 2017)
60. KamleshVaswani v. Union of India &Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 592 (India).
61. Chandra &Ramachandran, supra note13.
62. See GeethaHariharan, Our unchained sexual selves: A case for the liberty to enjoy pornography privately, (2014) 7 NUJS L Rev 89.
63. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 (India).
64. See Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India &Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 762 (India).
65. SeeIn re, Prajwala, SMW (Crl.) No (s).3/2015, 7- 15 (October 23, 2017)
66. Id. at 16.
67. See In re, Prajwala, SMW (Crl.) No (s).3/2015, (December 11, 2017).
68. SeeIn re, Prajwala. SMW (Crl.) No (s).3/2015, (January 08, 2018); See alsoVijaita Singh, Centre to launch portal to redress online abuse, fraud, THE HINDU (January 08, 2018), http:// www.thehindu.com/ news/ national/ centre-to-launch-portal-to-redress-online-abuse-fraud/article22398484.ece (last visited Feb. 28, 2018).
69. See Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 1 (India).
Downloads
Published
2018-07-01
How to Cite
Deb, A., & Chowdhury, P. R. (2018). A Critical Analysis of the Information Technology Act, 2000 vis-à-vis Mitigation of Child Pornography. Christ University Law Journal, 7(2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.13.1
Issue
Section
Articles
