a landmark ruling, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed criminal proceedings against a man accused of watching pornographic content, clarifying that merely viewing such material does not constitute an offense under Section 678 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. The judgment, delivered by Justice M. Nagaprasanna in Criminal Petition No. 13141 of 2023, offers crucial clarity on the law.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Inayathulla N., a 46-year-old resident of Hosakote, Bengaluru, was accused of viewing child pornographic material on March 23, 2022. The incident was flagged by a cyber tipline, which traced the IP address to Inayathulla's mobile number and eventually to his home address. A formal complaint was registered on May 3, 2023, leading to criminal proceedings under Section 678 of the IT Act.
Legal Issues Involved
The central legal question was whether watching pornographic material, particularly child pornography, falls under Section 678 of the IT Act. This section penalizes the publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit acts. The petitioner's counsel, Sri S. Jagan Babu, argued that the section was inapplicable as Inayathulla did not publish or transmit any content but merely viewed it.
Court's Decision
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after considering arguments from both sides, concluded that the allegations did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 678 of the IT Act. The court noted that the section specifically targets individuals who publish or transmit such material, not those who merely view it.
"The allegation against the petitioner is that he has watched a pornographic website. This, in the considered view of the Court, would not become publishing or transmitting of material, as is necessary under Section 678 of the IT Act," stated Justice Nagaprasanna.
The court further referenced the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, which outlines circumstances where the court's extraordinary powers can be used to prevent abuse of the legal process. The court noted that even if the allegations were true, they did not constitute an offense under the IT Act.
Important Observations
Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that Section 678 targets the dissemination of explicit material involving children. "At best, as contended, the petitioner could be a porn addict, who has watched pornographic material. Nothing beyond this is alleged against the petitioner. If the facts are pitted against the ingredients necessary to drive home Section 678 of the IT Act, what would unmistakably emerge is, further proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued, as it would become an abuse of process of law," the court observed.
This ruling highlights the distinction between viewing and disseminating explicit content under the IT Act, reinforcing the need for precise application of legal provisions.
