Abstract
The rise of digital platforms has significantly increased the vulnerability of children to online sexual exploitation (OSEC), including grooming, sextortion, circulation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and live-streamed abuse. Despite a growing legal framework, from international treaties like the UNCRC, OPSC, and Budapest Convention to domestic laws such as the POCSO Act, 2012 and the Information Technology Act, 2000, the enforcement gaps still persist. Challenges include cross-jurisdictional barriers, lack of digital evidence preservation, limited victim-sensitive procedures, and conflicts between privacy and traceability mandates.
Indian courts, such as in X v. Union of India (Delhi HC, 2022), have called for stricter intermediary accountability, while the Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to privacy in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India has complicated surveillance-based enforcement. Drawing from global best practices like Norway’s Barnahus model and South Africa’s Child Protection Register, this note underscores the importance of integrating child-friendly procedures, real-time tech regulation, and international cooperation. It argues that to effectively address OSEC, India must adopt a multi-stakeholder approach that balances child protection with constitutional safeguards.
Keywords:Online child sexual exploitation, child sexual abuse material, POCSO Act, privacy and surveillance, cross-border investigation, victim-centric justice.
The exponential growth of digital technologies has transformed child protection law across jurisdictions. While the internet has created unprecedented opportunities for education, information, and connectivity, it has also become a fertile ground for online sexual exploitation of children (OSEC). This offence includes grooming, extortion for sexually explicit content, the production and dissemination of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and live-streamed abuse. The borderless, anonymous nature of cyberspace enables perpetrators to evade conventional law enforcement mechanisms and exploit legal and jurisdictional gaps with alarming ease.
At the international level, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) obliges State Parties to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. Its Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (OPSC) further requires States to criminalise the production, possession and distribution of CSAM. Other instruments such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (2001) and the Lanzarote Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (2007) provide substantive and procedural measures for addressing OSEC, particularly through mutual legal assistance and cross-border cooperation.
Global organisations like Interpol, Europol and the WeProtect Global Alliance play an important role by maintaining international CSAM databases and coordinating transnational operations against perpetrators. Yet, significant challenges persist: not all jurisdictions have ratified these conventions; definitions of CSAM vary; and inconsistent evidentiary standards across jurisdictions create enforcement gaps that perpetrators exploit. According to the WeProtect Global Alliance Global Threat Assessment 2023, over thirty-two million reports of suspected CSAM were received by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) in 2022, underscoring the gravity of the problem.
In India, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is the primary legislation addressing sexual offences against minors, including those perpetrated online. Sections 13 to 15 of the Act criminalise the use of children for pornographic purposes and the storage or transmission of CSAM. The Act adopts a gender-neutral definition of “child” as any person below eighteen years of age and incorporates child-friendly trial procedures in line with Articles 15 and 39(e) of the Constitution.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) supplements these provisions by prohibiting the publication, transmission and browsing of obscene and sexually explicit content depicting children under Sections 66E and 67B. In 2021, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules introduced due diligence obligations for intermediaries, including the mandatory removal of CSAM within twenty-four hours of notification and the requirement to disclose the “first originator” of offending content upon lawful order.
Despite the existence of these statutes, the prevalence of OSEC in India has increased. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Crime in India Report, 2023 recorded over 13,200 cases under the POCSO Act with an online component, but conviction rates remain below forty per cent, revealing systemic weaknesses in investigation and prosecution. Law enforcement agencies frequently lack specialised training and cyber-forensic infrastructure to gather admissible evidence.
This deficiency has been highlighted in several judicial pronouncements. In Re: Prajwala Letter(Videos of Sexual Violence and Recommendations, In re, (2018) 15 SCC 551), the Supreme Court directed search engines and intermediaries to proactively identify and block CSAM, rape and gang-rape videos. In Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in State of Tamil Nadu (Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of T.N., In re, (2020) 14 SCC 327), the Court emphasised the need for robust digital monitoring mechanisms. Similarly, in Mrs. X v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2023), intermediaries were criticised for their failure to remove non-consensual intimate images of a minor, and the Court urged the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) to frame stricter compliance norms.
The conflict between privacy rights and enforcement has complicated implementation. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This landmark ruling has triggered debates over whether traceability mandates in the IT Rules, 2021 violate constitutional protections. Striking a balance between the imperatives of privacy and the protection of children online remains a contentious policy question.
Globally, emerging forms of exploitation pose additional challenges. Live-streamed sexual abuse, often conducted in real time across multiple jurisdictions, creates serious evidentiary difficulties because the material is rarely stored. The prosecution of a transnational network in Philippines v. Matthew David (2022) revealed the complexities involved in coordinating investigations across jurisdictions where evidence and suspects are dispersed. Comparative experiences, however, offer solutions. Norway’s Barnahus (Children’s House) model integrates investigation, therapy, and judicial processes in a single child-friendly facility, reducing the risk of secondary victimisation. South Africa’s National Child Protection Register helps prevent known offenders from working in roles involving children. These approaches underscore the importance of integrating victim support with criminal justice processes.
Victim protection and rehabilitation remain one of the weakest areas in both global and national responses to OSEC. Survivors often face stigma, psychological trauma, and re-victimisation due to the permanent circulation of CSAM. Although the POCSO Act provides for in-camera trials and victim compensation, access to long-term counselling and rehabilitative services is scarce, particularly in rural areas. The ECPAT International Legal Analysis Report, 2023, found that fewer than half of the world’s jurisdictions offer comprehensive services for survivors, and many lack systems for swift removal of CSAM from circulation, even after convictions.
A multi-pronged strategy is necessary to address these challenges. At the international level, States must ratify and implement instruments like the OPSC and Budapest Convention to harmonise definitions, penalties and extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions. Mutual legal assistance treaties and intelligence-sharing mechanisms should be strengthened to dismantle cross-border CSAM networks. Domestically, India must invest in building cyber-forensic capabilities and specialised training for police and judiciary. Dedicated Cyber Child Protection Units at the state level could help streamline investigations. Intermediaries should be subjected to legally binding obligations to proactively detect and remove CSAM using advanced technologies such as hash-matching databases and artificial intelligence, coupled with independent audits and penalties for non-compliance.
Equally crucial is victim-centric support. The justice system must prioritise rehabilitation by establishing trauma-informed counselling, dedicated shelters and rehabilitative funds for child survivors. Public awareness campaigns aimed at children, parents and educators can help reduce underreporting by familiarising them with grooming tactics and reporting mechanisms. Finally, greater collaboration among government agencies, civil society organisations, international bodies and the technology sector is essential to ensure that the constitutional guarantee of protection for children is realised in the digital era.
The phenomenon of OSEC is a grave violation of the rights of children. Although both international and domestic legal frameworks have evolved significantly, gaps in enforcement, victim protection and transnational cooperation undermine their effectiveness. Indian law, strengthened by progressive statutes like the POCSO Act and the IT Act, still struggles with institutional weaknesses and low conviction rates. A holistic approach that combines robust laws, institutional strengthening, technological innovation, and child-centred support is required to create a safer online environment for children. Only through coordinated action at the global, national and sub-national levels can the digital space be secured and the dignity and safety of children fully safeguarded.
References
- Quayle, E., &Ribisl, K. M. (2013). Understanding and preventing online sexual exploitation of children. In Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203127766
- James, A., & James, A. (2012). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). In SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks (pp. 130–132). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526435613.n59
- Clough, J. (2014). A world of Difference: The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and the Challenges of harmonisation. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2615789
- Atabekova, N. A., & Filippov, V. (2018). Legislation Response to Use of Minors’ Self-generated Sexual Content for their ICT-facilitated Sexual Coercion. EUROPEAN RESEARCH STUDIES JOURNAL, XXI(Issue 4), 763–772. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/1244
- Singh, R. D. (2018). Mapping online child safety in Asia and the Pacific. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 5(3), 651–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.247
- Zenor, J. (2014). Sins of the Flesh? Obscenity law in the era of virtual reality. Communication Law and Policy, 19(4), 563–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2014.955778
- Ashwini, S. (2021). Social Media Platform Regulation in India – A Special reference to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. In Nomos VerlagsgesellschaftmbH& Co. KG eBooks (pp. 215–232). https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748929789-215
- National Crime Records Bureau. (2024). Crime in India 2023: Statistics (Vol. 1 & 2). Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Retrieved from https://ncrb.gov.in
- Arunima. (2023, May 3). [Non-consensual distribution of intimate images] Delhi HC directs MeitY and Delhi Police to deal with cases | SCC Blog. SCC Times. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/04/29/delhi-high-court-issues-directions-to-meity-delhi-police-to-deal-with-cases-relating-to-non-consensual-intimate-images-dissermination/
- Supreme Court Observer. (2025, July 16). Fundamental right to privacy – Supreme Court observer. https://www.scobserver.in/cases/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-fundamental-right-to-privacy-case-background/
- Sahrc. (2025, May 8). Media Statement: SAHRC statement on the CWECWE matter and the urgent need for systemic child protection reform. https://www.sahrc.org.za/index.php/sahrc-media/news-2/item/4291-sahrc-statement-on-the-cwecwe-matter-and-the-urgent-need-for-systemic-child-protection-reform
- Liefaard, T. (2019). Access to Justice for Children: towards a specific research and implementation agenda. The International Journal of Children S Rights, 27(2), 195–227. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02702002
Author Name- KRITA SHARMA, INSTITUTE: Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS) New Delhi
