The Supreme Court has ruled that children have a fundamental right to access and use the internet. Denying it to them in the name of safety is not allowed — protection must target the abusers, not the children.
Updated: October 18, 2026, 9:10 AM IST
Quick Read
- A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, in a 137-page order passed on October 15 (2026 INSC 1149), held that internet access is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) — for children too, “irrespective of their age”.
- The case was filed by the Just Rights for Children Alliance, an NGO network of over 300 organisations, over the spread of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) on social media.
- The Court ordered the Centre and intermediaries to detect and remove CSEAM, build a national hash and URL database, add digital safety and age-appropriate sex education to the school curriculum, and sought details of the detection tools platforms use.
“We have no hesitation in saying that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,” the Bench said. That line is now the law’s starting point for any debate about children and screens in India.
The Court didn’t stop there. “Our children, irrespective of their age enjoy the same rights, and to deny the same altogether would be as absurd as saying children below a certain age do not have a conscience worth protecting or a freedom of speech worth expressing,” it said. “The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both.”
Also read: Ankita Bhandari case: parents detained near India Gate during protest
The case that led to the order
The petition came from the Just Rights for Children Alliance (JCRA) — India’s largest civil society network against child sexual exploitation, trafficking and child marriage, with over 300 NGOs. Senior advocate H.S. Phoolka argued for the organisation. Their complaint: serious lapses by social media intermediaries in tackling child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) online.
CSEAM is a heavy term, but it means something simple and terrible — photos and videos of children being sexually abused, shared and sold on the internet. The petition said platforms were failing to detect and remove it.
The Bench accepted that the internet is far from safe for children. But it drew a hard line on the solution. Keeping children away from the internet because intermediaries fail to clean up harmful material, the Court said, amounts to mistaking the victim for the problem. The wrongdoers, it said, are those who create, circulate, sell or seek out such material — and the platforms that fail to detect and remove it.
What the court ordered
The order doesn’t just declare a right. It hands out a to-do list:
1. Remove CSEAM, now. The Centre, working with social media intermediaries, must immediately detect and remove child sexual exploitation and abuse material from the internet.
2. A national hash and URL database. The government must create one central list — digital fingerprints (hashes) and web addresses of known abusive material — so platforms can spot and block it fast.
3. Schools must teach it. “Digital safety and age-appropriate sex education must form a part of the core curriculum,” the order said.
4. Show your tools. The Court sought details from the government on what detection tools and technology intermediaries have actually put in place.
It also floated an idea: a “child mode” for social media accounts, with more weight on parental consent, guidance and oversight. That’s a suggestion, not an order — but it signals where the Court wants platforms to go.
Also read: CJP march aftermath: detained activist, what the FIR says
What it means for parents and schools
Here’s the part that lands in real homes. The Court said restrictions can backfire: children who are being lured or threatened online become reluctant to report it to parents or trusted adults, out of fear of losing internet access as punishment. “This would significantly undermine the safety of our children… and defeat the avowed object of the POCSO Act,” the Bench observed.
In plain words: if the rule is “tell us and we take your phone away,” children stay silent, and abusers win.
This also puts India on a different path from countries now banning children from social media outright. India’s own Chief Economic Advisor proposed age-based platform policies earlier this year, saying younger users are more vulnerable to compulsive use and harmful content. The Court hasn’t killed that idea — it said recognising the right does not rule out reasonable safeguards. But any safeguard now has to pass a test: does it target the harmful material and the wrongdoers, or does it just punish the child? A blanket ban fails that test.
What remains unclear: how exactly the national hash database will work, which platforms get covered first, and whether “child mode” becomes mandatory. The order sets the direction; the details will be fought over in the months ahead.
Also read: Trump waives tariff on India: what the relief means
FAQs
Did the Supreme Court say children can use the internet without any limits?
No. The Court recognised internet access as a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a), but said this does not rule out reasonable safeguards to protect minors. What it struck down is the idea of a blanket ban — cutting children off entirely in the name of safety.
Why was this case filed?
The Just Rights for Children Alliance, a network of over 300 NGOs, petitioned the Court over the growing circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) on social media, alleging serious lapses by platforms in detecting and removing it.
What must the government and platforms do now?
Detect and remove CSEAM immediately, build a national hash and URL database of abusive material, add digital safety and age-appropriate sex education to the core school curriculum, and disclose the detection tools intermediaries currently use. The Court also suggested a “child mode” for social media accounts with stronger parental consent and oversight.
