NHRC flags ads on Meta over promoting child abuse content

The NHRC has taken cognisance of reports alleging that paid advertisements displayed on a social media platform, owned and operated by Meta, promoted or facilitated access to child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in India, officials said on Thursday.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has sought specific, point-wise reports within two weeks from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Delhi Police Commissioner, according to the proceedings of the case dated September 3.

“MeitY shall specifically confirm compliance with Section 19 of the POCSO Act, 2012, or, in case of non-reporting, state the reasons and identify the responsible officer/authority. The above issue shall not be left to a general or omnibus response on intermediary compliance and shall be answered specifically, supported by contemporaneous records,” the proceedings said. There was no immediate response from Meta Platforms.

“The Commission took cognisance of media reports published by the BBC World Service, alleging that paid advertisements displayed on Instagram, owned and operated by Meta Platforms Inc., promoted or facilitated access to child sexual abuse material in India,” the proceedings said.

The reported advertisements allegedly employed expressions such as “rape video” and “child video” and redirected users to channels on a messenger service where such material (CSAM/CSEA) was allegedly being offered for sale, they said.

CSEA refers to child sexual exploitation and abuse.

It was also reported that the advertisements had “passed through Meta’s review mechanism and remained accessible” despite being reported through its grievance mechanism, until specifically brought to Meta’s notice by the BBC.

“The allegations, if established, raise grave concerns of online child sexual exploitation, circulation and monetisation of CSAM/CSEAM, possible organised criminal activity, and failures in intermediary due diligence, advertisement review, content moderation and child-safety mechanisms,” the proceedings said.

The complainant in the case is Namo Foundation.

The matter warrants examination under the POCSO Act, 2012, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the applicable intermediary framework, including preservation and forensic scrutiny of electronic evidence; identification of advertisers, publishers, beneficiaries and other persons involved; tracing of financial trails; identification, rescue and rehabilitation of child victims; and determination of responsibility of the concerned intermediaries and their officers, the proceedings said.

The Commission observed that Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, mandates reporting of known or apprehended offences to the special juvenile police unit or local police.

In matters involving suspected child sexual exploitation or circulation or commercial exploitation of such material, this statutory obligation cannot be substituted by internal correspondence, grievance redressal or regulatory engagement. Section 20 further prescribes specific reporting obligations, and the Act provides consequences for non-reporting, the proceedings said.

“The Commission also takes note of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr vs S Harish & Ors case, emphasising prompt reporting, preservation of electronic evidence, coordinated investigation, identification and rescue of child victims, and statutory compliance.

The top court clarified that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, does not, by itself, absolve non-compliance with obligations under the POCSO Act and rules, the Commission said in its proceedings.

Accordingly, it “requires examination whether Meta and other concerned persons discharged the applicable reporting obligations and took timely steps” for the preservation of evidence, reporting to law-enforcement authorities, and identification, rescue, protection and rehabilitation of child victims, it said.

In view of the foregoing, the secretary in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology is directed to cause the matter to be examined and furnish a specific and point-wise action taken report, the NHRC said.

In its direction to the I&B secretary, the rights panel asked “whether, where Meta itself generates, modifies, curates, recommends, publishes or amplifies content through its AI/algorithmic systems, it falls within the regulatory purview of the ministry as a publisher/publisher of online curated content under the IT Rules, 2021”, and if so, the regulatory status and obligations applicable to Meta and the role or action required to be undertaken by the ministry under the existing regulatory framework.

To the Delhi Police, the NHRC said the report submitted by it pursuant to an earlier notice of the Commission is taken on record.

“The Commissioner of Police, Delhi, is granted a further period of two weeks to furnish the additional information/details sought and submit an updated action taken report, specifically indicating the action taken in the matter and the information sought/received from Telegram, if any, along with consequential action taken thereon,” the proceedings said.