SC rules children too have a fundamental right to access the internet

The brief in 8 cards

1. Note1 / 8

   WHY IN NEWS?

   • On 15 October 2026, the Supreme Court, in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, held that internet access is a fundamental right. The right extends to children of every age.
   • The Court grounded the right in Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a).
   • It said safety and freedom are not at odds. "Our children are entitled to both," the Court said.
   • The ruling came on applications by an NGO alleging that platforms were still failing to tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) after the Court's 2024 judgment.
   • The Hindu's opinion piece argues for age-appropriate safeguards and shared responsibility instead of blanket restrictions.
2. Note2 / 8

   WHAT THE COURT DIRECTED

   The Court placed the burden of safety on platforms, regulators and police rather than on children. The table summarises its suggestions and directions.

   Area	Direction or suggestion
   Child mode	Accounts private by default, limits on contact from unknown adults, and moderated advertising and content; details left to the Union
   Parental role	Greater emphasis on parental consent, guidance and oversight
   Harmful content	The Union may restrict content "inherently harmful" to children, such as adult websites
   National database	A National Hash and URL List Database to detect and remove CSEAM, with each entry confirmed by at least three trained analysts
   Reporting timelines	Removals reported within two hours; complaints acknowledged within 24 hours
   Penalties	The Union to consider exemplary fines, and revenue from paywalled CSEAM to be forfeited

3. Note3 / 8

   WHY INTERNET ACCESS MATTERS FOR CHILDREN

   • Education: Platforms such as DIKSHA and SWAYAM support learning.
   • Capabilities: Access widens knowledge and choices, in line with Amartya Sen's capability approach.
   • Expression: Children can share ideas and join discussions, for example in online student forums.
   • Skills: Access builds digital skills, supported by programmes such as Atal Tinkering Labs.
   • Inclusion: It connects remote communities, including in the Northeast, to learning.
   • Accessibility: Assistive technologies such as screen readers help children with disabilities learn.
4. Note4 / 8

   RISKS TO CHILDREN ONLINE

   The risks are real and varied. The table summarises the main ones.

   Risk	Evidence or example
   Cyberbullying	A 2024 WHO study found 15% of adolescents in 44 countries and regions had been cyberbullied
   Sexual exploitation	Grooming and circulation of CSEAM were central to the Supreme Court proceedings
   Privacy violations	Excessive data collection enables profiling and identity misuse
   Problematic use	WHO found problematic social media use among adolescents rose from 7% in 2018 to 11% in 2022
   Online fraud	Phishing and impersonation, such as fake gaming links, target children
   Algorithms	Engagement-driven recommendations can push harmful content
   Digital divide	ASER reports show unequal access to devices

5. Note5 / 8

   CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

   Children's online rights and protections rest on several laws and rulings. The table sets them out.

   Provision or case	What it does
   Article 19(1)(a)	Protects expression; Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) recognised the right to receive and impart information
   Article 21	Pragya Prasun (2025) held meaningful digital access to be part of the right to life
   Anuradha Bhasin (2020)	Recognised that freedoms exercised through the internet are constitutionally protected
   POCSO Act, 2012	Sections 11, 12 and 13–15 cover sexual harassment, exploitation and abuse material
   IT Act, 2000, Section 67B	Criminalises electronic material depicting children in sexually explicit acts
   DPDP Act, 2023	Requires verifiable parental consent for processing children's data; core duties apply from May 2027

6. Note6 / 8

   WHY BLANKET BANS FALL SHORT

   The article argues that blanket restrictions on children's access do more harm than good.

   • Rights: They curb children's right to expression and information. Article 19(2) allows only reasonable restrictions on specified grounds.
   • Exclusion: They hit disadvantaged learners hardest, given the value of platforms such as DIKSHA.
   • Evasion: Children may move to unregulated platforms where protection is weaker.
   • Surveillance: Mandatory age checks may increase data collection.
   • Silence: Fear of punishment can stop children reporting abuse. UNICEF research stresses the role of trusted adults.

   Supporters of tighter limits point to countries such as Australia, which in 2025 began barring under-16s from major social media platforms. They argue age limits reduce exposure to harm.

   This card sets out documented positions. It does not adjudicate between them.

7. Note7 / 8

   WAY FORWARD

   These are the article's suggestions, not adopted policy.

   • Introduce child-mode accounts with private-by-default settings, as the Court suggested.
   • Require content moderation and algorithm audits, drawing on the EU's Digital Services Act.
   • Teach cyber safety, consent and privacy in schools under NEP 2020.
   • Encourage parental guidance and open conversation, as UNICEF's framework stresses.
   • Use proportionate age verification that collects minimal data, in line with the DPDP framework.
   • Strengthen coordination among MeitY, NCPCR and law enforcement, including I4C and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.
   • Ensure confidential reporting, counselling and rehabilitation through the POCSO e-Box and Child Helpline 1098.
   • Expand affordable connectivity, through BharatNet, and assistive technologies.
8. Note8 / 8

   

Swipe or use ← → to move between cards.