Internet Access Is a Fundamental Right for Children: Supreme Court Ruling

21 Oct 2026

Tags: Polity & Constitution   Foundations   Constitutional features

Source: The Indian Express

Context: On October 15, the Supreme Court held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual, including children, irrespective of age.

• Key Principle: The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Chandran emphasised that children's safety and freedom are not mutually exclusive. It rejected blanket restrictions on children's internet access in the name of safety.

Background of the Case

• Origin: In 2024, the Supreme Court held that viewing, possessing and failing to report the possession of child pornographic material could constitute offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, even without further dissemination. It overturned a Madras High Court order that had quashed charges against an accused who had downloaded and privately viewed such material.
• Intervention by NGOs: The Just Rights for Children Alliance, a coalition of NGOs, challenged the High Court order and sought directions requiring online intermediaries to report such material.
• Compliance Concerns: The Supreme Court subsequently noted lapses by platforms in complying with its directions and reports of paid promotion of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) through redirect links.
• Larger Question: While examining compliance, the Court considered international trends towards restricting children's social media access and consciously declined to endorse blanket bans.

Constitutional Basis of the Right to Internet Access

• Article 19(1)(a): Protects freedom of speech and expression, including the ability to receive and impart information through the internet.
• Article 19(1)(g): Protects the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business, including activities conducted through the internet, subject to constitutional restrictions.
• Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty. The Court referred to the recognition of digital access as an intrinsic component of the right to life.
• Relevant Judgments:
  • Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): Recognised that freedom of speech and expression and freedom to carry on trade or business through the internet are constitutionally protected.
  • Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025): Held that excluding persons with disabilities from digital KYC violated Article 21 and recognised digital access as an intrinsic component of the right to life.
  • Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995): Recognised that Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to know and to receive and impart information and ideas.

Why the Court Rejected Blanket Restrictions

• Access to Education: For many children, particularly those in remote areas, the internet is an important or sometimes the only source of learning and information.
• Proportionality: Restrictions must target harmful content and those responsible for it rather than penalising children by denying them access.
• Privacy and Surveillance Risks: Age-based restrictions may require identification of every user's age and continuous collection and monitoring of sensitive data, creating risks of misuse and excessive surveillance.
• Questionable Effectiveness: Prohibiting children's internet use does not necessarily stop access; children may migrate to unregulated and potentially more unsafe platforms.
• Rights and Safety: The Court observed that internet safety measures must protect children without treating their access to the internet itself as the problem.

Three-Pronged Test for Restricting Fundamental Rights

Any restriction on a fundamental right must satisfy the following requirements:

• Legality: The restriction must be authorised by duly enacted legislation.
• Legitimate State Interest: The law must pursue a legitimate objective and have a rational connection with that objective.
• Proportionality: The restriction must be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved and must not impose an excessive burden on the right.

Implication: Blanket restrictions on children's internet access may fail this test if they are disproportionate or inadequately justified.

Safeguards Suggested by the Court

• Parental Oversight: Greater emphasis on parental consent, guidance and supervision, alongside a dedicated child mode featuring private-by-default accounts and restrictions on contacts and messages from unknown adults.
• Content and Advertising Controls: Stronger moderation of advertisements and content, with the Union Government empowered to restrict access to categories of content inherently harmful to children, such as adult websites.
• National Hash and URL Database: The Union must create a National Hash & URL List Database for CSEAM, with entries requiring confirmation by at least three trained human analysts.
• Time-Bound Compliance: For other CSEAM, removals must be reported within two hours of removal, while complaints must be acknowledged within 24 hours of receipt.
• Financial Penalties: The Union must consider exemplary monetary fines and the forfeiture and disgorgement of revenue earned from CSEAM offered through paywalls.
• Implementation: The Court left the detailed modalities to the Union Government, directing it to frame guidelines, amend the IT Rules where necessary, and file an affidavit before the next hearing scheduled for December 10, 2026.

Significance and Challenges

• Child Rights: The ruling seeks to balance children's rights to information, education, expression and digital participation with their right to protection from exploitation and harmful content.
• Digital Inclusion: Recognising internet access as a fundamental right strengthens the case for reducing digital divides, particularly for children in remote and underserved areas.
• Regulatory Challenge: Effective implementation requires cooperation among the government, online intermediaries, parents and child-protection institutions.
• Enforcement Gap: The article highlights concerns that constitutional protections may not translate into effective implementation. For instance, the guidelines laid down in Anuradha Bhasin concerning internet restrictions have faced compliance challenges.
• State Laws: States introducing screen-time restrictions for minors must ensure that such measures remain within constitutionally permissible limits.

Way Forward

• Rights-Based Regulation: Prioritise content moderation, platform accountability, parental guidance and child-friendly design over blanket access bans.
• Privacy-Preserving Age Assurance: Develop proportionate age-verification mechanisms that minimise the collection and retention of children's personal data.
• Effective Enforcement: Strengthen reporting systems, independent oversight, digital literacy and enforcement of child-protection laws to ensure that constitutional recognition translates into practical protection.