NHRC probes Instagram ads allegedly directing users to child sexual abuse material

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has sought detailed action-taken reports from the Centre and Delhi Police over allegations that paid advertisements on Instagram were being used to direct 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 responses.

The proceedings follow media reports by the BBC World Service alleging that Instagram carried paid advertisements using search terms such as “rape video” and “child video”. According to the reports, users clicking on the advertisements were redirected to Telegram channels where CSAM was allegedly offered for sale.

The reports also claimed that the advertisements cleared Meta’s content review process and remained accessible even after being flagged through the platform’s grievance mechanism. The issue was allegedly addressed only after the BBC brought it directly to Meta’s attention.

The NHRC said that if the allegations are established, the matter could extend beyond the availability of illegal online content and involve the sexual exploitation of children, recording and circulation of abuse material, its promotion and monetisation, as well as possible organised criminal activity.

The Commission has asked the authorities to examine the allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the applicable intermediary rules.

It has also stressed the need for preservation and forensic examination of electronic evidence, identification of those involved, tracing of financial transactions and measures for the rescue, protection and rehabilitation of child victims.

MeitY has been specifically asked to explain whether Section 19 of the POCSO Act was complied with. The provision requires information about offences under the Act to be reported to the appropriate authorities.

The ministry has been asked whether, after becoming aware of the alleged offences, the matter was reported to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police.

If no such report was made, the NHRC has sought details of the officer or authority responsible and the action taken over any failure to report the alleged offence.

The Commission has also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors., which stressed prompt reporting, preservation of electronic evidence, coordinated investigation and steps to identify, rescue and protect child victims.

The NHRC noted that Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides safe-harbour protection to intermediaries subject to specified conditions, cannot by itself remove obligations imposed under the POCSO Act.

A key part of the NHRC’s proceedings concerns the extent of Meta’s involvement in creating and distributing content.

Material submitted to the Commission includes screenshots of Meta’s systems which, according to the complainant, show the platform providing suggestions on content ideas, formats, slide sequencing, captions, calls to action, posting schedules, audience engagement and monetisation.

This has led the Commission to question whether a platform that actively generates, modifies, curates, recommends, publishes, amplifies or monetises content can always be treated as a passive intermediary.

The NHRC said the answer should depend on the platform’s actual functions rather than the label attached to it. The degree of editorial involvement and control exercised over content could be relevant in determining its legal status.

The Commission has placed particular emphasis on the risks posed by recommendation systems, targeted amplification, content curation and monetisation where children and CSAM are involved.

It has referred to Rules 2(1)(q), 2(1)(s) and 2(1)(u) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which deal with online curated content, publishers and publishers of online curated content, including the concept of a “significant role”.

The MIB has been asked to examine whether Meta could fall within the regulatory framework applicable to a publisher or publisher of online curated content when its systems generate, modify, curate, recommend, publish or amplify content.

The ministry has also been asked to clarify, if applicable, Meta’s regulatory status and obligations and the action that may be required under the existing framework.

The NHRC has taken an earlier report from the Delhi Police on record but has given the Commissioner of Police a further two weeks to provide additional information.

The police have been asked to detail the action taken so far, including information sought from or received from Telegram and any further action taken on the basis of that information.

The Commission has directed MeitY, the MIB and Delhi Police, along with the concerned authorities, to submit specific, point-wise reports within two weeks. It has made clear that the responses should be supported by contemporaneous records and should not be general or omnibus replies.

The inquiry therefore extends beyond identifying those who uploaded or circulated illegal material. The NHRC is also examining whether and to what extent a platform’s own systems may have played a role in selecting, recommending, distributing, amplifying or monetising such content.

The question of whether Meta’s actual functions keep it within the role of an intermediary or bring it within the regulatory framework governing publishers and publishers of online curated content has consequently become a central issue in the proceedings.

Last month, the Centre also told Meta that safe-harbour protections would not be available to individuals or entities involved in violations concerning CSAM, government sources said. The Centre maintained that it had exercised only those powers available under the existing legal and statutory framework.