Supreme Court: children have a fundamental right to access and use the internet
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.
Published 18 October 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
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?
- Article 14 read with Article 15
- Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a)
- Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 301
- Article 21A read with Article 45
Show answer
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.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Fundamental Rights in the digital age: children's safety, free expression and platform accountability
- How to use this
Use the ruling to argue that child protection policy must target harmful content and platforms while preserving children's fundamental right to the internet.
- In October 2026 the Supreme Court held children have a fundamental right to access the internet under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a).
- The Court ordered a National Hash and URL List Database for CSEAM, with final checks by at least three trained human analysts.
- Platforms must allow reporting within two steps; the Court suggested child mode, private-by-default accounts and parental supervision.
- How to use this
Cite the ruling as a recent example of courts expanding Fundamental Rights to new contexts, with proportionality as the limit.
- The Supreme Court in October 2026 read Article 21 with Article 19(1)(a) to recognise a right to access and use the internet.
- It called blanket bans 'unproven measures of proven disproportionality', applying the proportionality test to restrictions.
Describe the context and salient features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
How to use thisUse the children's data provisions as one salient feature, linked to the Court's 2026 preference for parental consent over blanket bans.
- The DPDP Act, 2023 treats persons under 18 as children and requires verifiable parental consent (Section 9).
- Section 9 bars targeted advertising directed at children.
The Prelims question tests the same Article 21 reasoning the Court used to locate new rights, here privacy.
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.
- 2019Kerala High Court, Faheema Shirin: internet access is part of the right to education and privacy under Article 21
- 2020Supreme Court, Anuradha Bhasin: expression through the internet is protected by Article 19(1)(a); curbs must be proportionate
- 23 September 2024Supreme Court, Just Rights for Children Alliance: viewing and storing CSEAM is an offence; the term 'child pornography' should go
- 15 October 2026Same case: the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of children 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.
- Keep children off platforms entirely
- The Court called such curbs 'unproven measures of proven disproportionality'
- Children may move to unregulated sites without their parents knowing
- Remove harmful material and act against those who spread it
- Parental consent and supervision, child mode, private-by-default accounts
- Hold intermediaries that fail to remove material accountable
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
- 1IdentifyKnown CSEAM is converted into a hash, a short digital fingerprint, or listed by its web address (URL)
- 2VerifyEach entry passes several levels of checks, with a final check by at least three trained human analysts
- 3MatchPlatforms compare uploads against the national database
- 4RemoveMatching content must be disabled and removed immediately
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.
Go deeper
Why it matters for UPSC
It adds a new dimension to Fundamental Rights (GS2), shapes the debate on social media age bans, and sets duties for platforms that matter for cyber security (GS3). It is also a model case on proportionality.
The core idea
The Court read Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a) together and held that the internet is a space for learning, expression and information. Banning children from it would "mistake the victim for the problem". Instead, the Court backed targeted tools: a national database built on Hash-matching and the CSEAM database, quicker grievance redress, fines for failing platforms and digital safety education. The case itself began as an appeal on CSEAM, decided in The 2024 Just Rights for Children Alliance judgment. The ruling must also sit beside existing consent rules in Children's data under the DPDP Act, 2023.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 15 October 2026: order by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran
- Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a): source of the right
- 23 September 2024: the earlier judgment in the same case on CSEAM
- At least 3 trained human analysts for the final check of each database entry
- Reporting must be possible within 2 steps on a platform
- 10 December 2026: next hearing, with a progress affidavit due before it
Where to go next
- Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a): the two rights the Court read together
- The 2024 Just Rights for Children Alliance judgment: where this case began
- Hash-matching and the CSEAM database: how known abuse material is blocked
- Children's data under the DPDP Act, 2023: the consent rules already in law
Go deeper: safety versus freedom
The case for the ruling. The Bench said "The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both." It noted that for many children, especially in remote areas, the internet is often the only source of learning and information. It said no jurisdiction has shown that blanket restrictions make children safer, and that a child who breaks an age rule may hide online threats for fear of punishment, which would weaken POCSO reporting.
The case for stronger limits. Supporters of age bans point to Australia, where a social media minimum age of 16 took effect on 10 December 2025. They argue platforms profit from children's attention and cannot be trusted to police themselves. The Court did not shut this door completely. It said the government may still restrict children's access to inherently harmful services such as adult-content websites, and it left the design of parental consent, child mode and private-by-default accounts to the Union government.
Accountability, not exclusion. The order shifts the burden to platforms. The Court found "no progress worth the name" in more than two years since The 2024 Just Rights for Children Alliance judgment. It asked the Centre to frame guidelines on Hash-matching and the CSEAM database for significant social media intermediaries, consider exemplary fines tied to the platform's size and turnover, and forfeit revenue from CSEAM sold behind paywalls.
The legal test. Any restriction on rights under Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a) must be proportionate. Read with the verifiable parental consent rule in Children's data under the DPDP Act, 2023, the ruling suggests a layered model: law limits what platforms may do with children's data, and courts insist that the child's own access is not taken away.
Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a)
The two rights the Court read together to create the right.
In one line: Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, and Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech and expression; together they now ground a right to use the internet.
Article 21
Article 21 says no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Courts have read "life" to mean a life with dignity, and have found within it the right to education and the right to privacy. In Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (2019), the Kerala High Court held that access to the internet is part of these rights, and that a college ban on students' mobile phones violated their privacy.
Article 19(1)(a)
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that expression through the internet is protected by Article 19(1)(a) and that any restriction must be necessary and proportionate. It did not then decide whether access itself is a right, because that was not argued.
Why it is in the news
The October 2026 order goes further: it treats access and use as a fundamental right of every individual, children included.
Where to go next
- Hash-matching and the CSEAM database
- Children's data under the DPDP Act, 2023
The 2024 Just Rights for Children Alliance judgment
Where this case began, and why CSEAM is now the legal term.
In one line: On 23 September 2024 the Supreme Court held that viewing, possessing and storing child sexual abuse material is an offence, overturning a Madras High Court ruling.
The case
The Madras High Court had quashed proceedings against a man, S. Harish, holding that merely possessing or viewing such material without sending it on was not an offence. The NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance appealed. A Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, with Justice Pardiwala writing, reversed the High Court.
What it held
- Section 15 of the POCSO Act sets out three distinct offences, each tied to a different intent.
- Section 30 of POCSO presumes a guilty mental state once basic facts are shown; the accused must rebut it.
- Section 67B of the IT Act covers possession and consumption, not just sending material.
- Platforms cannot claim safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act for such material.
- Courts should use "child sexual exploitative and abuse material" (CSEAM), and Parliament was urged to amend POCSO to adopt it.
Why it is in the news
The 2026 order was passed in the same case, after the Court found little progress on these duties.
Where to go next
Hash-matching and the CSEAM database
How known abuse material can be blocked without viewing it again.
In one line: Hash-matching lets platforms block known abuse material automatically by comparing digital fingerprints, without anyone having to view the material again.
What a hash is
A hash is a short code calculated from a file. The same file always gives the same hash, so it works like a fingerprint. A URL list does the same job for web addresses that host such material.
What the Court ordered
- The Centre must create a National Hash and URL List Database used solely for CSEAM.
- Each entry needs several levels of verification, with a final check by at least three trained human analysts.
- Intermediaries must disable and remove matching content immediately.
- The Centre must frame hash-matching and URL-listing guidelines for significant social media intermediaries and file an affidavit on the technology platforms use.
- Platforms must display grievance officers' details prominently, allow reporting within two steps, and leave final decisions to trained officers, though automated tools may help screen.
Why it matters
It moves the burden of safety from children to the platforms that carry harmful content.
Where to go next
- The 2024 Just Rights for Children Alliance judgment
- Children's data under the DPDP Act, 2023
Children's data under the DPDP Act, 2023
The parental consent rules that already govern platforms.
In one line: India's data protection law already treats everyone under 18 as a child and requires a parent's verifiable consent before a child's data is processed.
What the Act says
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 defines a child as a person under 18. Section 9 requires a data fiduciary (the company that decides how data is used) to obtain verifiable consent from a parent or lawful guardian before processing a child's personal data. Section 9(3) bars tracking, behavioural monitoring of children and targeted advertising directed at them. The government can exempt some classes of fiduciaries or purposes.
The Rules
Rule 10 of the DPDP Rules, 2025 sets out how consent is verified: the platform must confirm the adult's identity and age using details it already holds or through an authorised identity service such as DigiLocker.
Why it matters now
The Court's suggestions of parental consent and supervision fit this structure. The law regulates how platforms use children's data; the Court insists that children's access itself should not be taken away.
Where to go next
Take the 18 October 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers