Online Child Abuse Material: SC Orders Hash Database

Child Abuse Material Online: Supreme Court Orders National Hash Database, Two-Hour Reporting by Social Media Platforms

Published: 17 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

Two years after its Just Rights judgment, the Supreme Court found 'no progress worth the name' in curbing child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) online and laid down a framework: a National Hash & URL List Database, immediate removal of known material, reporting within two hours, trained grievance officers, forfeiture of paywall revenue and exemplary fines. It also held internet access a fundamental right (paras 11, 292, 316).

Key holdings

A National Hash & URL List Database of verified CSEAM is to be created by the Union (para 316).

Known CSEAM must be removed immediately; other CSEAM reported within two hours of removal (para 316).

Every platform needs a clear CSEAM reporting option within two steps and trained grievance officers (para 316).

Revenue from CSEAM behind paywalls should be forfeited, and exemplary fines considered (para 316).

Access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) (para 292).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

In its judgment of 23.09.2024 in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024 INSC 716), the Court had noted an alarming rise in CSEAM on social media and directed intermediaries to report such material to the Special Juvenile Police Unit under the POCSO Act, warning that failure would cost them 'safe harbour' under Section 79 of the IT Act (paras 2-8). By an order of 14.08.2026 it flagged serious lapses in compliance (para 2). In these applications, news reports of paid promotions of CSEAM on platforms through redirect links were placed before it, and it heard the Solicitor General for the Union of India (paras 1, 12).

Court's Findings

Finding that more than two years after its judgment there had been 'no progress worth the name', the Court said it was left with no choice but to put a workable framework in place (paras 11, 15-17). The Union must frame guidelines for perceptual hash-matching and URL listing by significant social media intermediaries and create a National Hash & URL List Database, within the Sahyog Portal or standalone, each entry verified by at least three trained human analysts (para 316, items 1-2). Matches with known material must be removed at once; other material must be verified, removed and reported within two hours, with known-origin removals reported weekly (items 2G-2H, 5-6). Removals must carry a notice and have a grievance route (items 3-4). Platforms must offer a clearly labelled CSEAM reporting option within two steps, trained grievance officers, acknowledgment within 24 hours and monthly compliance reports (items 7-9). The Court called for exemplary fines and disgorgement of paywall revenue (item 10). It also held that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), which children too enjoy (paras 286-292).

Legal Principle

Social media intermediaries must actively detect and remove child sexual abuse material, remove known material on a hash or URL match without delay, report removals to the proper authorities within prescribed timelines and run accountable, human-reviewed grievance mechanisms; internet access remains a fundamental right of every person, including children (paras 292, 316).

Precedents Relied Upon

Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. 2024 INSC 716
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 2, 7-8
Social media intermediaries must report child sexual exploitation and abuse material to the authorities specified under the POCSO Act; failure to do so strips them of safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act.
Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 287
Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to know and to receive and impart information and ideas.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 289-290
Freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to carry on trade or business through the internet are constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

View all precedents (5)

Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India 2025 INSC 599
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 291
The right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21, and the State must design inclusive digital ecosystems.
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 311
Its emphasis, endorsed in Just Rights, on measures such as sex education and support for children was recalled in asking the Union what steps it had taken.