The right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual, the Supreme Court has said, adding that children, irrespective of their age, enjoy the same right.
According to LiveLaw, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that the right flows from Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) read with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s observations came while the bench was hearing an application on child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) online when it took up the question of whether children should be kept off the internet and social media altogether.
It said they should not. Cutting children off, the bench said, would be as absurd as claiming that they are too young to have a conscience or a voice. “The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both,” it said.
No blanket bans on children
The court said that blaming children’s presence online for harm caused by platforms that fail to remove abusive content punishes the wrong party. A ban on paper does not keep children offline, it said. They simply drift to unregulated corners of the internet where the risks may be higher.
A ban could also push children who are being targeted or threatened to stay silent, out of fear of being scolded for going online. The bench termed such blanket restrictions “unproven measures of proven disproportionality” and said no country has shown that they make children safer.
It also flagged a privacy cost. Enforcing age limits would require platforms to establish the age of every user, meaning constant collection and monitoring of sensitive personal data and a serious risk of misuse and surveillance.
What protection can look like
The court did not rule out all safeguards. It suggested that the government consider a system that relies more on parental consent and supervision, with a separate “child mode” for minors’ accounts. Accounts in that mode could be private by default, unknown adults could be blocked from contacting children, and ads and content shown to them could be moderated.
These steps could be applied to pre-teens, with proportionate ways of confirming parental consent, the bench said, leaving the design to the Union government. The Centre also remains free to restrict children’s access to inherently harmful services, such as adult-content websites.
Why the internet matters to children
The bench said the right to free speech includes the right to receive and share information and ideas, and that the internet’s worth lies in the access it gives. For children in remote areas, it noted, the internet is often the only window to learning. For children with special needs, it is often the only place to meet others like them.
Building on earlier rulings
In its 2020 Anuradha Bhasin versus Union of India judgment, the Supreme Court protected speech and trade carried out through the internet under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), but did not decide whether access to the internet is by itself a fundamental right. The present bench said it was taking a leap from that ruling and from its 2025 Pragya Prasun versus Union of India judgment, which treated digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21.
The case is Just Rights for Children Alliance and another versus S Harish and others. The court also ordered steps to detect and remove CSEAM, including a national database to help identify such content across platforms.
