Child sexual abuse: The cycle must break

The Karnataka HC rightly reaffirms that passively consuming child abuse material perpetuates harm to victims.

The Karnataka High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings against a person over the possession of child pornography reiterates that the mere storage of such material on a mobile phone constitutes a punishable offence. Justice M Nagaprasanna’s order draws strength from the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S Harish & Ors., which clarified that the possession, consumption, or failure to delete such material constitutes a criminal act.

It rightly acknowledges that even silent consumption sustains the market for abuse. The apex court recognised that digital files depicting the abuse of children are records of real crimes and perpetuate the cycle of exploitation. Each act of viewing or storing such material effectively revictimises the child whose suffering has been recorded, ensuring that the trauma never truly ends as long as the images continue to circulate.

By consuming such material, the viewer becomes an audience that validates and sustains the crime. Even when no money changes hands, downloads and online traffic signal demand, encouraging further exploitation and the creation of new content. This perverse behaviour represents a grave distortion of empathy and social responsibility.

As such, the privacy of a personal device cannot be used as a shield for conduct that derives gratification from the violation of a child. The State, therefore, has a compelling interest to intervene in private habits that contribute to grave societal harm.

Globally, most advanced countries treat the possession of child abuse material as a serious criminal offence. Sweden, Canada, and Australia have gone a step further by introducing extraterritorial provisions that allow authorities to prosecute citizens even for offences committed abroad, where laws may be weaker.

Most countries have now ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which obligates them to criminalise the possession of such material. However, gaps in legislation and enforcement in some countries continue to create havens where offenders can operate with relative impunity, a troubling reality in an internet era without geographical boundaries.

The courts’ message is clear. The law must treat the possession of child abuse material not as a private moral failing, but as participation in a chain of exploitation that begins with the abuse of a vulnerable child. Justice Nagaprasanna’s order reinforces the principle that technology cannot dilute accountability.

In the digital age, the defence of children demands vigilance from courts, government, and society. Only when possession itself is unequivocally condemned and prosecuted can the demand that fuels such crimes be meaningfully curtailed.