A National Database to Detect and Remove Child Abuse Material: Just Rights for Children Alliance v S. Harish (2026 INSC 1149)

Two years after a landmark ruling on childl exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM), the Supreme Court said there had been no progress worth the name. So it took matters into its own hands. In Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v S. Harish & Ors., reported as 2026 INSC 1149, the Court set out directions for a national hash and URL database and for strict reporting timelines for online platforms.

The case is M.A. Nos. 2553 and 2554 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161 and 2162 of 2024. It was decided on 15 October 2026 by a bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. For exam use, check the final order in the full judgment.

Where the case came from

The earlier judgment is dated 23 September 2024 and reported as 2024 INSC 716. It dealt with the spread of CSEAM on social media. It noted that sellers shared links instead of files, to avoid Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act. It held that intermediaries cannot claim Section 79 IT Act protection without due diligence and compliance with POCSO reporting. It also held that reporting to the US-based National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is not enough, and reports must go to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police.

In the present applications, news reports were placed before the Court about paid promotion of CSEAM through redirect links and websites on social media. According to the report, 84 advertisements were running in India. Of the 55 that could be reported, 43 got replies that they did not breach advertising standards, 11 were said to be removed already, and one got no response. Some advertisements promoted tools for manipulating images of children, without showing any explicit content.

Read Blog: Paramjit Singh Bedi Case: Witness Testimony Explained

The core idea: hash matching and a shared database

Platforms detect abusive material one platform at a time. So material removed from one site can stay on others until it is separately found. The Court wanted coordinated detection.

A hash is a digital fingerprint of a file. Perceptual hash matching can recognise the same or similar material even when it is slightly changed. The Court noted that hash identifiers, perceptual hashing and URL listing are used globally, and that India had no equivalent requirement.

What the database holds

·        A National Hash and URL List Database used only for detection and removal of CSEAM.

·        Only hashes and URLs. It does not hold the abusive material itself.

·        Entries are made after source identification, software screening and assessment by at least three trained human analysts, as reported.

·        Safeguards include several tiers of verification, digital signatures of analysts, logs of all entries and access, periodic independent audits, quick removal of wrong entries and a complaint route to the database authority.

The Court asked the Union of India to decide whether the database sits inside the Sahyog Portal or stands alone, to prepare a Standard Operating Procedure and to report on the tools in use.

The Court was careful about wrongful removal. It acknowledged the risk of taking down lawful content and stressed independent human verification, audit trails, correction of errors and grievance redressal.

What platforms must do

As reported, intermediaries must:

·        Remove matching material from the database immediately, without waiting for further verification.

·        Report removals to the database authority, with known-origin matches in weekly consolidated reports.

·        Offer a clearly labelled CSEAM reporting category that users can reach within two steps, without giving personal details.

·        Use trained human review, digitally signed findings, complaint tracking and reasoned responses.

·        Disclose CSEAM compliance separately, subject to independent audit.

·        Report offences to the authorities named under POCSO. They cannot rely only on reporting to the US-based organisation.

Reporting timelines

The Court called the absence of any reporting timeline in the IT Rules and POCSO a glaring omission. It also criticised confusing reporting channels and weak grievance handling, since child-abuse complaints compete with other urgent complaints.

What counts as CSEAM under the IT Act

The Court held that the requirement of a visual depiction discussed in the earlier judgment applies to POCSO, not to the IT Act. Under the IT Act, CSEAM includes material that has a propensity to facilitate abuse. An advertisement need not show a child to fall within the Act and Rules. Advertisements linking to CSEAM are, in substance, advertisements of CSEAM.

Promotions of tools that enable the abusive manipulation of children's images, and links that lead users to CSEAM, cannot stay online just because they meet a platform's advertising standards. The content must be examined as a whole, including captions, keywords, links and the function of the promoted tool.

Internet access, rights and fines

As reported, the Court recognised internet access and use as a fundamental right, including for children, under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a). It rejected blanket restrictions but allowed proportionate safeguards and restrictions on inherently harmful services. It added that child safety needs digital-safety awareness, age-appropriate education and victim support, not just removal of content.

On penalties, the report says the Court found that losing safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act is not enough to deal with systemic defaults. It asked the Union Government to consider exemplary fines. This was a request to consider and not a fine imposed.

Exam relevance

For a question on intermediary liability, link three provisions: Section 79 of the IT Act on safe harbour, Section 67B of the IT Act on child abuse material and Section 15 of the POCSO Act. Add that safe harbour depends on due diligence and on following the POCSO reporting duty.

For a question on the right to privacy and speech against child safety, note the balance: the Court allowed proportionate safeguards, required human verification and audits, and refused blanket bans. For a short note, write the idea of the hash and URL database in two lines, and mention that it holds identifiers and not the material.

Frequently Asked Questions on the CSEAM Database Directions

What is the citation of the case?

Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v S. Harish & Ors., reported as 2026 INSC 1149, arising from M.A. Nos. 2553 and 2554 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161 and 2162 of 2024.

When was it decided and by whom?

15 October 2026, by a bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Which earlier judgment did it follow up on?

The judgment of 23 September 2024, reported as 2024 INSC 716.

What is the National Hash and URL List Database?

A shared database of hashes and URLs of verified CSEAM, used only for detection and removal. It does not hold the material itself.

How are entries added to it?

After source identification, software screening and assessment by at least three trained human analysts, as reported.

How fast must unknown-origin material be reported?

Within 2 hours, or forthwith after complaint resolution and no later than 2 hours.

Is reporting to the US-based National Center for Missing and Exploited Children enough?

No. Intermediaries must also report to the authorities specified under POCSO.

Does an advertisement have to show a child to fall under the IT Act?

No. The Court said an advertisement need not depict a child, and links to CSEAM are in substance advertisements of it.

What did the Court say about fines?

It asked the Union Government to consider exemplary fines, since loss of Section 79 safe harbour is not enough for systemic defaults.

What did the Court say about internet access?

As reported, it recognised internet access as a fundamental right, rejected blanket restrictions and allowed proportionate safeguards.

Why This Order Deserves a Place in Your Notes

Just Rights for Children Alliance v S. Harish (2026 INSC 1149) moves from principle to machinery: a shared hash database, firm reporting timelines and a broader view of what counts as CSEAM online. It joins POCSO, the IT Act and Articles 19 and 21 in one topic.

Nitesh Sir and the Aashayein Judiciary team keep aspirants updated with simple Judiciary Notes, PYQ practice and Mock Tests for the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam. For guided Judiciary Coaching, Online Judiciary Coaching and current Judiciary Study Material, join Aashayein Judiciary today.