A Landmark Without a Rulebook: Two Years On, the CSEAM Judgment Still Has No Enforcement Plan

Law Declared, Law Unexecuted: The Two-Year Gap After the CSEAM Judgment Article 141 of the

Constitution makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts. Article 144 goes further: all authorities, civil and judicial, must act in aid of the Supreme Court. The text is clear that the executive must help give effect to the Court's rulings. In practice, two years after one of the Court's most important child-protection judgments, the executive has not even filed a report on what it has done.

What the Court Declared in 2024 In **Just Rights for Children

Alliance v. S. Harish**, the Court corrected a Madras High Court ruling that simply storing child sexual abuse material, without intent to share it, was no offence. It made three changes to the law:

• Possession was widened. Section 15 of POCSO covers "constructive possession", so viewing material online counts even if nothing is downloaded.
• Failing to act became the offence. Section 15(1) punishes a person who does not delete, destroy or report such material.
• The language changed. The Court asked Parliament to replace "child pornography" with CSEAM, because children cannot consent and told courts to stop using the old term. It also said that intermediaries must remove and report such material if they want to keep their Section 79 safe-harbour immunity.

Why the Judgment Cannot Enforce Itself

A ruling can say what the law is. It cannot run a platform's moderation system. Three gaps explain why the Court is still policing its own judgment. First, the rules are softer than the ruling. Rule 4(4) of the IT Rules, 2021 asks large platforms only to "endeavour" to use automated tools to detect child abuse content.

That is a best-efforts duty, not a binding one. Second, safe-harbour law is not settled. In Shreya Singhal (2015), the Court read Section 79 to mean that intermediaries act on court or government orders, not on their own judgment of what is unlawful.

The 2024 ruling expects platforms to remove and report CSEAM themselves. Nothing yet reconciles the two positions and only an SOP from the Ministry could. Third, there is no named authority. Without an SOP, no one is clearly responsible for setting takedown timelines, the reporting channel to police, the use of known-content matching or penalties for platforms that fail to comply.

Why "One Last Opportunity" Matters The

Court's language is deliberate. It has asked two ministries, not one: MeitY for platform regulation and the Law Ministry for any legislative change, including the CSEAM terminology. It has also asked them to state "in so many words" how future lapses by intermediaries will be prevented. That is a court under Article 144 asking the executive to do its part. It is not overreach.

For the exam: this case shows how the Supreme Court declares the law under Article 141, but the executive's duty to act on it under Article 144 has no deadline. Until the SOP exists, protecting children online depends on the Court continuing to monitor compliance.