Rights Panel Seeks Explanation Over Instagram Ads Linked To Child Abuse Material

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has sought detailed responses from the Centre and Delhi Police over allegations.

That paid advertisements on Instagram were being used to facilitate access to Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM).

A bench headed by NHRC member Priyank Kanoongo has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and Delhi Police to submit point-wise Action Taken Reports within two weeks.

The proceedings follow media reports alleging that Instagram advertisements containing search terms such as “rape video” and “child video” directed users to Telegram channels where illegal material was allegedly being sold.

According to the reports, some of the advertisements reportedly passed Meta’s content-review systems and remained available even after being flagged through the platform’s grievance mechanism.

NHRC Seeks POCSO Compliance Details

The NHRC said that if the allegations are established, the matter could involve far more than the circulation of objectionable online content. It could potentially involve the sexual exploitation of children, recording and distribution of abusive material, its promotion and monetisation, as well as organised criminal activity.

The Commission has sought information on possible violations of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the applicable intermediary rules.

MeitY has specifically been asked whether the alleged offences were reported under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, which mandates reporting of offences involving children.

The ministry has also been asked to clarify whether the matter was brought before the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police after the alleged offences came to light. If no report was made, MeitY must identify the officer or authority responsible and detail the action taken over any failure to report.

The NHRC 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 and coordinated efforts to identify, rescue and protect child victims.

The Commission noted that the intermediary protection under Section 79 of the IT Act does not, by itself, remove obligations imposed under the POCSO Act.

NHRC Questions Meta’s Role

One of the key issues raised by the Commission concerns whether Meta’s role can always be treated as that of a passive intermediary when its own systems are involved in shaping and promoting content.

The material before the NHRC reportedly includes screenshots showing Meta systems 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 could fall within a different legal category from a conventional intermediary.

The NHRC said the assessment should be based on the platform’s actual functions, involvement and degree of control rather than simply the label assigned to it.

It has given particular importance to the risks associated with content recommendation, targeted amplification and monetisation when children and CSAM are involved.

MIB Asked To Examine IT Rules

The Commission has directed attention 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.

The MIB has been asked to examine whether Meta’s involvement in generating, modifying, curating, recommending, publishing or amplifying content could bring the company within the regulatory framework applicable to a publisher or publisher of online curated content.

The ministry must also clarify, if applicable, Meta’s regulatory status and obligations and specify what action may be required under the existing framework.

Delhi Police Asked For Fresh Details

The NHRC has also sought additional information from Delhi Police, taking its earlier report on record while granting the Commissioner of Police another two weeks to provide details.

The police have been asked to explain the action taken so far, including information sought from or received from Telegram and any subsequent action based on that information.

The NHRC has directed MeitY, MIB and Delhi Police to submit specific, point-wise reports backed by contemporaneous records rather than general responses.

The proceedings could have wider implications for digital-platform accountability. The NHRC’s inquiry is examining not only who uploaded or distributed illegal material, but also whether a platform’s own systems played a role in selecting, recommending, amplifying or monetising such content—and whether that involvement could affect its legal status under India’s technology and digital-media regulations.