The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has sought detailed reports from the Centre and Delhi Police following allegations that paid advertisements on Instagram were directing users towards child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
A bench headed by NHRC member Priyank Kanoongo has given the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and the Delhi Police two weeks to submit point-wise reports on the matter.
The proceedings were initiated following media reports by the BBC World Service, which alleged that paid advertisements on Instagram appeared in response to searches involving terms such as “rape video” and “child video”. The reports claimed that users who clicked on the advertisements were allegedly redirected to Telegram channels where CSAM was being offered for sale.
According to the reports, some of the advertisements had passed Meta’s content review system and allegedly remained available even after being flagged through Instagram’s grievance process. The issue was reportedly acted upon after the BBC raised the matter directly with Meta.
The NHRC said that, if established, the allegations could involve serious violations beyond the circulation of illegal online material. These could include the sexual exploitation of children, recording and distribution of abuse material, promotion and monetisation of such content, and possible organised criminal activity.
The Commission has asked the concerned authorities to examine the allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and relevant intermediary rules.
The NHRC has also stressed the importance of preserving electronic evidence and conducting forensic examinations. Authorities have been asked to identify those involved, trace financial transactions and take appropriate steps for the rescue, protection and rehabilitation of child victims.
MeitY has specifically been asked to clarify whether the requirements of Section 19 of the POCSO Act were followed. The provision deals with reporting information about offences under the Act to the appropriate authorities.
The ministry has been asked whether the alleged offences were reported to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police after the authorities became aware of them. If no report was made, the NHRC has sought information about the official responsible and any action taken for the alleged failure to report.
The Commission has also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors., which emphasised timely reporting, preservation of digital evidence, coordinated investigations and measures to identify and protect child victims.
The NHRC further observed that the safe-harbour provisions under Section 79 of the IT Act do not automatically override obligations imposed under the POCSO Act.
Another major issue being examined is Meta’s potential role in the creation, distribution and promotion of content. Material submitted to the Commission reportedly includes screenshots of Meta’s systems that, according to the complainant, show features offering suggestions related to content ideas, formats, captions, calls to action, posting schedules, audience engagement and monetisation.
The Commission has therefore questioned whether a platform that actively generates, modifies, curates, recommends, publishes, amplifies or monetises content can always be considered a passive intermediary.
According to the NHRC, the legal position may depend on the actual functions performed by a platform rather than simply the label assigned to it. The extent of editorial involvement and control exercised over content could also be relevant.
The Commission has highlighted particular concerns over recommendation algorithms, targeted amplification, content curation and monetisation when children and CSAM are involved.
The MIB has been asked to examine whether Meta’s activities could bring it within the regulatory framework applicable to publishers or publishers of online curated content under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
The Delhi Police has also been directed to provide additional information. The Commission has already taken an earlier police report on record but has sought further details on the investigation, including any information requested from or received from Telegram and subsequent action taken on that material.
MeitY, the MIB and Delhi Police have been instructed to submit specific, point-wise reports within two weeks. The NHRC has said that the responses should be supported by relevant records and should not be limited to general statements.
The inquiry is therefore examining not only those allegedly responsible for uploading or distributing illegal material but also the role that platform systems may have played in recommending, promoting, distributing, amplifying or monetising such content.
A central question before the Commission is whether Meta’s actual functions in such cases remain within the role of an intermediary or could bring the platform under regulatory provisions applicable to publishers and online curated content.
The development comes amid increased scrutiny of social media platforms over the spread of CSAM and the responsibilities of technology companies in preventing the circulation and monetisation of such material. The Centre had also recently indicated that safe-harbour protections would not extend to entities or individuals involved in violations concerning CSAM.