The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), and Delhi Police to submit specific, point-wise Action Taken Reports (ATRs) over allegations that paid advertisements on Instagram promoted Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) in India and redirected users to Telegram channels where such content was allegedly being sold. The directions were issued on 3 September after the Commission considered a complaint and a supplementary representation in the matter.

Background and Suo Motu Action

An NHRC Bench presided over by Member Priyank Kanoongo had earlier taken suo motu cognisance of media reports by the BBC World Service alleging that paid Instagram advertisements used phrases such as 'rape video' and 'child video' to redirect users to Telegram channels where such material was allegedly offered for sale. The Commission had initially sought an ATR from Delhi Police and, after the report was not submitted within the stipulated period, issued summons to the Delhi Police Commissioner, directing personal appearance before the body on 7 September. That appearance was subsequently made conditional on receipt of the requisite report by 31 August.

Key Directions Issued

In its latest order, the NHRC stated that 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 Commission said the matter warrants examination under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the applicable intermediary framework — including preservation and forensic scrutiny of electronic evidence, identification of advertisers and beneficiaries, tracing of financial trails, and identification, rescue, and rehabilitation of child victims.

The NHRC specifically cited Section 19 of the POCSO Act, which mandates reporting of known or apprehended offences to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police, observing that the statutory obligation 'cannot be substituted by internal correspondence, grievance redressal or regulatory engagement.' It also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. vs. S. Harish & Ors, which clarified that Section 79 of the IT Act does not, by itself, absolve intermediaries of their obligations under the POCSO Act.

The AI and Regulatory Classification Question

A supplementary representation from the Network for Access to Justice and Multidisciplinary Outreach Foundation drew the Commission's attention to Meta's response to MeitY and raised questions about the changing role of digital platforms. According to the representation, Meta's AI-enabled tools were reportedly capable of suggesting content ideas, formats, slide sequencing, captions, calls-to-action, posting schedules, audience engagement strategies, and monetisation methods. The complainant organisation claimed that when the tool was tested in relation to a recent student-related issue, including a NEET-related matter, it suggested a structured content strategy for Instagram and Facebook.

The NHRC said these assertions raise a 'distinct regulatory question' as to whether a platform's legal position requires separate examination where its own systems move beyond mere hosting or transmission and participate in the generation, modification, curation, recommendation, amplification, or commercialisation of content. It noted that such determination must depend upon 'the actual function performed, degree of platform involvement/control and applicable law, rather than the mere availability of technological tools.'

The Commission has directed MeitY to state whether the Centre, upon acquiring knowledge of the allegations, reported the matter to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police under Section 19 of the POCSO Act — and, if not, to identify the responsible officer and indicate action taken for any failure to report, including under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. MIB has separately been asked to examine whether Meta, where its AI or algorithmic systems generate, modify, curate, recommend, publish, or amplify content, falls within the regulatory purview of the Ministry as a publisher or publisher of online curated content under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Delhi Police Granted Two-Week Extension

The Delhi Police Commissioner has been granted a further two weeks to furnish an updated ATR, specifically indicating the action taken and the information sought or received from Telegram, along with consequential action. MeitY, MIB, and Delhi Police have all been directed to submit their respective point-wise reports within the same two-week window.

What the NHRC Emphasised

The apex human rights body underscored that the matter is 'not merely about objectionable online content' but concerns the alleged commission of sexual offences against a child, their recording, circulation, promotion, and monetisation through paid advertisements. It stated that 'behind such material is a child victim whose identification, rescue, protection and rehabilitation must remain paramount.' The Commission's directions signal a potential reclassification of AI-active platforms under Indian law — a question that could reshape how Meta and similar companies are regulated in India.