Marar has now filed his written submissions analysing the provisions of the two Acts. He has found that while the term “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, there is no clear cut definition of pornography, with the closest attempt in Indian law being that of obscenity under Section 292(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
To decipher the term “child pornography” as defined under the Acts, Marar has opined that a few terms are important namely:
-
visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct;
-
involving a child;
-
image indistinguishable from an actual child; or
-
appear to depict a child.
On this basis, the amicus has suggested that the offence of child pornography is not against the individual model alone, but against the entire society. It also gives emphasis to the view point of the audience, which is the society at large.
“Viewed in this perspective, it is not necessary that there need be any actual abuse of the child for the depiction of the sexual activity to constitute child pornography. Hence, the age of the child “who” or “which” (In case of digital image) is the subject matter of the visual depiction need not be brought to light by strict proof. All that is necessary is that the subject model needs to appear to depict the child,” it has been submitted.
Source: Barandbench
