Can’t allow child porn in the name of liberty: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday voiced its concern over the menace of child pornography spreading like a cancer in society and observed that it cannot be allowed in the guise of free speech and liberty.

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, hearing a PIL relating to child pornography, asked additional solicitor-general Pinky Anand to come out with a suitable mechanism to block these websites and put an end to this menace. The bench said, “Children cannot be made prey to this kind of painful situation and a nation cannot afford to carry on any experiment with its children in the name of liberty or for that matter freedom of speech. You have to be more scientific.”

The ASG said while it agreed with the need to curb child pornography, applying a blanket ban on adult photography per se may not be feasible given the individual right to privacy and technical difficulties involved in blocking the sites. She said that putting a blanket ban on pornography was not feasible as the government presently does not have the technical expertise. She said, “These service providers are not within the jurisdiction of the country. There should be self regulation or a mandatory provision for banning the materials.”

The bench remarked, “If it is not permissible by the government of India, it is the obligation of the government to ban it. Mechanism has to be developed. You have experts. There are ways and means. How it can be done you have to see. The right to free speech, thought and expression is not “absolute” and does not extend to viewing or compelling to watch porn in a public place. What is this privacy Nobody wants to be seen online. A line has to be drawn between what is “obscenity and what is permissible.” There are those who feel that even Mona Lisa is pornography. A distinction has to be drawn between art and obscenity. It is a tough job which has to be done.”

The ASG said that it needed the court’s assistance as banning of porn sites cannot be done “directly” as it is an issue which requires international co-operation and can be done only through the Interpol.

Justice Misra said the Centre cannot say its hands are bound because there is no way to “define” what is pornography and what is art.

The bench also permitted the Supreme Court women’s lawyers association, through senior counsel Mahalakshmi Pawani, to intervene in the case. The association has also pleaded for a ban on pornography material, pleading that a number of school bus drivers / cleaners and conductors across the country have become pornography addict and are subjecting school children to sexual abuse. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on March 28.