UPSC Mains
GS Paper II
Polity & Governance
Children’s Fundamental Right to Access the Internet
The Supreme Court held that children have a fundamental right to access the Internet under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), and rejected blanket bans in favour of targeted safeguards
RIGHT RECOGNISED UNDER
Art. 21 + Art. 19(1)(a)
BLANKET BANS
Rejected as disproportionate
SAFEGUARD FAVOURED
Parental oversight, “child mode”
📰
Why in News
- The Supreme Court held that children have a fundamental right to access the Internet under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a).
- It rejected blanket bans and favoured targeted safeguards such as parental oversight and a “child mode”.
📰
Source: The Hindu
📰
More on the News
- Children have the same rights as others whatever their age, so denying Internet access altogether would be absurd. Bans only push them to unregulated, less safe platforms without their parents’ knowledge.
- A hostile atmosphere may stop children from reporting online abuse, which would defeat the object of the POCSO Act.
- The Court issued directions for protective mechanisms and grievance outlets, but is not against age-based restrictions.
📰
Source: The Hindu
⚖️
About the Ruling
- Rights and safety go together: The Court said children’s safety and their freedom are not at odds, and children are entitled to both.
- Bans are not proven to work: It called blanket restrictions measures of proven disproportionality with no proof of benefit. No country has shown that children are safer because of them, and keeping children off social media would not reduce online abuse.
- Shared responsibility: Child safety cannot be left to bans alone. It needs effort from intermediaries such as platforms, law enforcement, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the courts.
- Court suggests: Greater parental consent, guidance and supervision, and a dedicated “child mode” for children’s accounts, with measures proportionate to the aim of keeping them safe.
📰
Source: The Hindu
📖
Provisions
- Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, and the Court read the right to Internet access into it.
- Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It can be limited only by reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
- The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 protects children from sexual offences, including online.
- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 requires verifiable parental consent before a child’s personal data is processed.
📰
Source: The Hindu
⭐
Significance
- It recognises Internet access as a fundamental right for children, and not only for adults.
- It applies the proportionality test to child protection laws and rejects bans without evidence.
- It places clear duties on platforms, the State and parents, and not on children alone.
- It protects children’s freedom of expression and access to information, which are part of their development.
📰
Source: The Hindu
🚧
Challenges
- Enforcing age limits is hard, since children can give false ages or use other platforms.
- Parental supervision is uneven, as many parents lack digital literacy or time.
- Platform compliance with child mode and safety duties is difficult to check.
- Balancing privacy and safety is hard, since age checks can mean collecting more personal data.
📰
Source: The Hindu
🛤️
Way Forward
Child Mode
Platforms should provide a child mode with age-appropriate content and default privacy settings.
Minimal-Data Age Checks
Age verification should be effective but should collect the least possible data.
Digital Literacy
Digital literacy for children, parents and teachers should be strengthened.
Easy Grievance Systems
Grievance systems should be easy to use, so that children can report abuse without fear.
Conclusion: The ruling treats children as rights-holders online and asks the State, platforms and parents to share the duty of keeping them safe. Safeguards that are proportionate are likely to protect children better than bans.
📰
Source: The Hindu
