International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research

E-ISSN: 2582-2160   •   Impact Factor: 9.24

A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal

Call for Paper Volume 8, Issue 5 (September-October 2026) Submit your research before last 3 days of October to publish your research paper in the issue of September-October.
Submit Research Paper Join as a Reviewer

Plagiarism is checked by the leading plagiarism checker TurnItIn

Call for Paper

Volume 8 Issue 5
September-October 2026

Submit your research paper

Indexing Partners
Academia Advanced Sciences Index Bielefeld Academic Search Engine CiteSeer DRJI Google Scholar Independent Search Engine & Directory Network ISI (International Scientific Indexing) Issuu Mendeley Research Networks
RefSeek ResearcherId - Thomson Reuters ResearchGate Scirus Scribd Semantic Scholar UTeM - Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka Wiki for Call for Papers WorldCat Zenodo

Viewing as Possession: Section 15 of POCSO after Just Rights for Children Alliance

Author(s) Ms. Baby Mariyam, Mr. Mohd Hamed Ali
Country India
Abstract Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was rewritten in 2019 to create three separate offences relating to the storage and possession of sexual material involving children. In January 2024 the Madras High Court quashed a prosecution on the reasoning that merely downloading and watching such material in private was not an offence. In Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, decided in September 2024, the Supreme Court reversed that decision. It held that possession includes constructive possession, that watching such material online without downloading it can amount to possession, and that an intention to transmit may be inferred from a failure to delete, destroy or report it. The Court also asked Parliament to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual exploitative and abuse material”.

This paper examines the decision doctrinally. It is argued that the ruling correctly closes a gap the High Court had opened, but that two consequences need attention. First, reading intention from omission, together with the statutory presumption of a culpable mental state in Section 30, places a heavy burden on the accused, which is defensible only if the reporting route is clear and accessible. Second, the decision does not settle how Section 15 applies to synthetic imagery created with artificial intelligence or to adolescents who share images of themselves.
Keywords POCSO, Section 15, Constructive Possession, CSEAM, Section 67B, Mens Rea, Synthetic Imagery
Published In Volume 8, Issue 5, September-October 2026
Published On 2026-10-14
DOI https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2026.v08i05.89747
View / Download PDF File

Share this



E-ISSN 2582-2160
CrossRef

CrossRef DOI prefix of IJFMR is 10.36948/ijfmr

Downloads
Research Paper Format Copyright Permission Form and Undertaking Form

All research papers published on this website are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, and all rights belong to their respective authors/researchers.

CC-BY-SA Open Access

About IJFMR
Fees & Payment
Current Issue
Publication Archive 		Submit Research Paper
Track Submission Status
Publication Guidelines
Publication Ethics
Peer Review & Plagiarism 		Join as a Reviewer
Editors & Reviewers
Reviewer Referral Program
Get Reviewer Membership Certi. 		Website/Journal Policies
Usage Policy
Content Policies
Privacy Policy
Contact Us +91-9687-828-838 editor@ijfmr.com
Powered by Sky Research Publication and Journals