# Supreme Court: children have a fundamental right to access and use the internet

URL: https://upsc.help/current-affairs/2026-10-18/sc-children-internet-fundamental-right/
Date: 18 October 2026 (2026-10-18)
Source: The Hindu, Page 1
UPSC papers: GS2, GS3
Publisher: upsc.help (Pratidin), free and open-source UPSC Civil Services current affairs. Not affiliated with UPSC. Every fact was checked against the source reports by a separate review before publishing.

**In one line:** The Supreme Court has held that children, like adults, have a fundamental right to access and use the internet, and that the State must protect them by targeting harmful material, not by keeping them offline.

A Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran has held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 (life and personal liberty) read with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), and that children hold it just as adults do. The order, dated 15 October 2026, was passed in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, a plea by an NGO alleging that online platforms were still failing to tackle child sexual exploitative and abuse material (CSEAM) after the Court's September 2024 judgment. The Court found 'no progress worth the name' in more than two years.

The Bench said protecting children cannot justify denying them the internet altogether, because keeping them offline would 'mistake the victim for the problem'. It called blanket restrictions 'nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality' and said 'The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both.' It did not rule out proportionate safeguards: it suggested parental consent and supervision, a child mode for social media, private-by-default accounts and limits on messages from unknown adults, and said the government may still restrict access to inherently harmful services such as adult-content websites.

The Court ordered the Centre to create a National Hash and URL List Database used only for CSEAM, with a final check of each entry by at least three trained human analysts, and to frame hash-matching and URL-listing guidelines for significant social media intermediaries. Platforms must display grievance officers' details and allow reporting within two steps. The Centre should consider exemplary fines linked to a platform's size and turnover and forfeiture of revenue from such material behind paywalls. Digital safety and age-appropriate sex education are to enter the core curriculum through NCERT and SCERTs. The Centre must file a progress affidavit before the next hearing on 10 December.

## Prelims facts

- On 15 October 2026 the Supreme Court held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), for children as well as adults.
- The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran rejected blanket bans, calling them 'unproven measures of proven disproportionality'.
- The Centre must set up a National Hash and URL List Database solely for CSEAM, with a final check by at least three trained human analysts.
- The order came in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, the case in which the Court in September 2024 held that viewing and storing CSEAM is an offence.
- Digital safety and age-appropriate sex education are to be part of the core curriculum, developed by NCERT and SCERTs.

## Quick recall

- **Under which Articles did the Supreme Court place the right to access and use the internet in October 2026?** Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a).
- **Which Bench passed the October 2026 order on children's internet rights?** Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran.
- **What does CSEAM stand for?** Child sexual exploitative and abuse material, the term the Supreme Court prefers to 'child pornography'.
- **How many trained human analysts must give the final check for an entry in the national CSEAM database?** At least three.
- **Within how many steps must platforms make reporting possible?** Two steps.
- **Which High Court held in Faheema Shirin (2019) that internet access is part of the rights to education and privacy?** The Kerala High Court.
- **Which section of the IT Act punishes possessing or viewing CSEAM, as read by the Supreme Court in 2024?** Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- **Under the DPDP Act, 2023, up to what age is a person a child?** Under 18 years; a parent's verifiable consent is needed to process the child's data (Section 9).

## Prelims practice question

In October 2026 the Supreme Court held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right. Under which provisions did it place this right?

(a) Article 14 read with Article 15
(b) Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a)
(c) Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 301
(d) Article 21A read with Article 45

Answer: (b) Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a). The Bench held the right flows from Article 21 (life and personal liberty) read with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), and that it extends to children.

## UPSC previous-year questions this connects to

- UPSC Mains 2025, GS2: The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has to address the challenges faced by children in the digital era. Examine the existing policies and suggest measures the Commission can initiate to tackle the issue. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q077-national-commission-protection-child-rights-has-address/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Use the ruling to argue that child protection policy must target harmful content and platforms while preserving children's fundamental right to the internet.
- UPSC Mains 2017, GS2: Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q125-scope-fundamental-rights-light-latest-judgement-supreme/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Cite the ruling as a recent example of courts expanding Fundamental Rights to new contexts, with proportionality as the limit.
- UPSC Mains 2024, GS3: Describe the context and salient features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q216-describe-context-salient-features-digital-personal-data/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Use the children's data provisions as one salient feature, linked to the Court's 2026 preference for parental consent over blanket bans.
- UPSC Prelims 2018, Prelims: Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement? (a) Article 14 and the provisions under the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution (b) Article 17 and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV (c) Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III (d) Article 24 and the provisions under the 44th Amendment to the Constitution (https://upsc.help/pyq/q128-right-privacy-protected-intrinsic-part-right-life/)

## Mains practice question

"The safety of children online and their freedom are not at odds." In the light of the Supreme Court's October 2026 ruling on children's right to the internet, examine whether blanket age-based bans on social media are constitutionally sound. (250 words)

### Model answer

On 15 October 2026 the Supreme Court held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), for children as well as adults, and rejected keeping children offline as a safety measure.

## Why blanket bans fail the constitutional test
- **Rights holders:** children enjoy the same constitutional protection as adults, irrespective of age.
- **Proportionality:** since Anuradha Bhasin (2020), curbs on internet-based expression must be necessary and proportionate; the Court called blanket bans "unproven measures of proven disproportionality".
- **Wrong target:** banning children would "mistake the victim for the problem"; the harm comes from material, offenders and platforms that fail to remove it.
- **Counter-productive:** barred children may move to unregulated sites and hide threats, weakening POCSO reporting.
- **Access to learning:** for many children in remote areas the internet is often the only source of learning.

## What the State may still do
- Restrict access to inherently harmful services such as adult-content websites.
- Use parental consent and supervision, child mode and private-by-default accounts, consistent with Section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023, which requires verifiable parental consent for under-18s and bars targeted advertising at them.

## Making platforms accountable
- National Hash and URL List Database for CSEAM, with a final check by at least three trained human analysts.
- Grievance reporting within two steps; exemplary fines linked to size and turnover; forfeiture of paywalled CSEAM revenue.
- Digital safety education through NCERT and SCERTs.

## Way forward
- Frame clear Rules quickly, audit platform compliance and track removal times, as the Court found little progress since 2024.

The ruling points to a rights-respecting model: safety through accountable platforms, not exclusion of children.

## The basics

## Why this matters
Every government that wants to protect children online faces one question: should it keep children off the internet, or make the internet safer for them? On 15 October 2026 the Supreme Court gave its answer. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), and that children hold it too.

## Two Articles, read together
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom to receive information. The Court read the two together: the internet is where children learn, speak and find information, so shutting them out touches both rights. Like other freedoms under Article 19, this one can be limited, but only by reasonable restrictions that are proportionate to the aim.

## What is CSEAM?
CSEAM means child sexual exploitative and abuse material. In 2024 the Supreme Court asked courts to use this term instead of "child pornography", because the old phrase suggests consent and links the abuse to legal pornography. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Section 15, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 67B, punish storing, possessing and spreading such material.

## The machinery the Court wants

A hash is like a fingerprint for a file: the same image always gives the same hash, so a platform can block it without anyone viewing it again. Read more in Hash-matching and the CSEAM database, and see how data law already treats children in Children's data under the DPDP Act, 2023.

## Sources

- https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/children-too-have-fundamental-right-to-access-internet-cant-deny-it-citing-online-harm-supreme-court
- https://thefederal.com/category/news/sc-says-children-have-a-fundamental-right-to-internet-access-259858
- https://www.thebuzz.net.au/domremy/article/social-media-minimum-age-requirements-effective-10-december-2025/
- https://www.scobserver.in/journal/supreme-courts-landmark-pocso-judgement/
- https://projects.itforchange.net/online-violence-gender-and-law-guide/module-5-rights-based-approach-to-online-gender-based-violence/5-1-right-to-access-the-internet/
- https://ksandk.com/data-protection-and-data-privacy/child-data-protection-under-dpdp-act-parental-consent-rules/