Children's Right to Internet: Article 21 Right, Rules SC

🗞️ Why in News The Supreme Court, in an order dated 15 October 2026 and made public on 17 October, held that “the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution”, and that children, “irrespective of their age enjoy the same rights”. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Chandran called blanket bans on children’s internet use disproportionate and directed the Union to create a National Hash & URL List Database to detect and remove child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM).

The Order at a Glance

Why the Court Returned to the Case

The background. In its 23 September 2024 judgment, the Court took note of “an alarming increase in child sexual exploitation and abuse material (“CSEAM”)” circulated on social media. It flagged how links to such material were shared through social media algorithms to get around Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act, and it made clear that platforms that failed to comply would lose the “Safe Harbour” protection of Section 79 of the IT Act.

For context, by its order of 14 August 2026, the Court had “expressed concerns over certain serious lapses” by social media intermediaries in complying with those directions. In the 15 October order it recorded: “Despite more than two years having gone by since our judgment, it appears that there has been no progress worth the name.”

Do not mix up two cases. This order was passed in the 2024 criminal appeals. A separate writ petition by the same alliance, W.P.(C) No. 1120 of 2026, on regulating social media accounts of children below 18, is pending before a bench led by the Chief Justice, which issued notice on 10 September 2026 and heard it on 28 September 2026 (background in our 29 September roundup).

The Holding: Internet Access Under Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a)

The core of the order is paragraph 292:

“we have no hesitation in saying that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Our children, irrespective of their age enjoy the same rights, and to deny the same altogether would be as absurd as saying children below a certain age do not have a conscience worth protecting or a freedom of speech worth expressing. The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both.”

The cases the order builds on

On the question Anuradha Bhasin left open, the order says “this issue is no longer res-integra”, that is, no longer an open question.

A 2019 Kerala High Court ruling in Faheema Shirin had held that “the right to have access to Internet becomes the part of right to education as well as right to privacy”. The 15 October order does not cite it, so treat it as background, not as part of this order’s reasoning.

Age Limits and Bans: What the Court Said

The child is not the problem. The wrongdoer, the Court said, “is the person who creates, circulates, sells or seeks out such material, and the intermediary which fails to detect and remove the same. To keep the child away from the internet on account of such failures would be to mistake the victim for the problem.”

Blanket bans fail the proportionality test. “[A]ny blanket restriction on the access of internet by children is nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality. No jurisdiction has, so far, been able to demonstrate that children are any safer on account of such measures.”

Age checks carry a privacy cost. Age-based restrictions, the Court said, “inevitably, always require identifying and ascertaining the age of each and every user, continuous collection and monitoring of sensitive data and an overall disproportionate risk of misuse and surveillance, the kind which finds no place within the right to privacy of our people.”

But safeguards are allowed. The Court added that “this does not mean that there should be no age-based restrictions” and that “some form of safeguards are necessary”. It suggested what such a system could look like:

The Union also remains free to restrict children’s access to content or services “that are inherently harmful to them, such as adult content websites etc.” (para 302).

So parental consent is not a direction of the Court; it is an option left to the government. For the argument that a parental-consent rule would make the new right conditional, read our analysis of the Indian Express column on parental consent.

The Directions: A National Hash and URL List Database

The binding part of the order is a set of directions for the Union and for intermediaries to carry out. Note the verbs: the database is a “shall create” direction, while fines are only to be considered.

Beyond Section 79. Under the present law, the Court noted, losing the Section 79 safe harbour is the only consequence for an intermediary that fails. One section of the order is headed “Need to rethink and move beyond Section 79 of the IT Act.”

Sixteen Measures for Schools, Teachers and Platforms

Paragraph 315 lists 16 measures. The ones most likely to be examined:

• Body safety from the primary stage: “Children, from the primary stage, must be taught in an age-appropriate manner about their bodies, the difference between safe and unsafe touch, and the significance of consent.”
• Curriculum: digital safety and age-appropriate sex education to form part of the core curriculum developed by the NCERT and the SCERTs.
• Helplines on the wall: Child Helpline 1098, Cyber Crime Helpline 1930 and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, “displayed in every classroom, hostel, library and computer laboratory”.
• Teacher training: including “the obligation to report under Section(s) 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act”.
• Platform prompts: intermediaries to “display cautionary prompts where any child attempts to connect, message or interact with any unknown adult”.

Static Background: The Laws in Play

Note the difference in age: the DPDP Act requires parental consent for users under 18, subject to those exemptions, while the measures the Court suggested with parental-consent checks are for pre-teens. How the two fit is for the Union to settle.

Significance and Issues: The Mains Angle

1. A settled right. The question Anuradha Bhasin left open in 2020 now has an answer, and the answer covers children.
2. Rights-based child protection. The Court rejects the trade-off between safety and freedom: “Our children are entitled to both.” It places the burden on the offender and the platform, not the child.
3. Privacy as a limit on safety tools. By naming the data cost of age verification, the order makes privacy part of the test for any child-safety rule.
4. Platform accountability beyond safe harbour. Hash databases, timelines, human review and possible fines move the regime past the all-or-nothing Section 79 shield.
5. Open issues. The modalities of any parental-consent system are left to the Union; hash databases need trained human analysts and safeguards against wrong takedowns; and two years of slow compliance after 2024 show that directions alone do not change platform behaviour.

Way Forward

• Build the database with clear rules on who adds entries, how the three-analyst review works and how wrong entries are corrected.
• Child-safe defaults (private accounts, limits on contact from unknown adults, moderated advertising) as platform obligations.
• Age assurance with data minimisation, so that protecting children does not mean tracking every user.
• Schools and teachers: digital safety in the core curriculum, helplines displayed, and teachers trained on POCSO reporting duties.
• Watch next: the Union’s progress affidavit, due by the next hearing on 10 December 2026.

UPSC Relevance

• GS Paper 2: Fundamental Rights (Articles 19 and 21); role of the judiciary; mechanisms for the protection of vulnerable sections (children); government policies and interventions.
• GS Paper 3: challenges to internal security through communication networks; role of social networking sites; basics of cyber security.
• Prelims: Article 21 and 19(1)(a), Anuradha Bhasin, Section 79 and Section 67B of the IT Act, POCSO Sections 15, 19 and 21, DPDP Act Section 9, helplines 1098 and 1930, the Sahyog Portal.
• Mains practice question: “The Supreme Court has held that children enjoy the fundamental right to access and use the internet. Examine how the State can protect children online without denying that right.” (GS2, 250 words)

📌 Facts Corner, Knowledgepedia

Prelims, statement-ready facts:

• Order dated 15 October 2026, made public 17 October; 2026 INSC 1149; Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Chandran.
• Internet access and use: a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), children included.
• Earlier judgment in the same case: 23 September 2024, 2024 INSC 716 (Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish).
• CSEAM: child sexual exploitation and abuse material.
• National Hash & URL List Database: to be created by the Union, within the Sahyog Portal or as a standalone repository.
• Screening by at least three trained human analysts.
• “Unknown Origin” removals reported within two hours (of removal, or of resolving a complaint); “Known Origin” removals in a weekly report.
• Displayed in every classroom: Child Helpline 1098, Cyber Crime Helpline 1930, National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.
• IT Act s.67B: up to 5 years and Rs 10 lakh fine on first conviction; up to 7 years on a second.
• DPDP Act 2023 s.9: verifiable parental consent for a child’s data (under 18); no tracking or targeted ads at children.
• Next hearing: 10 December 2026 (scheduled).

Prelims, the traps:

• Trap: the Court did not order parental consent. It said “there could be a system” and left the modalities to the Union of India.
• Trap: Anuradha Bhasin (2020) left open whether internet access is itself a fundamental right; the 2026 order settles it.
• Trap: Article 19(1)(a) is a right of “all citizens”; Article 21 protects every “person”.
• Trap: this order is in the 2024 criminal appeals; the separate W.P.(C) 1120 of 2026 before the Chief Justice’s bench is pending.

Mains, arguments and keywords:

• “Mistake the victim for the problem”: the wrong lies with the offender and the platform that fails to remove CSEAM, not the child.
• Age checks need data on every user and risk surveillance; keywords: proportionality, privacy, child mode, platform accountability.
• Way forward: build the database, child-safe defaults, age assurance with data minimisation, digital safety in the core curriculum.

Interview, be ready for:

• “Should India ban social media for children?” Answer: the Court calls blanket bans “unproven measures of proven disproportionality”; prefer safe defaults and parental guidance.

Revision Flowchart

Sources: Supreme Court of India, M.A. Nos. 2553-2554 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161-2162 of 2024, Just Rights for Children Alliance and another v. S. Harish and others, order dated 15 October 2026, 2026 INSC 1149 (order text); Bar & Bench, Ritu Yadav, 17 October 2026; The Hindu, 17 October 2026; Constitution of India; Information Technology Act, 2000; POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019; Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025 (MeitY; PIB background note, 17 November 2025); Supreme Court record of proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 1120 of 2026, 10 September 2026; LiveLaw, 19 September 2019, on Faheema Shirin.

Source: Children's Right to Internet: Article 21 Right, Rules SC — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Current Affairs