{"id":129734,"date":"2026-10-20T11:35:30","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T06:05:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=129734"},"modified":"2026-10-20T11:35:30","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T06:05:30","slug":"internet-access-for-children-supreme-court-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/internet-access-for-children-supreme-court-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"Internet Access for Children: Supreme Court Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><b>Internet Access for Children Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, held that \u201cthe right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual\u201d \u2014 explicitly extending it to children, irrespective of age.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Chandran emphasised: \u201cthe safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The ruling comes amid states like Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh planning screen-time curbs for minors, and global trends toward restricting minors\u2019 social media use.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>How the Case Reached the Court<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In 2024, a bench of Justices held that viewing, possessing, or not reporting child pornographic material is an offence under the <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/pocso-act\/\" target=\"_blank\">POCSO Act<\/a><\/strong> and IT Act \u2014 even without further dissemination.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This overturned a Madras High Court order that had quashed a chargesheet, ruling private viewing without transmission wasn\u2019t an offence.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The case was brought by the Just Rights for Children Alliance, an NGO coalition, seeking directions to intermediaries on reporting such material.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In later compliance hearings, the Court noted platforms\u2019 lapses and reports of paid promotion of CSEAM (Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material) via redirect links \u2014 but consciously <\/span><b>declined to endorse<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> the global trend of blanket restrictions on children\u2019s social media access.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Court\u2019s Core Reasoning<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The ruling drew on established jurisprudence:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and trade (Article 19(1)(g)) through the internet are constitutionally protected.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Pragya Prasun v Union of India (2025):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Excluding persons with disabilities from digital KYC violated Article 21; \u201cright to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Cricket Association of Bengal (1995):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Article 19(1)(a) includes the \u201cright to know and to receive and impart information.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court noted that for many children, especially in remote areas, the internet is often the only source of learning and information.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Why Blanket Bans Were Rejected<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Any blanket restriction on the access of internet by children is nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality. No jurisdiction has been able to demonstrate that children are any safer.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Any restriction on a fundamental right must pass a <\/span><b>three-pronged<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> test:\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Must be through duly enacted legislation.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Must demonstrate legitimate state interest connected to the objective.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The restriction must be proportionate to that objective.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court acknowledged that the internet, as it exists today, is far from safe for our children.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It, however, held that safety measures must target harmful material and those responsible, not the children themselves. Restricting children would be to mistake the victim for the problem.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Age-verification mandates<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> would require continuous collection of sensitive data, creating disproportionate risk of misuse and surveillance.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Practically, children simply move to other platforms, even more unsafe, when blocked, undermining the measure\u2019s effectiveness.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>What Safeguards Were Allowed<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Greater emphasis on parental consent, guidance, and oversight.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A \u201cchild mode\u201d with: private-by-default accounts, restricted contact from unknown adults, and moderated advertising\/content.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Union government retains power to restrict inherently harmful content categories (e.g., adult content websites).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><b>Key Directions to the Union<\/b><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Create a National Hash &amp; URL List Database for CSEAM, requiring confirmation by at least three trained human analysts.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">CSEAM removals must be reported within 2 hours; complaints acknowledged within 24 hours.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Consider exemplary monetary fines; forfeit and disgorge revenue from CSEAM behind paywalls.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Union must frame guidelines, amend IT Rules, and file an affidavit before the next hearing in December 2026.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Larger Debate: Rights vs. Implementation<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Expanding fundamental rights (like with the right to privacy earlier) carries symbolic and legal value \u2014 but raises questions about the gap between doctrine and delivery.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Anuradha Bhasin guidelines on internet shutdowns are routinely invoked in breach, with little state accountability \u2014 raising concerns that similarly, this ruling\u2019s protections could remain largely unenforced without robust follow-through.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Conclusion<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This ruling marks a significant doctrinal shift \u2014 reframing children\u2019s internet access not as a privilege subject to paternalistic restriction, but as a fundamental right requiring targeted, proportionate safeguards.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">By rejecting blanket bans and insisting that safety measures target harmful content rather than children themselves, the Court has placed the onus squarely on the state and platforms to build effective protective infrastructure.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yet, as with earlier expansions of digital rights, the real test lies not in the judgment\u2019s eloquence but in whether the Union\u2019s implementation \u2014 through the IT Rules, the Hash database, and accountability mechanisms \u2014 closes the long-standing gap between constitutional promise and practical delivery.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source:<\/b> <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/explained-law\/supreme-court-internet-access-fundamental-right-children-10927583\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">IE<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Internet access for children is a fundamental right, says the Supreme Court. Explore its reasoning, rejection of blanket bans and safeguards for online safety.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":129512,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[11002,60,22,59],"class_list":["post-129734","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","tag-internet-access-for-children","tag-mains-articles","tag-upsc-current-affairs","tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs","no-featured-image-padding"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129734","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129734"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129734\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":129759,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129734\/revisions\/129759"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/129512"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129734"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129734"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129734"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}