Nevertheless, while introducing knowledge of appropriate, inappropriate, and confusing interactions is a positive first step, the judgment has missed the forest for the trees. (Express Photo by Tashi Tobgyal)
ON MAY 6, THE Delhi High Court, while denying bail to an accused for alleged abetment of drugging, kidnapping, and sexually exploiting a minor, made special notice of the fact that the minor had first met the accused on a social media platform. The judgment recommends that “minors must be equipped with the knowledge and tools to navigate online interactions safely and recognise potential risks lurking in cyberspace”. It introduces the concept of “virtual touch”, drawing parallels between digital interactions and physical contact. It also suggests that this idea be introduced to young minds as part of the “good touch/bad touch” exercise, a common intervention that teaches children to discern between appropriate and inappropriate contact. The judgment is well intentioned, but closer examination reveals critical points that merit consideration.
The judgment framing teenagers as ignorant of online risks and parents, guardians, and educators as informed stewards of online safety fails to account for the disruption of technology. While very young children may rely on adults for instruction, there are several instances where teenagers are educating their elders on technology. As more and more children connect to the internet, it is not uncommon to find minors as the most digitally proficient individuals in the household.
Many children,too, prefer to turn to peers and older siblings instead of parents when faced with internet-related risks. This is not only to escape corporal consequences but also because they feel their parents may not be equipped to deal with the situation. The judgment’s parent/guardian-centric approach overlooks the formative role peers and siblings play in children’s online experiences.
Another critical aspect to pay attention to is the fact that individuals between the ages of 13 to 25 are in a developmental stage that is characterised by risk-taking behaviour.
While teenagers may possess awareness of online risks, their inclination towards risk taking behaviour cannot be discounted. Engage a group of teenagers in a discussion about the risk of online spaces — meeting strangers, sextortion, and the like — and you’ll likely find a deep and nuanced conversation unfolding. However, awareness does not always translate into cautious behaviour when faced with actual online dangers.
The disconnect between knowledge and knowledge-informed action is a crucial aspect that any safety module should hope to address. Why focus solely on teenagers when speaking of online risks? Every day, countless educated, professionally savvy adults become victims of internet fraud. Simple desires like financial gain, a new iPhone, or internet fame are manipulated by perpetrators who convince their targets to ignore their instincts. Once they fall into the trap, the threat of societal shame looms large. It’s a carrot-and-stick scenario tempting aspirations followed by the fear of disgrace. In a country like India, where both aspiration and shame hold significant sway, millions fall prey to these manipulative tactics.
Internet scamsters are fly-by-night operators doing a business of volume. But imagine a situation of abuse where the perpetrator and the victim know each other—which is in a majority of cases. There is both familiarity and physical closeness. When perpetrators are operating on sophisticated level, a simple framework like “good and bad” is not enough.
Nevertheless, while introducing knowledge of appropriate, inappropriate, and confusing interactions is a positive first step, the judgment has missed the forest for the trees. This became apparent when it asserted that the virtual space has become a breeding ground for alleged virtual affections among teenagers. Here, the judge rightly acknowledged that it is natural and biological for teenagers to seek love, relationships, and companionship in available spaces, including online spaces.
However, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)denies children the freedom to participate in normal adolescent behaviour and attaches the stigma of criminality to natural exploration. This discourages adolescents from seeking help or reporting abuse, perpetuating the same conditions of desire, shame and silence that allow perpetrators to thrive. When societal norms and laws intersect to criminalise behaviours inherent to adolescent development, it leaves children even more vulnerable to exploitation.
The law, influenced by socio-cultural mores, inadvertently places the child at greater risk, undermining the very protections it seeks to provide.
There are other critiques such as how “virtual touch” may be unwieldy terminology as the concept of touch becomes vague in online spaces. There is also the fact that response to incidents of abuse needs to be strengthened as evidenced by this case that has dragged on for over two years even as POCSO recommends that cases end in one year. Any prevention education must be backed up by a robust victim centric response system, which is currently the biggest gap that necessitates attention.
However, the primary issue with the judgment is that just like POCSO, it fails to recognise teenagers as growing, evolving individuals with their own agency and awareness, navigating the uncertainty of adolescence, and grappling with a myriad of physical, emotional, and social changes. Their online interactions are often a reflection of this journey — a space where they explore identity, seek connection and test boundaries. By failing to acknowledge teenagers as active participants in their own lives physical and virtual, the cloth from which laws are cut for Indian minors will always fall short.
The writers are co-founders and directors, Rati Foundation
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
First uploaded on: 15-05-2024 at 07:27 IST
