Introduction
The internet has become an essential part of children’s education, communication and access to information. From online classes to digital learning resources, children increasingly depend on the internet to develop their knowledge and participate in society. However, concerns about cyberbullying, online exploitation and harmful content have raised questions about whether children’s internet access can be restricted for their protection. In a significant development, the Supreme Court has expressly recognised the right to access and use the internet as a fundamental right under the Constitution. It has also clarified that completely restricting children from using the internet is not an appropriate solution to online safety concerns.
What Did the Supreme Court Say?
On October 15, 2026, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, in Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. observed 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 Court was considering miscellaneous applications filed in pending criminal appeals concerning the circulation of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) on online platforms and the failure of intermediaries to comply with its earlier directions.
The Court emphasised that children’s safety and freedom are not opposing interests. It observed that keeping children away from the internet because of online abuse would place restrictions on children rather than address the conduct of those responsible for creating and circulating harmful material. It also cautioned against blanket restrictions that could prevent children from accessing educational resources, information and opportunities available through digital platforms. The Court recognised that children, irrespective of their age, enjoy the fundamental right to internet access and that their safety and freedom must be protected together.
How Does Internet Access Connect With Fundamental Rights?
Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, while Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Internet access has become an important means of exercising these rights. It allows children to obtain information, participate in discussions, communicate and access educational opportunities.
Earlier, in Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala (2019), the Kerala High Court recognised internet access as part of the right to education and the right to privacy under Article 21. The case concerned a college student’s challenge to restrictions on mobile phone usage in her hostel. The Court held that a complete restriction was unwarranted and that students should have reasonable freedom to use technology for learning.
Similarly, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court recognised that freedom of speech and expression through the internet is protected under Article 19(1)(a), and that trade and business through the internet receive protection under Article 19(1)(g). However, the Court did not then expressly decide whether internet access itself was an independent fundamental right. The October 2026 order in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish expressly addressed this question and recognised the right to access and use the internet as a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a).
Can Children’s Internet Access Be Restricted?
The Supreme Court clarified that recognising children’s right to internet access does not mean that every online platform or form of content must remain unrestricted. The Court acknowledged that age-appropriate safeguards are necessary to protect children from exploitation and harmful material.
It discussed measures such as parental consent, guidance and supervision, dedicated child-mode accounts and private-by-default settings. It also suggested restricting contact and messages from unknown adults and improving the moderation of advertisements and content accessible to children. The Court clarified that the government may restrict children’s access to specific categories of content or services that are inherently harmful to them, including adult websites.
However, the Court left the actual implementation of these safeguards to the Union Government. It emphasised that such measures must remain reasonable and proportionate and must not become a means of denying children their fundamental right to internet access.
What Is the Role of Parents and Online Platforms?
The judgment highlights that protecting children online requires cooperation between parents, government authorities and digital platforms. Parents may guide children towards safe internet use, while platforms must take effective measures to identify and remove exploitative content. The Court also raised concerns about intermediaries that fail to monitor harmful material while continuing to generate revenue through such content.
The Court proposed stronger mechanisms for detecting and removing CSEAM, including a National Hash and URL List Database. It also addressed the need for effective grievance redressal mechanisms, stronger intermediary accountability and appropriate scrutiny of paywalled and subscription-based content. The Court directed the Union Government to formulate guidelines, Standard Operating Procedures and suitable amendments to the Information Technology Act and Rules, wherever necessary.
The Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provide a regulatory framework for addressing unlawful online content and intermediary responsibilities. Further, Section 67B of the IT Act penalises specified acts involving sexually explicit material depicting children. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, particularly Section 15, also addresses specified forms of storage, possession and handling of child sexual abuse material.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s October 15, 2026 order establishes an important distinction between protecting children from online harm and denying them access to the internet altogether. Digital access supports education, information and freedom of expression, but it also requires effective safeguards. The Court further highlighted the importance of digital safety awareness and age-appropriate sex education as part of children’s protection.
The judgment places responsibility on parents, government authorities and digital platforms to create a safer online environment. The focus must therefore shift from restricting children to strengthening online safety, holding offenders accountable and making digital platforms safer for young users.
