SC gives Centre last chance to file CSEAM action report on social media
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has run out of patience — calling the CSEAM reporting lapse 'extremely serious' and granting the Centre one final chance to prove it has acted on a year-old judgment. With Instagram's alleged role in promoting such material in the backdrop, and a draft SOP now demanded before October 15, the pressure on MeitY and the Law Ministry is at its highest point yet.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court on 24 September 2026 gave the Centre a 'last opportunity' to file its counter affidavit and action-taken report on CSEAM reporting by social media intermediaries.
MeitY and the Ministry of Law and Justice had failed to comply despite a prior court order dated 14 August 2026 .
Nataraj told the court that notice had been issued and proceedings initiated against one unnamed company.
The Centre must circulate a draft SOP for CSEAM cases at least 4–5 days before the next hearing.
The matter will next be heard on 15 October 2026 .
The case stems from the Supreme Court's September 2024 ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance vs.
S Harish , mandating CSEAM reporting under POCSO and the IT Act .
The Supreme Court on Thursday, 24 September 2026, granted the Centre a 'last opportunity' to file its counter affidavit and action-taken report on steps taken to enforce mandatory reporting of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) by social media intermediaries. The bench expressed serious concern that despite an earlier order dated 14 August 2026, neither the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) nor the Ministry of Law and Justice had placed any counter affidavit or report on record.
What the Court Said
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, hearing an application seeking implementation of its landmark judgment in the Just Rights for Children Alliance vs. S Harish case, pulled up the government in unambiguous terms. 'Unfortunately, till this date, no such counter or report has come on record. The matter before us is extremely serious. We grant one last opportunity to both the ministries to file that counter/report,' the court stated.
The bench directed the Centre to detail the steps taken to implement directions issued in the 2024 judgment and to curb circulation of CSEAM. It further directed that the report should outline precautions proposed by the government to prevent future lapses by social media intermediaries.
Centre's Response
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, assured the court that the government was treating the issue with urgency. 'We are taking the matter very seriously. In the case of one of the companies, we have already issued notice and initiated proceedings,' ASG Nataraj submitted before the bench.
The government did not name the specific company against which proceedings had been initiated, but the assurance was noted by the court.
SOP Deadline and Next Hearing
The Supreme Court additionally directed the Centre to serve a draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling CSEAM cases at least four to five days before the next hearing, giving the petitioner sufficient time to submit comments and suggestions. The matter is next listed for 15 October 2026.
Background: The 2024 Judgment and the JRCA Application
The proceedings stem from an application by Just Rights for Children Alliance (JRCA) seeking effective enforcement of the apex court's September 2024 ruling, which held that social media intermediaries must comply with mandatory reporting obligations under Sections 19 to 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules. The 2024 judgment also addressed safe-harbour protections under Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, clarifying that non-compliance with reporting duties could jeopardise an intermediary's immunity from liability.
The JRCA application sought a uniform SOP for detection and mandatory reporting of CSEAM, preservation of evidence, coordination among agencies, prompt uploading of offenders' details to the National Database of Sexual Offenders, and criminal proceedings against intermediaries that fail to report. The application was triggered, in part, by a media report alleging that Instagram carried paid advertisements promoting CSEAM — raising pointed questions about platform compliance with the court's earlier directions.
With the next hearing scheduled for 15 October, the Centre faces a firm deadline to demonstrate concrete action, failing which the court's patience — already stretched — may translate into stronger enforcement measures.
Point of View
Both MeitY and the Law Ministry have yet to file even a basic compliance report. The Centre's assurance that proceedings have been initiated against 'one company' is thin comfort given the scale of CSEAM circulation across multiple platforms. The absence of a uniform SOP this late in the process reveals a structural gap: India has a judicial mandate on child protection online but no operational architecture to enforce it. October 15 is now a credibility test, not just a procedural deadline.
NationPress
24 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CSEAM and why is the Supreme Court hearing this case?
CSEAM stands for Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material. The Supreme Court is monitoring compliance with its September 2024 judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance vs. S Harish, which directed social media intermediaries to mandatorily report CSEAM to law-enforcement agencies under the POCSO Act and the IT Act.
Why did the Supreme Court grant the Centre a 'last opportunity'?
Despite a prior court order dated 14 August 2026, neither MeitY nor the Ministry of Law and Justice had filed a counter affidavit or action-taken report. The bench called the non-compliance 'unfortunate' given the extreme seriousness of the subject matter.
What has the Centre said in response?
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj told the court that the government is 'taking the matter very seriously' and that notice has been issued and proceedings initiated against one company, though the company was not named.
What is the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) the court has asked for?
The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to draft an SOP covering detection, mandatory reporting of CSEAM, evidence preservation, and inter-agency coordination. The draft must be shared with the petitioner at least four to five days before the 15 October 2026 hearing.
What triggered the JRCA application that led to these proceedings?
Just Rights for Children Alliance filed the application after a media report alleged that Instagram carried paid advertisements promoting CSEAM. The application sought criminal proceedings against non-compliant intermediaries and prompt uploading of offenders' details to the National Database of Sexual Offenders.
