Supreme Court on Children Online: Internet Access Is a Right, Platforms Must Remove Abuse Material and Offer a "Child Mode"
On 15 October 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that children also have a fundamental right to access and use the internet. The court based this on Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The case was Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, a follow-up to the court's September 2024 judgment on child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM). The NGO said social media companies had made little progress since then.
The court said protecting children cannot mean shutting them out of the internet. It warned against "mistaking the victim for the problem". Action must target harmful material, the people who make or spread it, and intermediaries (platforms) that fail to remove it.
It said proportionate safeguards are allowed, such as parental oversight, a "child mode" for social media accounts, and blocking content that is harmful to children.
The court directed the Centre to create a National Hash and URL List Database of verified CSEAM, to frame guidelines for big platforms on hash-matching, to consider heavy fines on platforms that fail, and to make grievance reporting reachable within two steps.
It also asked for digital safety and age-appropriate sex education in the NCERT and SCERT curriculum, and set 10 December 2026 for the next hearing.
Right to Internet Access as a Fundamental Right
The Constitution does not mention the internet. But the Supreme Court has read a right to internet access into Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Like other rights in Article 19, it can be limited by reasonable restrictions, but any limit must be lawful, necessary and proportionate.
This order extends the line of earlier judgments to children. It rejects a blanket ban based on age, while allowing narrow safeguards such as a child mode and parental oversight.
Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000: Safe Harbour for Intermediaries
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 protects online platforms (called intermediaries) from being punished for content that their users post. This protection is called "safe harbour". A platform like a social media site, a search engine or a messaging app gets this protection only if it stays a neutral carrier of other people's content and follows the "due diligence" rules made by the government. If it fails these conditions, it can lose the protection and be treated as if it had posted the illegal content itself.
The Supreme Court's directions are aimed at intermediaries that enjoy safe harbour under Section 79 but have been slow to remove child abuse material. By asking for a national hash database, hash-matching guidelines and heavy fines, the court is tightening what "due diligence" should mean, so that children are protected without being pushed off the internet.
Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is India's first full law on protecting people's personal data in digital form. It sets rules for companies and bodies (called Data Fiduciaries) that collect and use personal data, and gives people (called Data Principals) rights over their data. It has special rules for children's data, which are directly linked to the idea of a "child mode" online.
The court suggested a child mode and parental oversight rather than a ban. The DPDP Act's parental-consent and no-tracking rules are the legal base on which such a child mode can be built, once these duties come into force.
- Order date: 15 October 2026; bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran
- Case: Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish; next hearing on 10 December 2026
- Basis of the right: Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a); applies to children and adults
- Earlier judgment in the same case: 23 September 2024 (viewing or storing CSEAM is an offence under Section 15, POCSO; court asked Parliament to use the term "CSEAM" in place of "child pornography")
- Suggested safeguards: parental oversight, child mode for social media accounts, blocking harmful content
- Directions: National Hash and URL List Database (final check by at least three trained human analysts), hash-matching guidelines for significant social media intermediaries, fines based on platform size and turnover, grievance reporting within two steps
- Education: digital safety and age-appropriate sex education in NCERT and SCERT curriculum; teacher training and counselling for victims