Supreme Court Recognises Children’s Right to Internet Access, Cautions Against Blanket Bans

Synopsis

On 15th October, a Supreme Court bench found that “right to access internet” is a fundamental right under Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a) and that the right to access internet is not age dependent for children. It opposed blanket bans on children's access, due to privacy, ineffectiveness and under-reporting of child abuse. The court went on to rule on a national hash and URL database, the removal of material of unknown origin (MUO) within two hours, and a compliance affidavit before December 10.

Supreme Court has ruled that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every person under Article 21, along with Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution, and children certainly enjoy the internet, despite their age.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran issued the judgement in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2026 INSC 1149), as per Law Trend report. The court opposed such a general prohibition on children using the Internet and social media.

Why the court rejected a ban

The bench pointed to a trend around the world of limiting children's access for reasons of safety, and said it had “anxiously considered” the idea but had made a “conscious decision” not to endorse it. It recognized that the internet is not safe for children, but said that it is not about children, it is about harmful content and those responsible for it. In its reasoning, the court said that safety and freedom are not opposed.

The court made four reasons against blanket age bans, as reported:

1. Age verification involves identifying all users and gathering sensitive information, posing risks of misuse and surveillance. 2. Other countries have found that children will move to more unregulated platforms if they are not allowed access to the regulated ones. 3. Children targeted may not speak up or express their concerns for fear of punishment, thereby jeopardising the intention behind the POCSO Act. 4. Children not having access to social media would not prevent the spread of abuse material.

The legal foundation

While the bench from Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) to Anuradha Bhasin (2020) held that the Internet provides protection to speech and trade, it did not provide a definitive judgment on whether access to the web is a fundamental right. It pointed out that the question is “no longer res integra”” relying on Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025 INSC 599), which accorded digital access to the right to life.

What the court is left with

Safeguards are not banned by the ruling. The bench recommended a model that relies on parents' consent, guidance and oversight, and a distinct ‘child mode' for children's accounts, which would involve these accounts having 'private' accounts by default and stricter limits on contacts from people an adult doesn't know and more moderation of advertising and content.

It left the details to the Union and stated that there is still a way to limit content harmful by nature (e.g. adult websites).

Background and directions

The case is based on the judgment of the court dated 23rd September 2024, which had ruled that platforms not reporting on offending content under POCSO would not be protected as safe-harbour providers.

According to a report by Deccan Chronicle earlier, petitioner, who was represented by founder Bhuwan Ribhu, stated that there was no proper implementation for nearly two years. The bench noted that there had been no "progress" in the truest sense of the word.

Its directions, per Law Trend, include:

1. A national database of hash and URLs, with at least three trained human analysts checking each entry.

2. Prompt removal of identified material and within two hours verification, removal and reporting of unknown-origin material.

3. A reporting mechanism within two steps with complaints being noted within 24 hours. Monthly audited compliance reports and turnover-related fines and disgorgement of revenue.

4. Digital safety and age-appropriate sex education in the school curriculum, helplines 1098, 1930 everywhere in the school.

The Union was represented by its Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The case is to be heard again on December 10, 2026, when the Union must file a compliance affidavit.

What it means

The debate, from being about whether kids should be online, is now about how platforms and regulators are shielding kids. It will, of course, depend on the SOP of the Union and any amendment to the IT Act and Rules that might be made in this context.