Supreme Court says children have a fundamental right to use the internet, rejects age bans

The Supreme Court has held that access to and use of the internet is a fundamental right that applies to children as well as adults, and has said blanket age-based bans are disproportionate, according to reports published on October 17 of an order dated October 15.

What the court held

The order came from a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, in a petition by the NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance, according to NorthEast Now. The petition alleged that online intermediaries had continued to fail to tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) despite an earlier judgment of the court in September 2024.

The Free Press Journal reports that the court located the right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and held it applies to every individual regardless of age. Both outlets report that the bench said protecting children from online harm does not justify cutting off their access. According to the Free Press Journal, the court gave three reasons against blanket bans: they may push children to unregulated platforms, children facing exploitation may not report it if they fear punishment, and mandatory age verification raises privacy and surveillance concerns. Both outlets say the court noted a lack of demonstrated evidence that keeping children off social media makes them safer.

The court did not rule out safeguards. The Free Press Journal lists parental consent and supervision, a child mode for social media accounts, private accounts by default, limits on messages from unknown adults and stronger moderation of advertisements as measures it left open.

Directions reported

NorthEast Now sets out directions to the Union government. They include filing an affidavit on the technology intermediaries use to detect and remove CSEAM, framing guidelines on hash-matching and URL lists, and setting up a National Hash and URL List Database of verified material. They also include considering exemplary fines for non-compliance and forfeiting revenue generated from prohibited material. The report says the bench found "no progress worth the name" on its earlier directions in more than two years. The same report lists directions to platforms, including removing content that matches database entries and making complaint mechanisms accessible within two steps, and directions on school curricula. It gives December 10 as the date of the next hearing, and says Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre.

Not every report itemizes these directions. The Free Press Journal says the court issued directions to strengthen detection, reporting and takedown but does not specify them. Scroll.in does not report specific directions to the Centre or platforms in the order, and does not mention a child mode.

Background reported

Scroll.in reports that the petition followed a July report by the BBC that Instagram, owned by Meta, had run paid advertisements in India promoting such material, and that the Union government then issued a notice to Meta. Scroll.in also notes that Australia has blocked social media for under-16s and that the UK has announced a similar ban, and that the Internet Freedom Foundation responded that child online safety needs evidence-based policy rather than headline-driven prohibitions.