{"id":2728,"date":"2026-10-17T08:31:18","date_gmt":"2026-10-17T08:31:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/2026\/10\/17\/supreme-court-internet-fundamental-right-children\/"},"modified":"2026-10-17T08:31:18","modified_gmt":"2026-10-17T08:31:18","slug":"supreme-court-internet-fundamental-right-children","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/2026\/10\/17\/supreme-court-internet-fundamental-right-children\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Declares Internet Access a Fundamental Right for All, Including Children"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<!-- Quick Adsense WordPress Plugin: http:\/\/quickadsense.com\/ -->\n<div class=\"9fece8afa224fd09e54b043d0febfb58\" data-index=\"1\" style=\"float: none; margin:10px 0 10px 0; text-align:center;\">\n<script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js\"><\/script>\r\n<!-- NR ATF -->\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\r\n     style=\"display:block\"\r\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-8898941184964366\"\r\n     data-ad-slot=\"4839033563\"\r\n     data-ad-format=\"auto\"\r\n     data-full-width-responsive=\"true\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script>\n<\/div>\n<p>India&#8217;s apex court has issued a landmark judgment that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right guaranteed by Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The bench, comprising Justice J.\u202fB.\u202fPardiwala and Justice K.\u202fVinod\u202fChandran, explicitly affirmed that the entitlement applies to every person, regardless of age, and that denying it to children would be &#8220;absurd&#8221;.<\/p>\n<h2>Fundamental Right Recognized<\/h2>\n<p>In its reasoning, the court highlighted that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression encompasses the right to receive, impart and seek information and ideas. The justices described the internet as a &#8220;marketplace of ideas, creative expression and information&#8221; whose value lies not only in the content it carries but also in the universal access it provides. For many children, especially those in remote or underserved areas, the internet often serves as the sole source of learning and information. The judgment also noted that children with special needs may rely on the digital space to find peers and companionship that might be unavailable offline.<\/p>\n<h2>Balancing Safety and Freedom<\/h2>\n<p>While acknowledging that the current online environment is not entirely safe for minors, the court rejected the notion that blanket bans or blanket restrictions on children\u2019s internet use constitute an appropriate solution. The bench warned that such sweeping prohibitions would mistake victims for the problem, pushing children toward unregulated platforms that could be even more hazardous. It further observed that prohibitions could discourage children from reporting online threats or exploitation for fear of being punished for accessing the internet.<\/p>\n<p>The justices also expressed concern over age\u2011based restrictions that would require continuous collection and monitoring of sensitive personal data. They warned that such surveillance could create disproportionate risks of misuse, and noted that no jurisdiction has demonstrated that blanket bans make children safer.<\/p>\n<h2>Proposed Safeguards and Government Role<\/h2>\n<p>Although the court dismissed blanket bans, it did not rule out proportionate, age\u2011appropriate safeguards. The bench suggested a framework that emphasizes parental consent, guidance and oversight. Specific measures could include a &#8220;child mode&#8221; for social\u2011media accounts, default privacy settings for children&#8217;s profiles, restrictions on contact with unknown adults, and tighter moderation of advertisements and content directed at minors. The court indicated that such mechanisms could be applied to pre\u2011teens, with verification of parental consent carried out through reasonable means.<\/p>\n<p>Importantly, the judgment left the precise design and implementation of these safeguards to the Union Government, stating that the modalities would be decided by the executive. The court also clarified that its observations do not prevent the government from restricting access to content categories that are inherently harmful, such as adult\u2011oriented websites.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the rights and safeguards discussion, the bench issued a series of directions aimed at strengthening the detection and removal of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) from online platforms. Among the orders was the creation of a comprehensive national database to facilitate the identification and removal of such material across social\u2011media services. The court emphasized that robust mechanisms are essential to protect children without curtailing their constitutional freedoms.<\/p>\n<p>The decision builds on earlier Supreme Court pronouncements. In the 2020 judgment of <i>Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India<\/i>, the court held that freedom of speech and the freedom to conduct trade or business through the internet are constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). However, that case stopped short of declaring internet access itself a fundamental right. Later, in <i>Pragya Prasun &#038; Ors. v. Union of India (2025)<\/i>, the court recognized the right to digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21. The present judgment extends that reasoning, explicitly declaring the right to use the internet a fundamental right that cannot be denied to children.<\/p>\n<p>By framing internet access as a constitutional guarantee, the Supreme Court has set a new legal benchmark for digital inclusion in India. The ruling underscores the need for a balanced approach that safeguards children from online harms while preserving their right to information, expression and participation in the digital sphere. The onus now lies with the Union Government to translate the court\u2019s directions into actionable policies, develop the mandated national database, and design age\u2011appropriate safeguards that respect both privacy and safety.<\/p>\n<p>Legal experts anticipate that the judgment will prompt a wave of legislative and regulatory activity aimed at aligning India\u2019s digital ecosystem with constitutional principles. Stakeholders, including technology platforms, child\u2011rights NGOs and privacy advocates, are likely to engage closely with the government as the details of the proposed safeguards are fleshed out. The court\u2019s emphasis on proportionality, parental involvement and the avoidance of mass surveillance may shape future debates on data protection and child safety online.<\/p>\n\n<div style=\"font-size: 0px; height: 0px; line-height: 0px; margin: 0; padding: 0; clear: both;\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>India&#8217;s Supreme Court has ruled that the right to use the internet is a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a), extending the guarantee to children and ordering safeguards against online abuse.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2729,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[299],"tags":[3011,3013,3012,3010,335],"class_list":["post-2728","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-child-protection","tag-constitutional-law","tag-digital-access","tag-internet-rights","tag-supreme-court","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2728","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2728"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2728\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2729"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2728"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2728"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2728"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}