BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Friday expressed shock over the state government’s submission that incidents of child pornography did not take place in the state as reported by the Centre’s report in 2018. The Union Ministry of Women and Child Development published the data in 2018 stating that 113 cases of sexual abuse of children, including child pornography, were reported in Karnataka. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the government advocate submitted that no such incidents had been reported in the state.
The division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoundar said that it was difficult to educate government officers beyond a particular level and said that it may have to summon the Director General and Inspector General of Police for the failure to register even FIRs. The bench adjourned the hearing stating that the Advocate General or Additional Advocate General should appear for the matter.
On the last date of hearing, the bench had sought a response from the state regarding allegations that the police had not registered a single FIR though 113 instances of child pornography were reported in the state in 2018, as the counsel of the petitioner—Bachpan Bachao Andolan, an NGO—submitted that the police did not register FIRs.
The counsel had also submitted that a special team comprising experts from cyber police needed to be set up to probe these cases. In the PIL, the NGO pointed out that there were 113 victims, including 87 boys and 26 girls, of child pornography in Karnataka. They are all housed in state-run homes for children.
Anti-Corruption Act amendment is not retrospective: HC
The Karnataka High Court said that the amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2018 to make investigative agencies seek sanctions from a competent authority to prosecute retired employees facing corruption charges can only be applicable prospectiv-ely and that it cannot be made applicable to cases registered before the amendment.
The court made this observation in two separate cases wherein the employees challenged proceedings initiated against them under the said Act on the grounds that the concerned agencies had not obtained the sanction to prosecute them. Dismissing a petition filed by T N Bettaswamaiah, former BBMP assistant engineer, Justice P S Dinesh Kumar said that the Supreme Court had said that Section 17-A in the Act was prospective in nature and not retrospective.