Children Have A Right To The Internet: Why The Supreme Court Rejected A Blanket Ban

SC rejected blanket bans as disproportionate, warning they could push children towards unsafe, unregulated platforms and discourage abuse reporting. The court said age-based safeguards, parental guidance and child-mode accounts may be considered.

Image Credit : Getty

Why children's internet access cannot be banned outright: What SC said

The Supreme Court has ruled that children have a fundamental right to access and use the internet, saying a blanket ban would be disproportionate and could expose them to greater risks online. The court clarified that recognising this right does not prevent the government from imposing age-appropriate safeguards or restricting children’s access to harmful content.

In a 137-page order passed on October 15, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the right to access the internet flows from Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, read with Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

The ruling came in a petition filed by the Just Rights for Children Alliance, an NGO working on child sexual exploitation, trafficking and child marriage. The case raised concerns about the circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) on social media and other digital platforms.

Alongside recognising children’s rights, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to create a national database to help detect and remove sexually explicit visual material depicting minors from digital platforms. The order also addressed the need for stronger safeguards and coordinated action to tackle the spread of such material.

Image Credit : Getty

What did the Supreme Court say about children’s internet rights?

The bench said the internet had become an important space for sharing ideas, expressing creativity and accessing information. Its value, the court observed, lies not only in the information available online but also in the access it provides to adults and children.

Referring to earlier judgments, the court said the right to freedom of speech and expression was not limited to speaking or expressing an opinion. It also included the right to know, receive information and share ideas.

The judges said children enjoy these rights irrespective of their age. Denying them access to the internet altogether would be inconsistent with recognising their freedom of expression and their right to have their interests protected.

The ruling therefore places children within the constitutional framework that protects access to information and personal liberty. It does not mean that every online service must be available to every child without restrictions.

Instead, the court drew a distinction between recognising a fundamental right and deciding how access should be regulated to protect children from specific dangers.

Image Credit : Getty

Does the ruling mean children cannot face age restrictions online?

No. The Supreme Court has clarified that its decision does not rule out age-based restrictions or other measures intended to protect children online.

The bench acknowledged that safeguards were necessary to regulate the content children could access. It said platforms and policymakers could consider stronger parental consent, guidance and supervision when children use social media.

The court also referred to the possibility of a dedicated “child mode” for accounts used by children. Such a system could introduce protections suited to their needs and risks.

The judges stressed that safeguards must be proportionate to the aim of protecting children. The ruling does not prevent the government from restricting access to categories of content or services that are inherently harmful to minors, including adult-content websites.

The central point is that protecting children does not automatically justify denying them access to the internet as a whole. Restrictions should address identifiable risks without unnecessarily interfering with children’s rights.

Image Credit : AI-Generated

Why did the court oppose a blanket ban?

The Supreme Court questioned whether a complete ban on children’s internet access would actually make them safer. It said the effectiveness of such restrictions remained contested and that no jurisdiction had demonstrated that children were safer simply because they were prohibited from going online.

The bench also warned that children might continue using the internet despite a legal ban. Instead of stopping, they could move to other platforms or websites that were unregulated and potentially more dangerous.

Such restrictions could also discourage children from telling parents, guardians or trusted adults about threats and exploitation they encountered online.

A child who fears punishment for breaking an internet ban might hesitate to report being threatened, manipulated or sexually exploited. The court said this could undermine the very purpose of laws intended to protect children, including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The judges also questioned the methods that broad age restrictions could require. Establishing the age of every user could involve collecting and continuously monitoring sensitive personal information.

According to the court, these processes create risks of surveillance, misuse of data and interference with the right to privacy. Such concerns must be considered when governments decide how to regulate children’s access to online platforms.

The court’s reasoning was not that all restrictions are ineffective, but that a blanket ban carries serious risks and has not been shown to provide a reliable solution.

Image Credit : stockPhoto

How does internet access help children?

The bench highlighted that the internet is more than a space for entertainment or social media. For many children, it is an important source of education, information and social connection.

Children living in remote areas may rely on online resources when access to other learning opportunities is limited. Digital platforms can also help children with special needs find information, connect with people who share similar experiences and access communities that may not be available to them offline.

A complete ban could cut off these opportunities along with the risks associated with online access.

The court said children should not have to choose between their safety and their freedom. Both matter, and measures intended to protect them should account for both.

This approach places responsibility on governments, technology companies, law enforcement agencies, parents and other stakeholders to make online spaces safer rather than relying only on restricting children’s access.

Image Credit : our own

What about child sexual abuse material online?

The case also focused on the circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, or CSEAM, across digital platforms. The Supreme Court took note of concerns about the alarming spread of such material and called for stronger efforts to detect and remove it.

The court said keeping children away from social media would not, by itself, stop the circulation of this material. Without effective safeguards and serious efforts by all concerned, such content could continue to spread and encourage those seeking it.

As part of its directions, the bench ordered the Centre to establish a national database to help identify sexually explicit visual content depicting minors and support its removal from digital platforms.

The broader objective is to address the harmful material itself, rather than assume that preventing children from accessing the internet will solve the problem.

The court’s observations underline the need for coordinated action by online intermediaries, law enforcement agencies, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the judiciary. Each has a role in addressing the creation, circulation and availability of illegal material.

The order also makes clear that child protection online cannot depend on a single measure. Safeguards, detection systems and effective action against harmful content must work together.

Image Credit : Getty

What does the ruling mean for the government and social media platforms?

The ruling does not give children unrestricted access to every website or service. Instead, it establishes that any measure restricting their internet access must be assessed against their constitutional rights, the risks it seeks to address and its likely effectiveness.

The government can still restrict access to inherently harmful content and consider age-appropriate safeguards. Social media platforms may also need to strengthen child-safety measures, while taking care that systems used to verify age or control access do not create disproportionate privacy risks.

Parents and guardians remain important to children’s online safety, but the court’s reasoning indicates that responsibility cannot rest on families alone. Technology companies, regulators and law enforcement agencies also need to take meaningful steps to prevent abuse and respond to harmful material.

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear distinction i.e. children have a fundamental right to access the internet, but that right does not remove the need for reasonable protections. The challenge is to make online spaces safer without resorting to a blanket ban that could restrict access to information, education and support while pushing some children towards less regulated corners of the internet.

(With inputs from agencies)