Know Why Supreme Court Refused Internet Ban for Children; Held Fundamental Right to Access

The Supreme Court restricted internet ban for children, and declared that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual, including children, under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Apex Court cautioned that denying children the right altogether would be “absurd”. A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the declaration while issuing directions to strengthen the detection and removal of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) from social media platforms and other online services.

“Safety And Freedom Of Children Are Not At Odds”

The Supreme Court said that children, irrespective of their age, enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Internet ban for children altogether would be as absurd as saying children below a certain age lack a conscience worth protecting or a freedom of speech worth expressing. The Bench said: “Our children are entitled to both” safety and freedom.

It described the internet as a marketplace of ideas, creative expression and information, whose value lies in the access it gives adults and children alike. “For many children, particularly in remote areas, it is often the only source of learning and information,” the Apex Court observed. For children with special needs, it is often the only place to find companionship with others like them.

Building On Anuradha Bhasin And Pragya Prasun

The Court recalled Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020 CaseBase(SC) 435), which held that free speech and the freedom to carry on trade or business through the internet are constitutionally protected. In that case, the Court had refrained from deciding whether access to the internet is by itself a fundamental right.

It also referred to Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India (2025 CaseBase(SC) 958), which recognised the right to digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21. Building on these precedents, the Bench declared the right to use the internet a fundamental right that cannot be denied to children.

Blanket Restrictions Are “Proven Disproportionality”

The Bench acknowledged that the internet is far from safe for children today. It held, however, that keeping children off the internet because intermediaries fail to detect and remove harmful material would amount to mistaking the victim for the problem.

The Apex Court gave several reasons for rejecting blanket age-based restrictions:

• Displacement of risk: Children do not stop using the internet because a law forbids it. They may move to unregulated and potentially more unsafe platforms.
• Reluctance to report: Children being enticed or threatened online may hesitate to tell parents or trusted adults for fear of being reprimanded.
• Surveillance risk: Age-based restrictions could require every user’s age to be verified. That means continuous collection and monitoring of sensitive data, with a disproportionate risk of misuse.
• No proof of effectiveness: The Apex Court termed such restrictions “unproven measures of proven disproportionality” and noted that no jurisdiction has shown that children became safer because of them.

Proportionate Safeguards Still Permitted

The Supreme Court clarified that rejecting blanket bans does not mean children should have no age-based safeguards. It suggested a system with greater emphasis on parental consent, guidance and oversight, along with a dedicated “child mode” for children’s accounts. Such a mode could include:

• Accounts private by default
• Restrictions on contact and messages from unknown adults
• Moderation of advertisements and content accessible to children

These measures could apply to pre-teens, with reasonable and proportionate means of verifying parental consent. The Court left the modalities to the Union Government. It also clarified that the Union may still restrict children’s access to specific categories of content or services that are inherently harmful to them, such as adult-content websites.

Digital Safety Education To Be Part Of Curriculum

The Supreme Court said technology alone cannot protect children. It called for age-appropriate education on consent, safe and unsafe touch, healthy relationships, data protection, online exploitation and reporting mechanisms. Digital safety and age-appropriate sex education should form part of the core curriculum, developed by NCERT and State Councils of Educational Research and Training. They should consult child psychologists, educators and parenting experts.