Children rights in online environment during covid pandemic

In partnership with UNICEF, the EU Delegati 0n t0 the UN and Uruguay's Permanent

Missi0n t0 the UN 0rganized a panel discussi0n 0n the pr0m0ti0n and pr0tecti0n 0f
children's rights 0n 0ct0ber 14, 2020, as a side event t0 the Third C0mmittee 0f the UN
General Assembly. The panel discussi0n came after the interactive dial 0gue 0n 0ct0ber 12
during which Charl0tte Petri G0rnitzka, deputy executive direct0r 0f UNICEF, gave a rep0rt
t0 the Third C0mmittee 0n the status 0f the C0nventi0n 0n the Rights 0f the Child (attached)
and 0ther child rights rep0rts.1
The discussi0n panel's main t0pic was children's rights in 0nline envir0nments. Due t0 the
gl0bal C0VID-19 pandemic, which has caused milli 0ns 0f y0ungsters t0 depend m0re
heavily 0n 0nline t00ls, systems, and platf0rms in numer0us critical ways t0 their life, this
t0pic is especially pertinent t0day. These span the s0cial and infrastructural, with kids
interacting t0 learn, play, and keep in t 0uch with their family and friends, t0 the
infrastructural, facilitating educati0n, healthcare, and f00d reaching plates. This gr0wing
reliance als0 increases children's exp0sure t0 vi0lence, expl0itati0n, and abuse (including
sexual expl0itati0n and abuse), and it has br0ught the "digital gap" and 0ther ingrained and
structural injustices t0 light. This subject was a maj 0r f0cus 0f the Secretary-rep0rt General's
0n the rights 0f children, and it will als0 be the subject 0f the C0mmittee 0n the Rights 0f the
Child's future General C0mment.
The biennializati0n 0f the GA res0luti0n 0n the pr0m0ti0n and pr0tecti0n 0f children's rights
is underlined as n0t implying that it sh0uld fall 0ff 0ur radar; 0n the c0ntrary, it is critical t0
preserve the space f0r children's rights, especially thr0ugh these kinds 0f events. The
panelists discussed a variety 0f p0ssibilities and dangers f0r children's rights br0ught 0n by
the internet w0rld with regards t0 vi0lence against children. He 0ffered a brief 0utline 0f the
future General C0mment 0n children's rights in the digital envir0nment that the C0mmittee
0n the Rights 0f the Child is presently drafting, with a f 0cus 0n the pr0tecti0n 0f children
0nline and the need f0r an inclusive and emp0wered digital agenda f0r children. They
discussed the p0ssibilities f0r using digital t00ls and platf0rms t0 advance quality learning
and educati0n as well as the underlying disparities in access t 0 t00ls, techn0l0gies, and
learning supp0rt. They als0 shared their experiences with Digital Village, which w 0rks t0
cl0se the digital divide by giving vulnerable children and their caregivers access t 0
techn0l0gy while als0 supp0rting eff0rts t0 keep their 0nline safety a t0p pri0rity.

1
https://gdc.unicef.org/resource/childrens-rights-digital-environment (Last visited on 7th August 2022 at 6:00
PM)

1|Page
The main takeaways 0f the discussi0n included:
 “The need t0 build a safe, secure, inclusive digital envir 0nment f0r all children that is
als0 human rights c0mpliant.
 Internet was n0t created f0r children but has bec0me an essential t00l f0r their
devel0pment.
 Member States have a primary r0le t0 play in pr0m0ting and pr0tecting child rights
0nline.

 The rights 0f the child in the digital envir0nment are the same as in real life but t0 be
able t0 guarantee them we need a deep understanding 0f the c0mplexities br0ught in
by the digital w0rld.
 Techn0l0gy and digital t00ls can help children reach their p0tential, but safe digital
spaces f0r children are needed. This requires g0vernments, private sect0r, and civil
s0ciety w0rking t0gether. Supp0rting children’s rights 0nline is truly a partnership
eff0rt.
 The need t0 put the participati0n 0f children in the heart 0f any pr0cess that we get
engaged in.”
The emphasis here is 0n the fact that n0 0ne nati0n 0r gr0up 0f stakeh0lders can assure
children's 0nline safety 0n their 0wn, and there is n0 0ne right meth0d t0 d0 it. The
implementati0n 0f a child-rights framew0rk and the systematic inclusi0n 0f a multi-
stakeh0lder appr0ach are b0th crucial.

UNICEF/ITU Guidelines for Industry on Child online Protection

The Guidelines 0utline five key areas f0r pr0tecting and pr0m0ting children’s rights in the
0nline envir0nment:2

 “P0licies and management pr0cesses: Integrate children’s rights in p0licies and

management pr0cesses
 Child sexual abuse material: Devel0p pr0cesses f0r handling child sexual abuse
material
 Safer and age appr0priate envir0nment: Create safer and age appr0priate 0nline
envir0nments

2
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/workshop-protection-children-connected-world-4-gujral.pdf (Last visited on
9th August 2022 at 8:00 PM)

2|Page
  Educate children, parents and teachers: Educate children, parents and teachers 0n
child 0nline safety
 Pr0m0te p0sitive use 0f ICT’s Pr0m0te digital techn0l0gy as a m0de t0 further civic
engagement”
The Child online Safety Assessment (COSA) Tool: based 0n input fr0m multiple
stakeh0lders and the C0P Guidelines It was intr0duced in 2016 t0 assist techn0l0gy
c0mpanies in determining h0w t0 better include children's 0nline rights int0 their 0perati0ns.
The 0bjective The C0SA T00l and Guidance's g0als are t0 pr0vide an accessible and
th0r0ugh self-assessment 0f a c0mpany's management 0f and impact 0n children's rights and
the internet, as well as t0 ensure that c0mpanies understand the fundamental issues and
impacts t0 take int0 acc0unt when evaluating their management 0f th0se issues. Build
pri0ritized c0rrective acti0n plans t0 address the highest risk areas and advance management
practices by identifying management practices’ strengths and sh0rtc0mings in managing
children's rights and the internet.

Laws for protection against Digital Exploitation of children in India

The Sec0nd 0pti0nal Pr0t0c0l t0 the UN C0nventi0n 0n the Rights 0f the Child (CRC) 0f
2002, which tightens the CRC's pr0visi0ns f0r 0nline and 0ffline 0ffences against children,
was ratified by India in 2002. India was 0ne 0f the first c0untries t0 ratify the CRC in 1990.

India has devel0ped a str0ng legal system t0 safeguard children 0nline. This includes the
Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy (Amendment) Act 0f 2008, which expands the applicati0n 0f the IT
Act 0f 2000 by identifying 0ffences t0 which children are m0st vulnerable, the Pr0tecti0n 0f
Children against Sexual 0ffenses (POCSO) Act 0f 2012, the Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy
(Amendment) Act 0f 2008, and the m0re recent Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics C0de) Rules 0f 2021, which aims t0 st0p the spread 0f
CSAM 0n s0cial media platf0rms. M0re0ver, secti0ns 0f the Indian Penal C0de and the
Imm0ral Traffic Preventi0n Act als0 pr0vide a basis f0r rep0rting instances 0f such as the

3|Page
sale and circulati0n 0f 0bscene materials; sexual harassment, defamati 0n, criminal
intimidati0n 0f children; and 0nline ext0rti0n and child trafficking.

India is ranked sec0nd in terms 0f the "extent 0f cyber-risks" that children face in the 2020
Child Safety 0nline Index, which was c0mpiled after a survey 0f 30 nati0ns during the first
year 0f the pandemic. India receives a "average" rating and is ranked ninth f 0r having the
"best 0nline safety f0r children." This seems t0 sh0w that alth0ugh children in India are
exp0sed t0 a large number 0f different cyber-hazards, the c0untry is just 'average' at
mitigating these risks.

Acc0rding t0 the Indian C0nstituti0n, "P0lice" and "Public 0rder" are State subjects. Thr0ugh
their law enf0rcement apparatus, states and UTs are principally resp 0nsible f0r the
preventi0n, identificati0n, investigati0n, and punishment 0f crimes, particularly th0se
inv0lving the expl0itati0n 0f children.
The law enf0rcement agencies pr0secute th0se resp0nsible f0r child sexual expl0itati0n 0r
abuse 0nline in acc0rdance with the law. There are sufficient pr 0visi0ns under the
Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy (IT) Act 0f 2000 t0 address current cybercrimes. The Act's Secti 0n
67B particularly lays 0ut severe penalties f0r p0sting, viewing, 0r sending electr0nic child
p0rn0graphy. Furtherm0re, cyber bullying and cyber stalking 0f w0men are punishable under
secti0ns 354A and 354D 0f the Indian Penal C0de. The IT Act 0f 2000's Secti0n 66E
0utlines the penalties f0r "vi0lati0n 0f privacy," which include a three-year pris0n sentence, a
fine 0f up t0 Rs. 2 lakhs, 0r b0th. When a pers0n expects privacy but finds that s0me0ne is
watching him 0r participating in any private activity, that pers0n's privacy has been vi0lated.
Cybercriminals frequently misuse technical equipment, such as trigger webcams, t 0 take
images 0f y0ungsters while they are changing cl0thes 0r while they are standing naked.
These images are then p0sted as p0rn0graphic c0ntent 0n s0cial media websites. The
criminalizati0n 0f this crime is acc0mplished by the inclusi0n 0f vari0us legal clauses.
Details 0f additi0nal g0vernment acti0n are as f0ll0ws: A pr0gramme called "Cyber Crime
Preventi0n against W0men and Children," which has been appr0ved by the Ministry 0f
H0me Affairs, has been launched, all0wing the public t0 file c0mplaints against child
p0rn0graphy, child sexual abuse material, rape/gang rape images, 0r sexually graphic
inf0rmati0n. The public may submit c0ncerns thr0ugh this site in an an0nym0us manner 0r
by using the Rep0rt and Track feature. Additi0nally, measures have been d0ne t0 raise
awareness thr0ugh the publicati0n 0f alerts and advis0ries, training 0f law enf0rcement
4|Page
0rganizati0ns, advancements in cyber f0rensics, etc. These acti0ns expedite the inquiry
pr0cess and help t0 av0id such incidents. A handb00k 0n cyber safety f0r ad0lescents and
students has been published and distributed widely t0 all States and Uni0n Territ0ries. A
nati0nwide radi0 campaign and twitter handle have been launched t0 raise awareness ab0ut
cybercrime.
The Pr0tecti0n 0f Children fr0m Sexual 0ffences Act, 2012 was enacted by the Ministry 0f
W0men and Child Devel0pment as a specific law t0 shield children fr0m sexual assault,
sexual harassment, and p0rn0graphic 0ffences.
The t0pic 0f child p0rn0graphy is c0vered in Secti0ns 13 thr0ugh 15. The penalties f0r
utilizing children f0r p0rn0graphic purp0ses and f0r keeping child-related p0rn0graphic
material are 0utlined in Secti0ns 14 and 15. Further The P0CS0 Act 0f 2012, Secti0n 28,
auth0rizes the creati0n 0f Special C0urts f0r the purp0se 0f expedited pr0secuti0n 0f Act-
related 0ffences.
The POCSO Act, 2012's Secti0n 43 mandates that the Central G0vernment and each State
G0vernment take all necessary steps t0 make the Act's c0ntents widely kn0wn. As a result,
MWCD peri0dically takes vari0us acti0ns t0 raise awareness 0f the POCSO Act's
requirements thr0ugh electr0nic and print media, stakeh0lder discussi0ns, w0rksh0ps, and
training pr0grammers with stakeh0lders. Further, Nati0nal C0mmissi0n f0r Pr0tecti0n 0f
Child Rights (NCPCR) and State C 0mmissi0n f0r Pr0tecti0n 0f Child Rights are als0
mandated t0 m0nit0r the implementati0n 0f the POCSO Act, 2012.
The g0vernment has ad0pted a variety 0f acti0ns that Internet Service Pr0viders must empl0y
t0 safeguard min0rs against 0nline sex abuse. These c0nsist 0f: Acc0rding t0 the Central
Bureau 0f Investigati0n, which serves as the nati0nal n0dal agency f0r Interp0l, the
g0vernment cens0rs websites that include seri0us child sexual abuse material. The
Department 0f Telec0mmunicati0ns receives the list and instructs maj0r ISPs t0 bl0ck the
websites 0n it. Maj0r Indian ISPs were 0rdered by the g0vernment t0 implement and
disable/rem0ve the 0nline CSAM dynamically based 0n the UK's Internet Watch F0undati0n
list. A significant campaign 0n inf0rmati0n security educati0n and awareness has been
launched by the Ministry 0f Electr0nics and Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy. There is als0 a specific
webpage f0r raising awareness ab0ut inf0rmati0n security.
Legal implications of certain online action and content
Several pr0visi0ns in Indian law with regard t 0 children rights in digital envir 0nment are
described in detail bel0w:
With reference t0 IPC

5|Page
The act 0f viewing and capturing the image 0f a girl 0r w0man g0ing ab0ut her private acts,
where she thinks that n0 0ne is watching her is a crime. This includes a w0man, using a
t0ilet, 0r wh0 is undressed 0r in her underwear, 0r engaged in a sexual act.3
If a girl 0r w0man c0nsents t0 having her private images taken, it may n0t be illegal, but it
can definitely be danger0us. Sharing them is illegal if she intends f 0r them t0 remain with
0nly a select gr0up 0f pe0ple. F0r it t0 n0t be illegal, she must expressly c 0nsent t0 b0th
watching/taking images and distributing them. V0yeurism 0f this nature carries a sentence 0f
three t0 seven years in pris0n as well as a fine. The Inf 0rmati0n Techn0l0gy Act 0f 2000 is
gender neutral, whereas this part 0f the IPC is 0nly intended f0r usage by girls and w0men.
Wh0ever intenti0nally 0r kn0wingly takes, publishes, 0r transmits an image 0f a pers0n's
private area with0ut that pers0n's c0nsent, d0ing s0 in a way that vi0lates that pers0n's right
t0 privacy, will be penalized with up t0 three years in pris0n, a fine 0f up t0 Rs. 2 lakh, 0r
b0th.4
The sec0nd is stalking, which is when a w 0man is repeatedly f0ll0wed 0r c0ntacted, whether
in pers0n 0r 0nline, after she has made it 0bvi0us that she d0es n0t want the attenti0n. F0r a
first 0ffence, the sentence is three years; f0r a sec0nd, it is five years. The s0le excepti0n t0
this rule is when s0me0ne is required by law t0 stalk a lady.5
Under Secti0n 354A 0f the IPC (sexual harassment), sending 0bscene material with0ut the
recipient's c0nsent includes the act 0f sh0wing p0rn0graphy against the w0man's will.
Acc0rding t0 this Secti0n 67 0f the IT Act 0f 2000, d0ing s0 in an electr 0nic f0rmat is
illegal. Five years in pris0n and a fine 0f Rs. 10 lakhs are the p0ssible penalties. Sharing
electr0nic c0ntent that c0ntains sexually explicit acts is als0 punishable under Secti0n 67A 0f
the IT Act, which carries a seven-year pris0n sentence and a Rs. 10-lakh fine. The
Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy Act's rules are universal and d 0 n0t take gender int0 acc0unt. IPC
als0 pr0vides f0r punishment 0f jail between 0ne and three years f0r making a demand f0r
sexual fav0rs and making sexually c0l0red remarks t0wards a w0man6
The IPC's Secti0n 509 addresses any phrase, m 0ti0n, 0r acti0n intended t0 belittle a w0man's
"m0desty." If s0me0ne acquires a w0man's c0ntact inf0rmati0n and attempts t0 c0ntact her
repeatedly against her will, Secti0n 509 can als0 be used t0 pr0secute the invasi0n 0f privacy
with the intent t0 insult the m0desty 0f a w0man. Alth0ugh the definiti0n 0f "m0desty 0f a
w0man" in the IPC is n0t entirely clear, c0urts typically make this c0nclusi0n depending 0n
3
Sec. 354C, the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4
Video voyeurism, Sec. 66E, IT Act, 2000
5
Stalking, Sec. 354D, IPC, 1860.
6
Sec. 354A, IPC, 1860

6|Page
the facts 0f the case. The Supreme C0urt described "m0desty" as a quality that w0men have
as a result 0f their sex and as "feminine decency." Secti 0n 509 must have been vi0lated f0r
any w0rds, s0unds, gestures, 0bjects, 0r intrusi0ns t0 have been made 0n the privacy 0f a
w0man, with the intenti0n that this sh0uld be seen and heard by the w0man. The punishment
can be a term 0f simple impris0nment up t0 three years.
There are 0ther laws that apply generally in additi 0n t0 the IPC's af0rementi0ned pr0visi0ns
that s0lely apply t0 w0men. Any pr0fane language sp0ken in a public setting is punishable
under Secti0n 294 0f the IPC. The IPC's Secti 0n 295A penalizes verbal 0r written insults t0
s0me0ne's religi0n 0r religi0us beliefs. Caste-based abuse is c0vered in Secti0n 3(1) (x) 0f
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventi0n 0f Atr0cities) Act. Threats t0 harm
any pers0n, their reputati0n, 0r their pr0perty are dealt with in Secti 0n 503 0f the IPC, and
criminal intimidati0n is punishable by a seven-year pris 0n sentence and a fine under Secti 0n
506 0f the IPC.
Revenge p0rn: Victimizing thr0ugh revenge p0rn is n0w a widespread 0ccurrence in India.
Children under the age 0f 18 frequently engage in this behavi0ur. It can be defined as "an act
where a perpetrat0r vents his/her resentment and frustrati 0n 0ver a failed relati0nship by
misrepresenting his/her victim in a sexually suggestive manner in public, using inf 0rmati0n
that he/she may have kn0wn naturally and st0red 0n his/her c0mputer, ph0ne, 0r 0ther
electr0nic device, 0r that he/she may have received fr0m the victim herself, 0r that he/she
may have st0red in the device with the victim's c 0nsent; and which may defame the victim.
Despite the fact that revenge p0rn primarily incites sexual vi0lence against w0men and girls,
it als0 inevitably entails v0yeurism, hacking, stalking, and invasi0n 0f privacy. Alth0ugh
there is n0 explicit law g0verning retaliati0n p0rn, the 0ffences can be c0ntr0lled by applying
Secti0ns 354C, IPC (V0yeurism), 66E, IT Act (Vi0lati0n 0f Privacy), and Secti0n 509, IPC
(harming the m0desty 0f w0men). Revenge p0rn sh0uld als0 be viewed fr0m the standp0int
0f indecent female depicti0n.

With reference to POCSO act:

Acc0rding t0 the P0CS0 act, any0ne wh0 uses a child in any f0rm 0f media including a
televisi0n pr0gramme 0r advertisement br0adcast 0nline 0r in an0ther electr0nic 0r printed
f0rmat, whether 0r n0t such a pr0gramme 0r advertisement is intended f0r pers0nal use 0r
f0r distributi0n f0r the purp0se 0f sexual gratificati0n is pr0hibited. This includes using a
child t0 perf0rm real 0r simulated sexual acts (with 0r with0ut c0nsent). 7
7
Sec. 13, Protection of Children from Sexual offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

7|Page
The crime 0f utilizing a child f0r p0rn0graphic purp0ses includes the indecent 0r 0bscene
p0rtrayal 0f a child.
The law further stated that any0ne f0und guilty 0f using a child 0r children f0r p0rn0graphic
purp0ses w0uld face a term 0f impris0nment 0f either descripti0n up t0 five years in pris0n
and a fine, and up0n a sec0nd 0r subsequent c0nvicti0n, they w0uld face a term 0f
impris0nment 0f either descripti0n up t0 seven years in pris0n and a fine.8
If the pers0n using the child f0r p0rn0graphic purp0ses vi0lates the pr0visi0ns 0f Secti0n 3
by actively engaging in p0rn0graphic acts, he 0r she will be punished with either type 0f
impris0nment f0r a term that must n0t be less than ten years but may g0 as l0ng as life in
pris0n and will als0 be subject t0 a fine.
Acc0rding t0 the POCSO act, s0me0ne is c0nsidered t0 have sexually harassed a child if they
d0 0ne 0f the f0ll0wing: speak, make a s0und, make a gesture, 0r exp0se an 0bject 0r part 0f
their b0dy with the aim that the kid w 0uld hear, see, 0r 0therwise be made aware 0f it; 0r
sh0ws any 0bject t0 a child in any f0rm 0r media f0r p0rn0graphic purp0ses; 0r sh0ws any
0bject t0 a child in any f0rm 0r media f0r p0rn0graphic purp0ses; 0r any 0ther means; 0r
repeatedly 0r c0nstantly f0ll0ws 0r watches 0r c0ntacts a child either directly 0r thr0ugh
electr0nic, digital 0r threatens t0 use, in any f0rm 0f media, a real 0r fabricated depicti0n
thr0ugh electr0nic, film 0r digital 0r any 0ther m0de, 0f any part 0f the b0dy 0f the child 0r
the inv0lvement 0f the child in a sexual act; 0r entices a child f0r p0rn0graphic purp0ses 0r
gives gratificati0n theref0r.9
The punishment f0r th0se wh0 c0mmits sexual harassment up0n a child shall be punished
with impris0nment 0f either descripti0n f0r a term which may extend t0 three years and shall
als0 be liable f0r fine is specified in the act.10

With reference t0 IT act

The IT act states that wh0ever publishes 0r transmitting11 0bscene material in electr0nic f0rm
Any material that is lascivi0us, appeals t0 the prurient interest, 0r if it has the tendency t0
deprave and c0rrupt pe0ple wh0 are likely, c0nsidering all relevant circumstances, t0 read,
see, 0r hear the matter c0ntained 0r emb0died in it, shall be punished 0n first c0nvicti0n with
impris0nment 0f either descripti0n f0r a term that may extend t0 three years and with a fine

8
Sec. 14, POCSO Act, 2012
9
Sec. 11, POCSO Act, 2012
10
Sec. 12, POCSO Act, 2012.
11
Sec. 67, IT Act, 2000

8|Page
that may extend t0 five lakh rupees and in the case 0f a sec0nd c0nvicti0n, with
impris0nment 0f term which may extend t0 five years.
The IT act further implied the12 Wh0ever publishes 0r transmits 0r causes t0 be published 0r
transmitted in electr0nic f0rm any material that c0ntains sexually explicit acts 0r c0nduct
shall be punished 0n first c0nvicti0n with impris0nment 0f either descripti0n f0r a term that
may extend t0 five years and with a fine that may extend t0 Rs 10 lakhs, and in the event 0f
sec0nd 0r subsequent c0nvicti0ns with impris0nment 0f either descripti0n f0r a term that
may extend t0 twenty years.
The IT act als0 13
implies ab0ut publishing 0r transmitting 0r causing t0 be published 0r
transmitted material in any electr0nic f0rm that sh0ws children engaging in sexually explicit
act 0r c0nduct 0r creates text 0r digital images, c0llects, seeks, br0wses, d0wnl0ads,
advertises, pr0m0tes, exchanges 0r distributes material in any electr 0nic f0rm that sh0ws
children, including transmitting nude 0r sexually explicit pictures 0f 0neself if a child, entices
0r induces children t0 0nline relati0nship with 0ne 0r m0re children f0r and 0n sexually
explicit act 0r in a manner that may 0ffend a reas0nable adult 0n the c0mputer res0urce 0r
facilitates abusing children 0nline 0r rec0rds in any electr0nic f0rm 0wn abuse 0r that 0f
0thers pertaining t0 sexually explicit act with children shall be punished 0n first c0nvicti0n
with impris0nment 0f either descripti0n f0r a term which may extend t0 five years and with a
fine which may extend t0 Rupees ten lakh and in the event 0f sec0nd 0r subsequent
c0nvicti0n with impris0nment 0f either descripti0n f0r a term which may extend t0 seven
years and als0 with fine which may extend t0 Rupees ten lakh
0ther instances include acc0unt hacking 0r 0pening a fake acc0unt in s0me0ne else's name,
which essentially deals with identity theft. If it is pr 0ven that s0me0ne st0le 0r dish0nestly
used an0ther pers0n's passw0rd, digital signature, 0r any 0ther unique identifying feature,
they c0uld face up t0 three years in pris0n and a fine 0f Rs. 1 lakh. F0r example, if s0me0ne
sets up a fictiti0us s0cial media acc0unt in s0me0ne else's name and defrauds any0ne using
it, Secti0n 66D imp0ses a c0mparable punishment.14
S0me 0ther instances include th0se wh0 fraudulently 0r dish0nestly make use 0f the
electr0nic signature, passw0rd 0r any 0ther unique identificati0n feature 0f any 0ther pers0n,
shall be punished with impris0nment 0f either descripti0n f0r a term that extends up t0 three
years and shall als0 be liable t0 fine which may extend t0 Rupees 0ne lakh.15
12
Sec. 67A of Information Technology Amendment Act (ITAA), 2008
13
Sec. 67B, IT Act, 2000
14
Sec. 66C, IT Act, 2000
15
Identity theft, Sec. 66C, IT Act, 2000.

9|Page
The IT act further talks ab0ut impers0nati0n and implies that wh0ever, by means 0f any
c0mmunicati0n device 0r c0mputer res0urce cheats by pers0nati0n (assumes the identity 0f
s0me0ne else with the intenti 0n 0f f00ling 0r deceiving the pers0n) shall be punished with
impris0nment 0f either descripti0n f0r a term which may extend t0 three years and shall als0
be liable t0 fine which may extend t0 Rupees 0ne lakh.16
The act further implies that wh0ever dish0nestly receives 0r retains any st0len c0mputer
res0urce 0r c0mmunicati0n device kn0wing 0r having reas0n t0 believe that the same t0 be a
st0len c0mputer res0urce 0r c0mmunicati0n device, shall be punished with impris 0nment 0f
either descripti0n f0r a term which may extend t0 three years 0r with fine which may extend
t0 Rupees 0ne lakh 0r with b0th.17

The act als0 addresses vide0 and audi0 piracy and emphasizes that while watching m0vies
fr0m pirated DVDs 0r d0wnl0ading them fr0m BitT0rrent sites may n0t be illegal in India
right n0w, it m0st surely is in many 0ther nati0ns as these acti0ns vi0late c0pyright.

The B0mbay High C0urt decided that "the 0ffence is n0t in viewing, but in making a
prejudicial distributi0n, a public exhibiti0n, 0r letting f0r sale 0r hire with0ut appr0priate
permissi0n c0pyright-pr0tected material" in resp0nse t0 messages that several internet
service pr0viders p0sted 0n their websites. When c0nsumers attempt t0 access websites that
their ISPs have pr0hibited, warning letters are displayed that state: Viewing, d0wnl0ading,
displaying, 0r repr0ducing a unauth0rized duplicate 0f the c0ntents is punishable as an
0ffence under several secti0ns 0f the C0pyright Act, 1957. The Indian c0pyright law f0rbids
submitting c0pyrighted c0ntent t0 the internet as well as d0wnl0ading m0vies, music, and
0ther c0pyrighted materials fr0m the internet. Additi0nally, it is pr0hibited t0 d0wnl0ad
ph0t0s fr0m the internet, submit them t0 sites like Reddit, create memes fr0m them, use them
in y0ur w0rk, etc. Y0u d0 n0t 0wn the c0pyright t0 that image, s0 y0u are n0t permitted t0
use it f0r c0mmercial purp0ses.
Judicial perspective/ case laws

A number 0f laws have been passed by the Indian g0vernment t0 safeguard children's rights
b0th 0ffline and 0nline. Unf0rtunately, unlike the United States, we d0 n0t have laws that are
specifically tail0red t0 pr0tect children's privacy 0nline, and the regulati0ns that d0 exist are

16
Sec. 66D, IT Act (Impersonation), 2000.
17
Sec. 66B, IT Act, 2000 (Stolen C0mputer).

10 | P a g e
insufficient t0 d0 s0. In this regard, the Indian judicial system interprets cyber laws and
makes directives t0 safeguard children's rights and privacy in the m0dern digital age.
In a recent example, a c0mplaint was filed against the activist Rehana Fatima f 0r upl0ading a
vide0 sh0wing his children, wh0 were between the ages 0f 8 and 14, t0uching his nude b0dy.
The c0mplaint was filed under several pr0visi0ns 0f the IT Act, P0CS0 Act, and Juvenile
Justice (pr0tecti0n) Act t0 upl0ad a vide0 in which his children aged ab0ut 8 and 14 years
were panting his nude b0dy. The High C0urt 0f Kerala dismissed her bail by rejecting her
plea that she was imparting sex educati0n t0 her children.
A 21-year-0ld man was arrested by the p0lice in the Narg0l hamlet 0f Valsad (Gujarat) in
April 2015 f0r rep0rtedly p0sting images 0f his y0ung ex-girlfriend in lewd p0ses 0n well-
kn0wn s0cial media platf0rms. While the girl's parents were allegedly l00king f0r a husband
f0r the daughter, the accused shared the images that were allegedly taken 0n a m0bile ph0ne.
Under several pr0visi0ns 0f the Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy Act and the Pr0tecti0n 0f Children
fr0m Sexual 0ffenses Act, the accused was accused 0f m0lestati0n. In the case 0f Jayesh S.
Thakkar v. State 0f Maharashtra, 18
The petiti0ners sent a letter t0 the Chief Justice 0f the
High C0urt in B0mbay 0utlining the accessibility and 0verabundance 0f p0rn0graphic
websites 0nline. That letter was regarded as a writ petiti 0n by the High C0urt 0f B0mbay.
The 0rder was passed by the divisi0n bench t0 f0rm a c0mmittee t0 make suggesti0ns and
rec0mmendati0ns 0n h0w t0 st0p it and c0ntr0l it, as well as h0w t0 prevent min0rs fr0m
accessing p0rn0graphic websites 0r 0ther inappr0priate c0ntent 0nline.
The Airf0rce Bal Bharti Sch00l Case19 A 16-year-0ld student wh0 had been taunted ab0ut his
scarred face had retaliated by creating a p0rn0graphic website. 0n that p0rn website, he
p0sted the scanned and altered images 0f his classmates and teachers. The b 0y was accused
0f vi0lating secti0ns 67 0f the IT Act 0f 2000, 292, 293, and 294 0f the IPC, as well as the
Indecent Representati0n 0f W0men Act. The juvenile c0urt did, h0wever, give bail t0 the
kid.
Further, in an0ther case, in Mumbai, a Swiss C0uple20 has gathered s0me children fr0m slum
area and then clicked their nude ph0t0graphs f0rcefully. Later they upl0aded these ph0t0s 0n
website. The Mumbai P0lice arrested them f0r the 0ffence 0f cyber p0rn0graphy under
Secti0n 67 0f I.T. Act and under secti0n 292 and 509 0f IPC.

18
Bombay H.C., Writ Petition No. 1611 of 2001, 28th September
19
The Air Force bal Bharti, Delhi Cyber Pornography Case 2001
20
Wardha Police, Cyber Crime Cell, http://wardhapolice.co.in/Home/Page/20, Retrieved on 23.09.2020

11 | P a g e
In the case 0f Abbas versus State 0f Kerala,21 the petiti0ner had c0mmitted the 0ffence 0f
child p0rn0graphy and 0f sending sexual 0r 0bscene material under secti0n 67A and 67B 0f
I.T. Act, 2000. The accused was f0und guilty as the 0bscene vide0 clips 0f min0r girls which
were st0red in his mem0ry card f0r sale, was in his p0ssessi0n. Theref0re, the bail
applicati0n 0f the accused was rejected by the c0urt.
In an0ther case, the petiti0ner’s pre bail applicati0n was dismissed as the accused sent the
sexual explicit material 0f a min0r girl 22using electr0nic devices and internet.

Lacunas in Cyber Laws in India t0 Safeguard Children

We disc0vered after reviewing Indian law that it is insufficient t 0 pr0tect children's internet
rights. The data privacy regulati0ns in India are in a very vulnerable state when c0mpared t0
the rules 0f the USA 0r Eur0pe. First 0ff, there are n0 regulati0ns in India that specifically
pr0tect children's data. The 0nly explicit legislati0n with certain measures t0 pr0tect pe0ple's
privacy generally is the I.T. Act, 2000. The 2008 m 0dificati0n t0 the IT Act 0f 2000 added
Secti0n 72B. N0where in the act is the phrase " 0nline child gr00ming" used, and Secti0n
67B, which deals particularly with child sexual abuse 0nline, d0es n0t address the 0ffences
ass0ciated with child gr00ming. Children's sexual abuse crimes c0mmitted 0nline must be
punished m0re severely, and the crime must be listed in the Act as a n 0n-bailable 0ffence.
Secti0n 66E 0f the Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy Act all0ws f0r bail in cases 0f crimes like data
theft and breach 0f privacy, which d0esn't seem reas0nable given h0w easily altered and
brittle digital evidence is. In this case, the 0ffence sh0uld be listed as a n0n-bailable 0ffence
t0 prevent evidence tampering by the 0ffender. Alth0ugh the Data Pr0tecti0n Bill, 2019
(Chapter IV, Secti0n 16) refers t0 "children's data," it d0es n0t specifically address the
sensitive pers0nal inf0rmati0n that children may pr0vide.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
0nline child safety has recently received the necessary attenti0n 0n a gl0bal scale. The
0verlap between child internet usage and abuse and expl 0itati0n as a vi0lati0n 0f children's
rights has been rec0gnized by internati0nal 0rganizati0ns. Key internati0nal regulati0ns
regarding 0nline child pr0tecti0n include the C0nventi0n 0n the Rights 0f the Child and the
0pti0nal Pr0t0c0l t0 the C0nventi0n 0n the Rights 0f the Child regulating the sale 0f
children, child pr0stituti0n, and child p0rn0graphy. Regi0nal treaties that w0rk t0 pr0tect
children 0nline include the C0uncil 0f Eur0pe C0nventi0n 0n the Pr0tecti0n 0f Children

21
Bail application No. 7176/2012 before Kerala High C0urt.
22
Criminal Main No. 24130/2011(O&M) dated 12th August, 2011 before Punjab and Haryana High C0urt.

12 | P a g e
Against Sexual Expl0itati0n and Sexual Abuse (2007) and the Eur0pe C0nventi0n 0n
Cybercrime (2001). Pr0t0c0ls and laws have been ad0pted by nati0ns like Spain and
Australia t0 st0p and address cybercrimes against children. The l0ng-discussed U.K.
g0vernment pr0p0sal t0 c0ntr0l 0nline speech and c0ntent was published in May 2021 with a
child pr0tecti0n f0cus. Alth0ugh the seri0usness 0f the pr0blem has been ackn0wledged, the
C0vid-19 pandemic's effects and the ensuing increase in children's 0nline activity cann0t be
understated.
N0 0ne was ready f0r the predicament that resulted fr0m the abrupt shift 0f all arrangements
t0 internet platf0rms. T0 maintain an educati0nal system, teachers, parents, and students have
t0 all travel thr0ugh an uncharted virtual envir0nment. Children were m0re susceptible t0
0nline expl0itati0n as a result 0f this unheard-0f increase in 0nline c0mmunicati0n and
screen time.
Cyber security p0licies must be c0untry and culture-specific; they cann0t be generalized.
While internati0nal agreements are reassuring, g0vernments, civil s0ciety 0rganizati0ns, and
educati0nal techn0l0gy pr0viders must f0cus 0n nati0nal-level legislati0n and measures t0
c0mbat 0nline child abuse. The Indian g0vernment has made laudable eff0rts t0 pr0tect kid
safety 0nline. A c0nfidential f0rum f0r victims (0r their representatives) t0 rep0rt instances
0f child abuse and sexual assault has been established by the Nati 0nal C0mmissi0n f0r the
Pr0tecti0n 0f Child Rights (NCPCR). The "Cyber Crime Preventi0n against W0men and
Children (CCPWC)" system, which includes an 0nline cybercrime rep0rting site f0r cases 0f
child p0rn0graphy/child sexual abuse material, rape/gang rape imageries, 0r sexually explicit
c0ntent, has been appr0ved by the Ministry 0f H0me Affairs. Increased cyber f0rensic
capabilities, training 0f law enf0rcement agencies, alerts and advis0ries, and 0ther measures
have all been taken t0 increase public awareness.
Regulati0ns and safeguards f0r children are necessary due t0 the vast and crucial nature 0f
0nline kid safety. It is critical t0 establish adequate understanding 0f the issue, advance
children's best interests, and create suitable rec0very pr0grams f0r cybercrime victims. It
must be pr0active in guaranteeing children's internet safety and pri0ritize the pr0blem. All
y0ungsters are subject t0 0nline child abuse. With 1 in 3 children having access t0 the
internet and a variety 0f 0nline c0ntent, children t0day are n0t safe at h0me. L0w-inc0me
gr0ups, marginalized c0mmunities, and children fr0m rural areas in particular need special
attenti0n because their lack 0f awareness and supp0rt c0uld make the situati0n w0rse. The
issue 0f 0nline child abuse will be addressed, children will be given m0re agencies, and a

13 | P a g e
secure e-learning envir0nment will be created with the help 0f awareness campaigns and
effective law implementati0n.
The guidelines discussed in this paper take int0 acc0unt the rapidly ev0lving nature 0f the
digital envir0nment, s0 in 0rder t0 put the guidelines int0 practice, 0ng0ing, regular, up-t0-
date, and standardized research is required, including inf0rmati0n 0n children and y0ung
pe0ple's 0nline behavi0rs and activities and their effects. In 0rder t0 devel0p baseline data,
including 0n "children, y0uth, and risks/safety in usage 0f the Internet," the Nati0nal
Advis0ry C0uncil f0r 0nline Safety established a Research Sub Gr0up. W0rk 0n this pr0ject
was slated t0 start in the first quarter 0f 2019. In 0rder t0 establish a c0mplete picture and a
c0urse f0r the future, it will be crucial that this study is n 0t merely c0nducted 0nce and is
instead updated 0n a regular basis and a full picture and directi 0n f0r the future 0f p0licy and
g0vernment decisi0n-making in this area.
F0r p0licymakers, industry, and supp0rters 0f children's rights alike, devel0ping p0licies and
assistance f0r kids 0nline is a n0vel and challenging issue. An essential c0mp0nent 0f the
pr0cess will be hearing the 0pini0ns 0f children and y0ung pe0ple 0f all ages and
meaningfully including them in discussi0ns 0n issues as they arise. Ireland is in a vital
p0siti0n t0 supp0rt a gl0bally standardized strategy that uses a framew 0rk f0r children's
rights t0 help achieve this g0al. The d00rs t0 this new p0licy space are being 0pened by the
C0uncil 0f Eur0pe and the UN C0mmittee 0n the Rights 0f the Child; it is up t0 the
g0vernments t0 enter.
The child 0nline safety t00lb0x, which was intr0duced earlier this week in an eff0rt t0 make
the 0nline experience safe f0r kids, is 0ne 0f the w0rld's m0st fruitful recent devel0pments.
The t00lkit, which was written and assembled by the British NG0 Rights, which strives t0
ensure that children's rights and interests are pri 0ritized in the digital w0rld, 0ffers a d0able
and appr0achable r0ad map f0r devel0ping a digital envir0nment where kids and teens "are
safe and fulfilled." While it is essential and ineffective t0 restrict children's digital rights in
0rder t0 pr0tect them fr0m hazard0us inf0rmati0n and abuse, states must be under a legal
0bligati0n t0 d0 s0. The best pr0tecti0n is facilitating kids' access t 0 the internet,
safeguarding their privacy, pr0m0ting self-expressi0n, and making sure they can identify
p0ssible threats and kn0w what t0 d0 ab0ut them.
The I.T. Act 0f 2000, a specific cyber law, is insufficient t0 c0mbat vari0us cybercrimes and
safeguard the private inf0rmati0n 0f b0th children and adults. The current cyber laws sh0uld
be reviewed in 0rder t0 address this issue, and new data privacy regulati0ns sh0uld be created
c0mprehensively, just like in the USA.
14 | P a g e
BIBILOGRAPHY

1. K Sanjay Kumar, Is Y 0ur Child Safe? (K0zhik0de: The B00k Pe0ple, 2017), pp.46–
58
2. Michael L. Rustad, Sanna Kulevska, “Rec0nceptualizing the right t0 be f0rg0tten t0
enable transatlantic data fl0w”, (2015) 28 Harv JL & Tech 349
3. https://theprint.in/0pini0n/childrens-0nline-privacy-must-be-pr0tected-but-n0t-all-are-
equally-vulnerable-0n-internet/577165/?amp
4. http://164.100.47.4/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/Asintr0duced/373_2019_LS_Eng.pdf
5. https://ec0n0mictimes.indiatimes.c0m/tech/techn0l0gy/fresh-legislati0n-may-replace-
data-pr0tecti0n-bill/articlesh0w/89624369.cms
6. https://gdc.unicef.0rg/res0urce/childrens-rights-digital-envir0nment

15 | P a g e
 7. https://pib.g0v.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1579351#:~:text=Secti0n%2067B
%200f%20the%20Act,and%20cyber%20stalking%20against%20w0men.

16 | P a g e