POCSO Act, 2012
Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material: CSEAM and the Terminology Debate
Words shape how a harm is understood. The POCSO Act, since 2019, uses the expression child pornography. In Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024 INSC 716), the Supreme Court held that the expression is misleading, because it frames a record of the sexual abuse of a child as a kind of pornography. It recommended the term Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material, or CSEAM, and directed courts to use it. This note explains the statutory term, the reasons for the change, what the Court did and did not do, and how to use the terms correctly.
From the statutory term to CSEAM, the four reasons, and the limits of the change
1. The Statutory Term
§ Section 2(1)(da) and Section 15 The definition. Section 2(1)(da), inserted by the 2019 Amendment, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a child, including a photograph, video, digital or computer-generated image indistinguishable from an actual child, and an image created, adapted or modified but appearing to depict a child. Its use. The expression appears in Section 15, and the Act's scheme on such material in Sections 13 to 15 is built around it. It remains the law. Until Parliament amends the Act, the statutory words stand, and they are quoted where the text of the Act is in issue. |
2. Why the Terminology Matters
§ Four reasons for the change • No consent is possible. Pornography, in ordinary usage, implies adult performers who choose to take part. A child cannot consent, and every such image is a record of abuse. • Trivialisation. The word pornography can make possession and viewing seem a matter of private taste, which is exactly the reasoning the Madras High Court adopted before the Supreme Court reversed it. • Exploitation as well as abuse. CSEAM reaches exploitative material that sexualises a child without depicting explicit acts, and material used to exploit the child, which the older term may not capture. • Revictimisation. Every viewing repeats the violation of the child, and the demand of viewers sustains the production of new material. The term makes that harm visible. |
3. What the Supreme Court Did
📖 Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024 INSC 716, decided 23 September 2024 The recommendation to Parliament. The Court suggested that Parliament seriously consider amending the POCSO Act to substitute child sexual exploitative and abuse material for child pornography, so as to reflect the reality of the offence. Interim measures. It observed that the Union may consider bringing the change by ordinance in the meantime. The direction to courts. It directed that the expression child pornography shall not be used in any judicial order or judgment, and that courts use CSEAM instead. The reasoning. The material is not pornography but evidence of the sexual abuse and exploitation of a child; the terminology should place the focus on the child as victim. |
4. What It Did Not Do
i. It did not amend the statute. Only Parliament can do that. Section 2(1)(da) and Section 15 continue to use the old words.
ii. It did not change any offence. The ingredients of Sections 13, 14 and 15, and of Section 67B of the IT Act, are unchanged.
iii. It did not bind anyone other than courts. The direction concerns judicial orders and judgments; others are encouraged, not compelled, to follow it.
5. Child Pornography and CSEAM Compared
Basis | Child pornography | CSEAM |
|---|---|---|
Source | Section 2(1)(da), POCSO, inserted in 2019 | Recommended by the Supreme Court in Harish, 2024; international usage |
Status | The statutory term, until amended | The term courts must use in judicial orders |
Implication | A genre of explicit material | A record of the abuse and exploitation of a child |
Scope suggested | Sexually explicit depictions | Explicit depictions and exploitative, sexualised material |
Focus | The material | The child as victim |
Legal effect | Defines the offence | No change to the elements of any offence |
6. How to Use the Terms in Answers and Notes
§ A practical rule Quote the statute accurately. Where the words of Section 2(1)(da) or Section 15 are in issue, use them as enacted. Use CSEAM everywhere else, as the Supreme Court has directed courts to do, and explain in a sentence why. International usage. CSEAM and related terms follow the approach of the Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, the Luxembourg Guidelines of 2016, which discourage the term child pornography. In an exam, mentioning the terminology shift, with Harish as the authority, signals current knowledge. |
7. Frequently Asked Questions
What does CSEAM stand for?
Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material, the term the Supreme Court recommended in place of child pornography in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish.
Has the POCSO Act been amended to use CSEAM?
Not as a result of the judgment itself. The Court recommended that Parliament amend the Act; until it does, the statutory term remains child pornography.
Must courts use the term CSEAM?
Yes. The Supreme Court directed that the expression child pornography should not be used in judicial orders or judgments, and that CSEAM be used instead.
Why is child pornography considered a misleading term?
Because pornography implies consenting participants and a form of entertainment, whereas the material is a record of the sexual abuse and exploitation of a child, who cannot consent.