Children cannot be excluded altogether from the internet in the name of protecting them, the Supreme Court has held, while directing stronger measures against online child sexual exploitation and abuse material. The order places digital access and protection alongside each other, rather than treating the removal of access as the default response to harm.
The October 15 order, reported in detail on October 17, was delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran in proceedings involving Just Rights for Children Alliance and S Harish. It recognises access and use of the internet as a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), including for children, according to Bar & Bench’s account.
Why the court rejected a blanket ban
The bench’s reasoning distinguishes the people who create or circulate abusive material from the children whom safeguards are intended to protect. Excluding children because platforms have failed to control harmful material would shift the consequences of those failures onto young users, rather than address the conduct responsible for the harm.
Moneycontrol’s report explains another concern raised by the court: prohibitions can drive children towards less regulated services. A child who has broken an access rule may also be reluctant to tell a parent or trusted adult about grooming, threats or abuse, fearing punishment for being online in the first place.
The court also considered what internet access enables. It supports learning, finding information, creative expression and communication. For children in remote areas, online resources may be especially important. Children with special needs can also find companionship and people with similar experiences through digital spaces, the report noted.
Access does not mean unrestricted use
The order does not prevent proportionate protections for different age groups. Moneycontrol reported that the bench discussed parental consent, guidance and supervision, along with a dedicated child mode for social-media accounts. Possible features include accounts that are private by default and limits on messages from unfamiliar adults.
The court also raised privacy concerns about age-verification systems that collect or repeatedly check sensitive personal information. The underlying challenge is to make safeguards effective without creating a new route for surveillance or misuse of children’s data. Detailed implementation was left to the Union government.
Restrictions on categories of content inherently harmful to children remain possible. Recognising a right to digital access therefore does not amount to authorising access to every service or removing protections against adult material. The distinction is between a targeted safeguard and exclusion from the entire online environment.
Platforms face stronger detection and reporting duties
Law Trend’s account describes directions for a national database of verified identifiers and web addresses associated with child sexual exploitation and abuse material. The proposed mechanism is intended to help platforms recognise material already identified as abusive and act on it, rather than wait for each copy to be reported again.
The report says entries must undergo human verification and that the database is restricted to this purpose. The court also called for accessible complaint mechanisms, trained grievance officers, removal and reporting procedures, and compliance reporting. These measures concern platform responsibility; they are separate from the question of whether children may use the internet.
An important implementation question is how automated assistance and human judgment will work together. The order’s reported emphasis on trained reviewers recognises that identifying material, handling complaints and making final decisions cannot simply be treated as the same task. A reporting system also needs to be usable by the people seeking help.
Schools, parents and the next hearing
Bar & Bench reported directions for digital-safety and age-appropriate sex education within the school curriculum, developed by NCERT and SCERTs with expert input. The subjects include consent, recognising unsafe conduct and reporting exploitation without fear of reprimand. Teacher training, parent awareness and support for victims were also addressed.
The published case summary identifies the matter as continuing proceedings following the court’s 2024 decision, rather than a fresh dispute solely about screen-time rules. It records directions for implementation measures, possible changes to rules and a progress affidavit, with the next hearing scheduled for December 10, 2026.
For families, the significance is a framework that preserves meaningful access while asking adults, platforms and public authorities to make that access safer. The judgment’s reported safeguards still require implementation. A court direction to develop a mechanism should not be mistaken for confirmation that every platform has already introduced it.
