This blog examines the escalating crisis of technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and abuse (TFCSEA) in India. It identifies three distinct modalities of such abuse: offline abuse that is recorded and used for extortion; online grooming that leads to offline abuse; and purely digital abuse through extortion or virtual harassment. India’s existing legislative framework remains ill-equipped to address these digital-first offences. Systemic barriers, including poor understanding of TFCSEA, weak reporting and redressal mechanisms, and inadequate enforcement of existing child protection mechanisms, further exacerbate this issue. The current legal and institutional response does not prevent, detect, or redress TFCSEA effectively, thereby violating victims’ fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. There is an evident need to strengthen India’s child protection framework to reflect contemporary realities. Without legal reform and a decisive shift in societal attitudes towards TFCSEA, this will remain an unregulated frontier of harm.
On June 9, 2025, Andhra Pradesh police arrested seventeen individuals for the alleged gangrape of a 15-year-old girl. According to reports, one of the accused captured images of the victim on his phone without her consent. He then coerced her into performing sexual acts with him, threatening violence and public distribution of her photographs. The perpetrator along with his acquaintances filmed the assault, and used the recordings to threaten and exploit the victim for two years.[1]
This case is one among many recent instances where digital tools have been weaponised to facilitate and prolong sexual exploitation. The rise of technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and abuse (TFCSEA) is particularly concerning. TFCSEA refers to criminal activities, such as that in the Andhra Pradesh case, that use digital technologies to sexually abuse or exploit children.[2]
TFCSEA operates through three distinct modalities. In one form, the abuse occurs offline. The perpetrator records the abuse and uses the recording to extort sexual favours or distribute it without the victim’s consent. Another form of TFCSEA begins online, wherein, the offender extorts the victim or builds trust with the victim to arrange an offline meeting to gain sexual favours. The second form of TFCSEA often involves some element of ‘grooming’. ‘Grooming’ refers to the process of befriending a young person online to establish sexual contact or arrange a physical meeting with the goal of committing sexual abuse.[3] A third form of TFCSEA is confined to digital spaces without any physical contact. Here, perpetrators may extort favours based on a victim’s digital footprint or groom the victim to harass them virtually.
Addressing TFCSEA is challenging due to legislative and structural deficiencies within India’s child protection framework. Laws such as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”) are not well-adapted to address digital-first offences. POCSO was enacted to address contact-based child sexual abuse at a time when TFCSEA was not as prevalent. Despite amendments recognising child pornography related offences,[4] the act fails to provide sufficient redressal for TFCSEA. For instance, the Act does not address the full spectrum of ‘grooming’. It lacks provisions targeting building trust with a minor online, manipulating that trust to facilitate sexual abuse, or arranging offline meetings. It also overlooks the use of morphing tools to extort sexual favours. Notably, the Supreme Court has recognised POCSO’s blind spots in addressing TFCSEA and directed the Union government to establish an expert committee to review the legislation.[5]
Until these reforms are introduced, victims of TFCSEA are forced to piece together loosely related provisions to seek redressal. When they do patch the legislative gaps, redressal is hindered by poor institutional coordination. Cybercrime units, local police, and child protection services often operate with limited collaboration. Complaints are frequently delayed, mishandled, or lost.[6]
The legislative gap is compounded by systemic barriers. TFCSEA remains poorly understood.[7] It is tough identify and report TFCSEA.[8] Victims often face re-traumatisation while seeking redressal and drop the proceedings.[9] POCSO envisions specific guardrails to protect children during the adjudication process such as, special courts, Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres, and designated support persons.[10] However, implementation of these safeguards is rare and under-funded.[11]
India’s current child protection system is inadequate in addressing TFCSEA. The failure to prevent, detect, or redress TFCSEA is violative of victim’s fundamental right to protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. POCSO must be updated to reflect today’s realities, and its implementation urgently strengthened. Without legal reform and a shift in societal attitudes towards TFCSEA, it will remain an unchecked frontier of harm.
[1] Janyala. Sreenivas, "Behind Rape of Minor Dalit Girl by 14 Men for 2 Years: Failure of Systems Meant to Protect Someone Like Her," The Indian Express, June 20, 2025, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/behind-rape-of-minor-dalit-girl-by-14-men-for-2-years-failure-of-systems-meant-to-protect-someone-like-her-10077100/lite/.
[2] Shekhawat. Gazal, Didem Özkul "The Many Faces of Online Scams: Four Key Deceptions Targeted at Children," London School of Economics, February 10, 2025 https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/127699/1/medialse_2025_2_10_the-many-faces-of-online-scams-four-key-deceptions-targeted-at-children.pdf.
[3] UNICEF. 2012. “Child Safety Online Global challenges and strategies Technical Report.” https://www.unicef.org/media/66821/file/Child-Safety-Online.pdf.
[4] Ministry of Law and Justice, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, No. 25 of 2019 (New Delhi: Government of India, August 5, 2019), https://missionvatsalya.wcd.gov.in/public/pdf/children-relatedlaw/Protection%20of%20Children%20From%20Sexual%20Offences%20(Amendment)%20Act,%202019.pdf
[5] Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2611
[6] Babu. Nalla, “Lack of Support, Manpower and Coordination Hampers Cybercrime Probes” The Times of India, January 18, 2024, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/visakhapatnam/lack-of-support-manpower-and-lack-of-coordination-hampers-cybercrime-probes/articleshow/106942813.cms.
[7] Development Asia, “Protecting Children in the Digital Age: Risks, Resilience and Strategies”Development Asia, May 20 2025, https://development.asia/insight/protecting-children-digital-age-risks-resilience-and-strategies
[8] Jha. Abhishek, “Just 18% Internet Users Know How to Report e-Crimes," Hindustan Times, May 30, 2025, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/just-18-internet-users-know-how-to-report-ecrimes-101748543922499.html
[9] Humar. Prabhat, Manish Thakre, ”A Road Map to Deliver Justice to Child Survivor: sHindustan Times, Jan 16, 2020, https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/a-road-map-to-deliver-justice-to-child-survivors-opinion/story-XvzuOTPpPEz4KHmLcguQ8J.html.
[10] Ministry of Law and Justice, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No. 32 of 2023
[11] Apoorva, Aditya Ranjan, Sandeep Bhupatiraju, Shareen Joshi, and Daniel L. Chen. 2022. A Decade of POCSO: Developments, Challenges and Insights from Judicial Data. New Delhi: Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/a-decade-of-pocso-developments-challenges-and- insights-from-judicial-data/