NEW DELHI, Oct. 17 -- The Supreme Court has held that children, irrespective of their age, have a fundamental right to access and use the internet, cautioning that blanket restrictions imposed in the name of online safety could undermine their freedom, privacy and access to education and information. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Chandran, in an order dated October 15 and made public subsequently, observed that the right to internet access flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, read with the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). The court emphasised that protecting children from online exploitation must not come at the cost of denying them access to digital spaces that have become essential for learning, communication and social participation. The observations came while the bench was examining measures to detect and remove child sexual exploitative and abuse material (CSEAM) from the internet.
The court considered the growing international debate over imposing minimum-age restrictions on social media platforms and questioned whether blanket prohibitions would effectively protect children. The bench acknowledged concerns about children's exposure to harmful online content but declined to endorse sweeping restrictions on their internet use. It reasoned that prohibiting children from accessing digital platforms could drive them towards less regulated websites and services, potentially exposing them to greater risks. The judges also warned that such restrictions could discourage children experiencing online harassment, grooming or exploitation from reporting abuse.
A child who accesses the internet despite a prohibition may hesitate to approach parents, guardians or other trusted adults for fear of being punished, the court observed. Such an outcome, it said, could undermine the protective objectives of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The bench stressed that online safety policies should focus on identifying and removing harmful material and holding those responsible accountable, rather than treating children themselves as the source of the problem.
The court highlighted the importance of internet access for children living in remote areas and those with special needs. For many such children, digital platforms provide crucial opportunities to obtain educational resources, communicate with others and participate in social activities that may otherwise remain inaccessible. The bench traced constitutional protection for online activity to the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin versus Union of India, which recognised that freedom of expression and the freedom to conduct trade and business through the internet enjoy constitutional protection. That judgment had left open the broader question of whether internet access itself constituted a fundamental right. In its latest observations, the court went further by expressly recognising the right to access and use the internet as fundamental, including for minors. It maintained that children's safety and constitutional freedoms must be protected together rather than treated as competing objectives.
The Supreme Court also raised concerns about the privacy implications of enforcing age-based restrictions on social media. It observed that such measures would require platforms to identify and verify users' ages, potentially involving extensive collection and monitoring of sensitive personal information. The bench warned that widespread age verification could create disproportionate risks of surveillance and misuse of personal data. However, the judges clarified that rejecting blanket bans did not mean children should have unrestricted access to every form of online content. They acknowledged that the government could impose proportionate restrictions on specific categories of inherently harmful material, including adult-content websites. The court also supported the development of safeguards tailored to children's age and vulnerability.
Among the possible protective measures discussed by the bench was a dedicated child mode for social media accounts, supported by parental consent, guidance and oversight. Such accounts could be private by default, restrict communication from unknown adults and limit exposure to inappropriate advertising and content. For younger children, these safeguards could be accompanied by proportionate parental-consent verification mechanisms, with the details left to the Union government. The court also emphasised that technology-based safeguards alone would not be sufficient to protect children from online exploitation. It called for age-appropriate education to help children recognise unsafe behaviour, understand consent, protect personal information and identify appropriate channels for reporting abuse. The bench linked digital safety education with sex education, stressing that children must be equipped to understand online privacy, sexual extortion, healthy relationships and the difference between safe and unsafe conduct.
The observations assume significance as the Supreme Court is separately examining a petition seeking age-based restrictions on children's use of social media. On Friday, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the Centre, the ministries of Women and Child Development and Law and Justice, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The notices were issued on a petition filed by Indore-based Emerald Heights International School and its director Siddharth Singh. The petition seeks a comprehensive regulatory framework to protect children from cyberbullying, online grooming, sexual exploitation and exposure to harmful digital content. It also calls for restrictions on social media use by children below a prescribed age and stronger regulation of access for older minors. While the separate petition remains under consideration, the Supreme Court's latest observations underline the need for online safety measures that protect children without disproportionately restricting their constitutional freedoms.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.