Case at a glance: In a continuing matter arising from its 2024 ruling criminalising the mere viewing, storing or possession of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, the Supreme Court has pulled up the Centre for failing to file any compliance affidavit on removing such content, after petitioners flagged reports of platforms allegedly carrying paid advertisements promoting such material. The Court reiterated that intermediaries lose safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act if they initiate, receive or modify transmission of such content, and gave the ministries one final opportunity to respond.
This matter continues the Supreme Court's September 2024 judgment in Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S. Harish, which held that viewing, storing or possessing child sexual exploitation and abuse material is an offence under the POCSO Act even without any further transmission or sharing, overturning a Madras High Court ruling. That judgment also laid down directions for intermediaries and the Central Government on removal of such content, tying continued Section 79 IT Act safe-harbour protection to intermediaries not initiating, receiving or modifying the transmission of such material.
In the September 2026 hearing, the petitioners — Just Rights for Children Alliance and Bachpan Bachao Andolan — brought to the Court's attention media reports alleging that a major platform carried paid advertisements promoting content of this nature. The Bench noted that despite its own directions issued in August 2026, neither the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology nor the Ministry of Law and Justice had filed any affidavit detailing compliance or enforcement steps taken.
The Key Question Before the Court
Where a court has already laid down clear directions on intermediary accountability for online child sexual abuse material, and compliance reporting has simply not happened, how far should the Court go in compelling government ministries and platforms to actually demonstrate enforcement, rather than merely acknowledging the legal standard?
What the Court Reiterated and Demanded
The Bench characterised the lack of any compliance affidavit, months after its own August 2026 directions, as “extremely serious.” It reiterated the core principle from the 2024 judgment: intermediaries forfeit Section 79 IT Act safe-harbour protection the moment they initiate, receive, or modify the transmission of child sexual exploitation and abuse material — passive hosting without such involvement is treated differently from active facilitation.
Rather than issuing fresh substantive directions at this stage, the Court gave the Ministries one final opportunity to explain what preventive measures and compliance steps have actually been taken, signalling that continued non-compliance going forward would not be tolerated. The matter has been listed for further hearing in mid-October 2026.
What's at Stake for Intermediaries and the Centre
- Platforms carrying paid advertisements or facilitating promotion of child sexual exploitation and abuse material risk being treated as having “initiated” or “modified” transmission — outside Section 79's safe-harbour protection.
- The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice have been directed to explain, with specifics, what enforcement and compliance steps have been taken since the August 2026 directions.
- The Court's patience with unexplained non-filing of compliance affidavits appears to be running out, raising the prospect of stronger directions or consequences if the pattern continues.
- The matter remains an active, continuing-mandamus proceeding rather than a closed case — the next hearing in mid-October 2026 will show whether genuine compliance materialises.
Why This Matters
- It is a live, ongoing enforcement thread on intermediary liability under Section 79 of the IT Act, directly relevant to any platform operating in India that hosts user-generated content.
- It shows the Supreme Court willing to keep pressure on both government ministries and private platforms through repeated hearings, rather than treating a landmark 2024 ruling as self-executing.
- It reinforces that safe-harbour protection is conditional and can be lost through specific conduct — initiating, receiving or modifying transmission — a standard platforms need to actively monitor against, not merely cite as a defence.
- It is a reminder that even strong substantive rulings require continued judicial supervision to translate into actual on-the-ground enforcement.
What This Means in Practice
For Platforms and Intermediaries
- Audit advertising and content-promotion systems specifically for any risk of facilitating or amplifying child sexual exploitation and abuse material, since doing so can forfeit Section 79 safe-harbour protection.
- Maintain clear, documented compliance records in case of future litigation or regulatory scrutiny tied to this continuing matter.
For Government Counsel and Compliance Officers
- Treat compliance affidavit deadlines in continuing-mandamus matters as firm commitments — repeated non-filing is now itself becoming a point of judicial criticism in this proceeding.
For Cyber Law and Child Protection Practitioners Generally
- Track the mid-October 2026 hearing closely, since it may produce either a genuine compliance update or stronger directions if the pattern of non-filing continues.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has criticised the Centre for failing to file any compliance affidavit on removing online child sexual exploitation and abuse material, months after its own directions.
- Platforms lose Section 79 IT Act safe-harbour protection if they initiate, receive or modify transmission of such content.
- Reports of paid advertisements allegedly promoting such content on a major platform prompted this latest hearing.
- The matter remains ongoing, with a further hearing listed for mid-October 2026 to review compliance.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. This is a continuing compliance hearing in a matter that follows the Court's 2024 landmark ruling, 2024 INSC 716, which first held that viewing, storing or possessing such material is punishable under the POCSO Act and set out intermediary obligations.
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act generally shields intermediaries from liability for third-party content, but this safe harbour is conditional — it is lost if the intermediary initiates, receives, or modifies the transmission of unlawful content, as reaffirmed in this matter.
The matter is listed for a further hearing in mid-October 2026, by which point the government ministries are expected to explain the preventive measures and compliance steps actually taken.
Conclusion
A landmark ruling is only as strong as its enforcement, and this continuing hearing shows the Supreme Court unwilling to let compliance simply lapse into silence. For platforms and ministries alike, the message is that safe-harbour protection and judicial patience both come with real, checkable conditions.
Practical takeaway: Any platform operating in India should treat active monitoring against facilitating child sexual exploitation and abuse material, including in advertising systems, as a live compliance requirement tied directly to its Section 79 IT Act protection — not a settled, background legal question.