The Supreme Court has declared that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual, including children, under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court observed that denying children this right altogether would be unreasonable, stressing that their safety and freedom are not mutually exclusive.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the observations while issuing directions to strengthen mechanisms for detecting and removing child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) from social media platforms and other online services.

"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. 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. The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both," the Bench observed.

The Court examined whether children should be completely shielded from the internet and social media to protect them from online harm. It noted that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to know, receive and impart information and ideas.

Describing the internet as a marketplace of ideas, creative expression and information, the Bench observed that its importance extended beyond the content it hosted to the opportunities it provided to adults and children alike. For children in remote areas, the internet often serves as the only source of learning and information. It can also provide companionship and a sense of community for children with special needs, the Court noted.

The Bench referred to the 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression, as well as the freedom to carry on trade or business through the internet, is constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). However, the Court had then refrained from deciding whether access to the internet, by itself, constituted a fundamental right.

It also referred to Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India (2025), in which the Court recognised digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21.

Acknowledging that the internet remains unsafe for children in many respects, the Bench held that keeping children away from online platforms because intermediaries have failed to detect and remove harmful material would amount to blaming the victims instead of addressing the problem.

The Court observed that children might continue accessing the internet despite legal restrictions, potentially moving to unregulated platforms and websites that expose them to greater risks. Blanket restrictions could also discourage children who are being threatened or groomed online from reporting such incidents to their parents, guardians or trusted adults for fear of being reprimanded for using the internet.

"Any blanket restriction on the access of internet by children is nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality," the Bench observed, adding that no jurisdiction had demonstrated that such measures had made children safer.

The Court also flagged concerns over age-based restrictions that require the identification and verification of every user's age. Such mechanisms could involve continuous collection and monitoring of sensitive personal data, increasing the risks of misuse and surveillance.

While rejecting blanket restrictions, the Bench clarified that this did not rule out proportionate, age-appropriate safeguards for children's online safety. It suggested measures such as greater emphasis on parental consent, guidance and supervision, along with a dedicated "child mode" for social media accounts.

The proposed safeguards could include making children's accounts private by default, restricting messages and contact from unknown adults, and regulating advertisements and content accessible to children. The Court suggested that these measures could be introduced for pre-teens, with reasonable and proportionate mechanisms to verify parental consent. It left the implementation details to the Union Government.

The Bench clarified that its observations would not prevent the government from restricting children's access to specific categories of content or services inherently harmful to them, including adult-content websites.

The Court also issued several directions to strengthen the detection and removal of CSEAM, including the creation of a comprehensive national database to facilitate the identification and removal of such material across social media platforms.