Justices JB Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran Emphasise Children’s Digital Rights While Supporting Proportionate Online Safety Measures
Supreme Court Recognises Internet Access as a Fundamental Right
The Internet Access Fundamental Right ruling recognises constitutional protection for every individual, including children. The Supreme Court held that Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) protect the right to access and use the internet. Moreover, the Court clarified that children enjoy these rights regardless of age.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made these observations while examining children’s online safety.
The proceedings concerned measures to identify and remove child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) from online platforms.
However, the Court rejected the idea of completely denying children internet access to protect them from digital harm.
Instead, the Bench emphasised that children’s safety and constitutional freedoms must coexist.
The Court observed:
“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.”
Internet Access Linked to Freedom of Speech
The Supreme Court examined the relationship between internet access and constitutional freedoms.
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. This protection also covers the right to receive, share, and communicate information.
Furthermore, the Bench recognised the internet as an important platform for exchanging ideas and expressing creativity.
It noted that online services offer opportunities beyond accessing information.
For instance, children can use digital platforms to learn, communicate, and explore creative interests.
Therefore, the Court emphasised the importance of protecting children’s access to online spaces.
Internet Supports Education and Social Inclusion
The Bench highlighted the internet’s educational and social benefits.
Children living in remote areas often depend on digital resources for learning.
In some cases, online platforms provide their only practical access to educational information.
Additionally, the Court considered the needs of children with disabilities and other special needs.
Digital platforms may help these children connect with individuals who share similar experiences.
Such interactions can provide companionship and opportunities for social participation.
Consequently, the Court recognised that denying internet access could restrict educational and social opportunities.
Supreme Court Refers to Earlier Digital Rights Judgments
The Bench examined previous Supreme Court rulings concerning internet access and constitutional protections.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised constitutional protection for speech and business activities conducted through the internet.
The judgment connected these freedoms to Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).
However, the Court did not decide whether internet access itself constituted a fundamental right.
Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025)
The Bench also referred to Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India.
In that case, the Supreme Court recognised digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Building on these precedents, the present Bench expressly recognised the right to access and use the internet.
Importantly, it extended this protection to children of every age.
Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Internet Restrictions
The Court acknowledged that children face serious risks in digital environments.
However, it rejected complete restrictions on children’s internet access as a general protective measure.
The Bench reasoned that such prohibitions could unfairly burden children instead of addressing harmful online content.
Furthermore, it questioned whether blanket restrictions would effectively prevent online harm.
Children might continue accessing the internet through alternative platforms.
Some of these services could lack adequate regulation or safety mechanisms.
As a result, complete restrictions might expose children to greater risks.
The Court observed:
“Any blanket restriction on the access of internet by children is nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality.”
The Bench also noted that no jurisdiction had demonstrated that such restrictions made children safer.
Restrictions May Discourage Children From Reporting Harm
The Supreme Court raised another concern about restrictive internet policies.
Children experiencing online threats, manipulation, or exploitation may need assistance from trusted adults.
However, strict prohibitions could discourage them from seeking help.
For example, children might fear punishment for accessing prohibited websites or platforms.
Consequently, they may hesitate to inform parents, guardians, or other trusted individuals about harmful experiences.
The Court therefore highlighted the importance of creating safer online environments without discouraging reporting.
Age-Based Restrictions Raise Privacy Concerns
The Bench also examined the privacy implications of age-based internet restrictions.
Such measures may require online platforms to verify the age of every user.
Consequently, service providers could collect significant amounts of personal information.
The Court warned that continuous monitoring and age verification might create additional privacy risks.
These practices could also increase the possibility of data misuse and surveillance.
Therefore, the Bench emphasised the need to consider privacy when designing online safety measures.
Court Supports Proportionate Online Safety Safeguards
The Supreme Court clarified that constitutional protection does not eliminate the need for child safety measures.
Instead, authorities and online platforms must adopt proportionate safeguards against digital harm.
The Bench recognised the importance of protecting children from exploitation and harmful material.
However, it distinguished targeted protective measures from complete restrictions on internet access.
Accordingly, the Court supported an approach that protects children’s safety without unnecessarily limiting their freedoms.
The proceedings also concerned stronger mechanisms for detecting and removing CSEAM from social media and other online services.
Internet Access Fundamental Right: Constitutional Significance
The Supreme Court’s observations clarify the relationship between internet access, freedom of expression, and personal liberty.
The Bench recognised that children possess constitutional rights alongside adults.
Moreover, it emphasised that online safety policies must respect these protections.
The judgment also highlights the importance of education, inclusion, privacy, and digital participation.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged the need for effective safeguards against online exploitation.
The ruling therefore places children’s safety and constitutional freedoms within a common legal framework.
Editorial Note: The supplied source text ends before the complete discussion of safeguards and operative directions. Therefore, this article does not reconstruct any additional directions or findings beyond the available material.
