Centre s CSAM crackdown gets judicial backing in landmark Facebook case
Indiadailyupdate.com – The Centre s CSAM crackdown gets renewed judicial validation as a Delhi court has cleared a Facebook upload case for trial, reinforcing the legal framework for prosecuting online child sexual abuse material. With social media platforms facing mounting pressure to swiftly remove such content and law enforcement agencies increasingly relying on cyber tip-offs, the ruling strengthens the prosecution’s position. Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi dismissed a revision petition filed by Aditya Biswas, holding that a CyberTipline report from the US-based National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), combined with digital evidence including IP logs and subscriber details, created sufficient grounds for criminal proceedings.
How the case unfolded
Investigating agencies, particularly Delhi Police’s cyber units, have increasingly depended on NCMEC CyberTips to identify offenders operating within India. The case originated when NCMEC flagged a Facebook account named “Neem Biswas” for allegedly uploading a 17-second sexually explicit video involving a child. Acting on information channeled through the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), investigators successfully traced the Facebook account through its IP address and mobile number.
The registered subscriber, Nand Kishor Shaha, informed police that the account had been created and operated by Biswas using his phone. According to prosecution evidence, Biswas subsequently admitted during investigation that he had downloaded and uploaded the video before discarding the mobile phone after it broke. A charge sheet was later filed under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act.
Defence arguments and court’s response
Senior Advocate Nandita Rao, representing the accused, contended that the prosecution’s case rested predominantly on the CyberTipline report, which she characterized as hearsay since neither Facebook nor NCMEC officials were examined during the investigation. She further argued that no mobile phone was recovered, rendering the prosecution dependent on the accused’s disclosure statement in potential violation of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The defence additionally maintained that the video did not satisfy the legal threshold for child pornography.
The Sessions Court systematically rejected each of these arguments. “The digital footprints provided by the prosecuting agency are more than sufficient to raise a grave suspicion against the petitioner. Whether the electronic evidence satisfies the rigours of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is an issue to be tested during the trial,” the court observed while declining to interfere with the order framing charges.
Rejecting the argument that the absence of the mobile phone weakened the prosecution, the judge said the physical recovery of the device was not an absolute sine qua non when IP logs and subscriber data linked the social media account to the accused.
The court also determined that the trial judge had personally viewed the video and had prima facie concluded that it depicted sexually explicit content involving a child. Questions regarding the age or gender of the child shown in the video, it held, are matters of defence to be examined during trial rather than at the stage of framing charges. Significantly, the order extensively relies on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, which broadened the interpretation of Section 67B of the IT Act.
The Sessions Court noted that the apex court had recognised the doctrine of constructive possession in cyberspace, meaning that a person exercising control over a social media account containing child sexual abuse material can be prosecuted even if the device used to upload the content is unavailable. The Supreme Court also held that Section 67B criminalises not only publication but also downloading, browsing, storing and propagating child sexual abuse material.
Emphasising the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charges, the court reiterated that it was only required to examine whether the available material created a strong or grave suspicion against the accused and not whether the prosecution had conclusively proved its case. Finding no patent illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s decision, Judge Jaggi upheld the order framing charges and directed the trial to proceed, marking another victory for the Centre s CSAM crackdown efforts.
