Why in news?

The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, held that “the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual” — explicitly extending it to children, irrespective of age.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Chandran emphasised: “the safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both.”

The ruling comes amid states like Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh planning screen-time curbs for minors, and global trends toward restricting minors’ social media use.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• How the Case Reached the Court
• The Court’s Core Reasoning
• Why Blanket Bans Were Rejected
• What Safeguards Were Allowed

How the Case Reached the Court

• In 2024, a bench of Justices held that viewing, possessing, or not reporting child pornographic material is an offence under the POCSO Act and IT Act — even without further dissemination.
• This overturned a Madras High Court order that had quashed a chargesheet, ruling private viewing without transmission wasn’t an offence.
• The case was brought by the Just Rights for Children Alliance, an NGO coalition, seeking directions to intermediaries on reporting such material.
• In later compliance hearings, the Court noted platforms’ lapses and reports of paid promotion of CSEAM (Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material) via redirect links — but consciously declined to endorse the global trend of blanket restrictions on children’s social media access.

The Court’s Core Reasoning

• The ruling drew on established jurisprudence:
  • Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020): Freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and trade (Article 19(1)(g)) through the internet are constitutionally protected.
  • Pragya Prasun v Union of India (2025): Excluding persons with disabilities from digital KYC violated Article 21; “right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life.”
  • Cricket Association of Bengal (1995): Article 19(1)(a) includes the “right to know and to receive and impart information.”
• The Court noted that for many children, especially in remote areas, the internet is often the only source of learning and information.

Why Blanket Bans Were Rejected?

• Any blanket restriction on the access of internet by children is nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality. No jurisdiction has been able to demonstrate that children are any safer.
• Any restriction on a fundamental right must pass a three-pronged test:
  • Must be through duly enacted legislation.
  • Must demonstrate legitimate state interest connected to the objective.
  • The restriction must be proportionate to that objective.
• The Court acknowledged that the internet, as it exists today, is far from safe for our children.
• It, however, held that safety measures must target harmful material and those responsible, not the children themselves. Restricting children would be to mistake the victim for the problem.
• Age-verification mandates would require continuous collection of sensitive data, creating disproportionate risk of misuse and surveillance.
• Practically, children simply move to other platforms, even more unsafe, when blocked, undermining the measure’s effectiveness.

What Safeguards Were Allowed?

• Greater emphasis on parental consent, guidance, and oversight.
• A “child mode” with: private-by-default accounts, restricted contact from unknown adults, and moderated advertising/content.
• The Union government retains power to restrict inherently harmful content categories (e.g., adult content websites).
• Key Directions to the Union
  • Create a National Hash & URL List Database for CSEAM, requiring confirmation by at least three trained human analysts.
  • CSEAM removals must be reported within 2 hours; complaints acknowledged within 24 hours.
  • Consider exemplary monetary fines; forfeit and disgorge revenue from CSEAM behind paywalls.
• The Union must frame guidelines, amend IT Rules, and file an affidavit before the next hearing in December 2026.

The Larger Debate: Rights vs. Implementation

• Expanding fundamental rights (like with the right to privacy earlier) carries symbolic and legal value — but raises questions about the gap between doctrine and delivery.
• The Anuradha Bhasin guidelines on internet shutdowns are routinely invoked in breach, with little state accountability — raising concerns that similarly, this ruling’s protections could remain largely unenforced without robust follow-through.

Conclusion

This ruling marks a significant doctrinal shift — reframing children’s internet access not as a privilege subject to paternalistic restriction, but as a fundamental right requiring targeted, proportionate safeguards.

By rejecting blanket bans and insisting that safety measures target harmful content rather than children themselves, the Court has placed the onus squarely on the state and platforms to build effective protective infrastructure.

Yet, as with earlier expansions of digital rights, the real test lies not in the judgment’s eloquence but in whether the Union’s implementation — through the IT Rules, the Hash database, and accountability mechanisms — closes the long-standing gap between constitutional promise and practical delivery.