UPSC Mains
GS Paper II
Polity & Governance
Children’s Right to Internet Access
The Supreme Court held that the right to access and use the Internet is a fundamental right children enjoy irrespective of age, and declined to endorse blanket bans on their social media use
NEXT HEARING
10 December 2026
CSAM REMOVAL REPORTED
Within 2 hours
DELHI STUDY (9–14 YRS)
97.6% use Internet at home
📰
Why in News
- The Supreme Court held that the right to access and use the Internet is a fundamental right that children enjoy irrespective of age, and declined to endorse blanket bans on their social media use.
- It has asked the Union to frame safeguards such as parental consent and a “child mode”, and to file an affidavit before the next hearing on 10 December 2026.
📰
Source: The Hindu & The Indian Express
📰
More on the News
- Parental-consent debate: Critics say the DPDP Rules would make a parent prove identity and age, tying the child’s account to an adult’s identity record. This carries the surveillance risk the Court itself warned about.
- Field study: An ICSSR-supported study of over 2,000 Delhi schoolchildren (9–14 years) found 97.6% use the Internet at home, for about 4.5 hours a day. Anxiety, sleep disturbance and mood changes were the most reported effects.
- Court’s directions: A National Hash & URL List Database for child sexual abuse material is to be created. Removals must be reported within two hours, and complaints acknowledged within 24 hours.
- Next steps: The Union must frame guidelines and amend the IT Rules where needed. State screen-time curbs for minors must stay within constitutional limits.
📰
Source: The Hindu & The Indian Express
⚖️
About the Ruling
- Origin: A 2024 Supreme Court judgment made viewing or possessing child sexual abuse material an offence under POCSO and the IT Act. The Court later noted that platforms were not following its directions.
- Basis of the right: The Court relied on Anuradha Bhasin (2020) on speech and trade through the Internet, Pragya Prasun (2025) on digital access as part of the right to life, and Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) on the right to receive and share information.
- Why bans were rejected: Bans are unproven and disproportionate. Age checks need constant collection of sensitive data, and children simply move to unsafe platforms.
- Target the harm, not the child: Safety measures must be aimed at harmful content and those responsible for it, not at children.
- What it suggested: Parental consent and oversight, and a child mode with private accounts, no contact from unknown adults and limits on ads. The Union may also block inherently harmful content, such as adult websites.
📰
Source: The Hindu & The Indian Express
📖
Provisions
- Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) protect speech and business, and Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty.
- Three-part test for restrictions: the restriction must come from a duly enacted law, serve a legitimate state interest with a nexus to the objective, and be proportionate.
- POCSO Act, 2012 and the IT Act, 2000 address child sexual abuse material online.
- The DPDP Act, 2023 requires verifiable parental consent to process a child’s data. A child means a person below 18.
📰
Source: The Hindu & The Indian Express
⭐
Significance
- Children as rights-holders: The ruling treats children as holders of digital rights, not only as people to be protected.
- Brake on over-regulation: The proportionality test makes blanket measures, including State-level screen-time curbs, hard to defend without evidence.
- Duty shifts to platforms: The Court’s directions place the burden on intermediaries, the Union and law enforcement instead of on children.
- Opens a policy window: Parental consent and the child mode can become law through the IT Rules, but their design will decide whether they protect or burden children.
📰
Source: The Hindu & The Indian Express
🚧
Challenges
- Privacy versus protection: Consent regimes need identity and age proof, which can create a verified identity layer for every child’s account.
- Unequal households: Critics point to ASER 2024 data showing rural girls aged 14–16 own fewer phones than boys. Parental control may help abused or vulnerable children least.
- Skills gap: Children show high functional skills but lack critical skills, such as understanding algorithmic influence and persuasion. Most do not report uncomfortable experiences to parents or teachers.
- Rights outpacing delivery: Observers note that the Anuradha Bhasin guidelines on Internet curbs are routinely breached, so a new right may not translate into practice.
📰
Source: The Hindu & The Indian Express
🛤️
Way Forward
Platform Duties First
Make private-by-default accounts, no contact from unknown adults and advertising limits binding obligations through the IT Rules.
Minimal Age Assurance
Use an over/under-age check that returns only that result and keeps no identity record.
Test Platforms on Evidence
Use the Court-ordered report on detection tools as the benchmark, with penalties on platforms for failures.
Digital Literacy
Teach children, parents and teachers critical skills through schools.
Safe Reporting
Provide easy grievance channels so children can report abuse without fear.
Conclusion: The ruling treats children as rights-holders online and puts the duty of safety on platforms and the State. How the Union designs parental consent and the child mode will decide whether children are protected or only monitored.
📰
Source: The Hindu & The Indian Express
