New Delhi, September 3: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), led by Priyank Kanungo, has taken notice of allegations that Instagram facilitated access to child sexual abuse material through paid advertisements. The commission has requested an Action Taken Report (ATR) from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and the Delhi Police within two weeks.
This issue emerged from media reports by BBC World Service, which claimed that paid advertisements on Instagram used terms like ‘rape videos’ and ‘child videos.’ These ads directed users to Telegram channels where such content was being sold. The advertisements passed Meta’s review system and remained accessible despite being reported through the complaint mechanism, until the BBC brought the matter to Meta’s attention.
The bench, chaired by Priyank Kanungo, stated that if the allegations are proven true, it would not only be a case of objectionable online content but could also involve child sexual exploitation, the recording, dissemination, promotion, and monetization of such material, and potential organized criminal activity.
The commission emphasized the need for an investigation under the POCSO Act of 2012, the Information Technology Act of 2000, and the applicable intermediary framework. This includes the preservation of electronic evidence, forensic investigation, identification of involved individuals, tracing financial transactions, and the protection, safety, and rehabilitation of child victims.
The bench specifically sought a response from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology regarding compliance with mandatory reporting under Section 19 of the POCSO Act 2012, which mandates the reporting of crimes. The commission inquired whether the alleged crimes were reported to the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) or local police upon discovery.
If the case was not reported, the commission requested details on actions taken regarding the identification and reporting of responsible officials or authorities.
The commission has also noted the Supreme Court’s decision in the Just Rights for Children Alliance vs. S. Harish case, which emphasized immediate reporting, preservation of electronic evidence, coordinated investigations, and the identification, rescue, and safety of child victims. Furthermore, the commission stated that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act does not exempt any entity from its obligations under the POCSO Act.
A significant new issue in this case is Meta’s editorial and publisher role. The materials presented before the NHRC included screenshots of Meta’s system, which, according to the complainant, provided suggestions related to content ideas, formats, slide sequencing, captions, call-to-action, posting schedules, audience engagement strategies, and monetization methods.
In this context, the Priyank Kanungo bench raised critical questions about whether a digital platform can be considered merely a passive intermediary when it actively generates, modifies, curates, recommends, publishes, amplifies, or monetizes content.
The commission stated that this determination should not solely depend on the name used for the platform but should be based on the actual editorial and publishing work performed by the platform and the degree of its participation and control over the content. The commission has placed special emphasis on the risks arising from content curation, recommendation, targeted amplification, and monetization in cases involving children and CSAM/CSEAM.
The commission has specifically asked the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to investigate whether, where Meta’s systems generate, modify, curate, recommend, publish, or amplify content, Meta falls under the regulatory purview of MIB as a publisher or online curated content publisher under the IT Rules, 2021. MIB has also been requested to clarify Meta’s regulatory status and obligations, if applicable, and what actions the ministry should take under the existing regulatory framework.
The NHRC has taken note of the report previously submitted by the Delhi Police and has granted the Delhi Police Commissioner two additional weeks to present further information. The police have been specifically asked to detail the actions taken in the case, information requested or received from Telegram, and any resultant actions based on that information.
The NHRC has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, MIB, and the Delhi Police, along with relevant officials, to submit a specific and point-wise report within two weeks. The commission clarified that responses should not be general or convoluted but should be supported by contemporaneous records.
Leave a Comment