The Lift Line

“The ban was always the easy thing to oppose. The consensus is the dangerous thing.” (Column in The Indian Express, by a writer associated with the Internet Freedom Foundation)

Why This Column Matters for Your Exam

This signed column in The Indian Express, published on 18 October 2026, is by a writer associated with the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF). It reads the Supreme Court’s order dated 15 October 2026, made public on 17 October, which held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right and that children share it. The columnist welcomes the order as a defeat for the social media ban, then turns to the one remedy that, in the column’s words, has “no opponent”: parental consent.

What the Court held, and the directions it gave on child sexual abuse material, are in our 18 October deep dive on the order. This page does three things. It sets out the column’s case against parental consent, tests each step against the order’s own text and the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) law, and puts the other side.

UPSC relevance:

  • GS Paper 2: fundamental rights (Articles 19 and 21); the judiciary; government policies and interventions; protection of vulnerable sections (children).
  • GS Paper 3: data protection and the regulation of online platforms.
  • GS Paper 4 and Interview: a child’s autonomy against parental authority; safety against privacy.

In the news: The Supreme Court held, in an order dated 15 October 2026, that children, “irrespective of their age”, share the fundamental right to access and use the internet. The column argues that parental consent, which it says both benches, the petitioner and the government favour, would make that right conditional.

The Crux in 60 Words

The Supreme Court has said children share the fundamental right to the internet and that blanket restrictions are disproportionate. The column warns that the remedy everyone now backs, parental consent, carries the same harms the Court found in age checks: every user’s age known, an adult’s identity tied to each child account, and parents as gatekeepers. Put duties on platforms instead.

What the Court Said, and the Qualifier the Column Leaves Out

The holding, in one line. 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 “Our children, irrespective of their age enjoy the same rights”. The Court also held that “any blanket restriction on the access of internet by children is nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality”. The reasoning and the directions are in the deep dive.

The passage this column is about. Having rejected a ban, the Court added that “this does not mean that there should be no age-based restrictions”, and then wrote:

Para 300: In this regard, there could be a system that places greater emphasis on parental consent, guidance and oversight on the access to social media platforms by children along with a dedicated “child mode” for such accounts with measures proportionate to the object of ensuring their safety.

Para 301: These may include accounts being made private by default, restrictions on contacts and messages from unknown adults, moderation of advertising and content accessible to children. Such measures may be implemented for pre-teens, with a reasonable and proportionate means to verify parental consent in respect of the same. We leave the actual modalities of the same to the wisdom of the Union of India.

Read para 301 closely, because the column does not quote its second sentence. Three things follow from the order’s own words:

  1. Pre-teens, not every minor. The Court spoke of such measures “for pre-teens”. The column’s consensus is about “anyone under 18”, the threshold raised at the separate hearing of 28 September (see the background table below) and the age of a “child” under the DPDP Act.
  2. Paired, not alternatives. Private-by-default accounts, curbs on contact from unknown adults and moderation of advertising are, in the order, what a child mode “may include”, to go with “a reasonable and proportionate means to verify parental consent”. The column presents the same measures as a separate route that needs no identity check.
  3. A suggestion, with the design left to the Union. The Court says there “could be” such a system and leaves “the actual modalities” to the Union. It then directs the Union, through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to take “appropriate action for overseeing and implementing the suggestions, measures and safeguards discussed”, so the idea is on the Union’s table, but no consent rule has been framed.

The order also keeps one door open: nothing in it stops the Union “from restricting the access of children to specific categories of content or services that are inherently harmful to them, such as adult content websites etc.” (para 302).

Two benches, two cases

The column links the order to a hearing “seventeen days earlier”. Keep the two apart:

The order of 15 October 2026 The petition heard on 28 September 2026
Case Miscellaneous applications in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (Criminal Appeals of 2024; judgment of 23 September 2024) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1120 of 2026, Just Rights for Children Alliance v. Union of India
Bench Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Chandran Led by the Chief Justice; notice issued on 10 September 2026
What it did Held internet access a fundamental right; directed a National Hash and URL List Database and other measures; next listed on 10 December 2026 As reported, asked the Centre to examine whether statutory rules could regulate social media accounts of children below 18; the Solicitor General suggested a mechanism based on parental consent could be considered
Status Order delivered; the Union is to report progress by affidavit Pending

Our roundup of that hearing is here.

The Issue, Decoded

Concept What it means Why UPSC tests it
Internet access as a fundamental right Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), per the 15 October 2026 order; Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) had left the question open A new constitutional holding: the article pair and the case are Prelims material
Verifiable parental consent DPDP Act, 2023, Section 9(1): a platform will have to get a parent’s verifiable consent before processing a child’s personal data (from 2027) Statute versus court suggestion: the Act already provides for it for data processing
Child (DPDP Act) “an individual who has not completed the age of eighteen years” (Section 2(f)) The order’s consent passage speaks of pre-teens; the Act’s child is anyone under 18
Rule 10, DPDP Rules, 2025 The platform checks that the person giving consent is an adult, from details of identity and age it already holds, or details given voluntarily or through a virtual token issued by an authorised entity The privacy cost of compliance
Age-based restriction In the order’s words, such processes “always require identifying and ascertaining the age of each and every user” Proportionality and the right to privacy
Child mode A dedicated mode for children’s accounts “with measures proportionate to the object of ensuring their safety” (para 300) Safety by design: duties placed on the platform

The Analysis

1. The win, and the turn. The column calls the order, “rightly”, a defeat for the social media ban, and quotes the Court: keeping children offline because platforms fail to remove abuse material “would be to mistake the victim for the problem”. By way of background, the writer says the IFF spent months arguing against Karnataka’s under-16 proposal, announced in the State’s Budget 2026-27 speech on 6 March 2026. Then the turn: “look at what the order and everything around it quietly agree on.”

2. A consensus with no opponent. For context, at the 28 September hearing, by the column’s account, the bench asked the Centre to examine whether anyone under 18 should need a parent’s consent to open an account, and the Solicitor General said the DPDP law’s consent model could be adopted in another law. A report of the hearing puts it a little differently: the Court asked the Centre to examine whether statutory rules could regulate social media accounts of children below 18, and it was the Solicitor General who “suggested that a mechanism based on parental consent could be considered”. Add the Pardiwala bench’s para 300, and the column concludes: “The petitioner wants it, the government wants it, both benches want it.” Check: the Pardiwala bench’s words are a “could be”, for pre-teens; the other petition is undecided.

3. How consent works under the DPDP law. Section 9(1) of the Act reads: “The Data Fiduciary shall, before processing any personal data of a child or a person with disability who has a lawful guardian obtain verifiable consent of the parent of such child or the lawful guardian, as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed.” Rule 10 prescribes the manner: the platform checks that the person identifying herself as the parent is an adult (one who has completed 18 years). The Rules were notified in November 2025, and Rule 10 is among the rules that come into force eighteen months after publication, which falls in 2027. The column draws the consequence: a platform cannot know which users are children without asking all of them, and “the child’s account is tethered to a named adult’s identity record for good”. That last step is the column’s reading of how compliance will work; Rule 10’s text does not say it. The column names a government-notified digital locker as one route, but not that Rule 10 also lets the details be “voluntarily provided” by the individual.

4. The Court’s warning, turned on the Court. The order says age-based restrictions “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 column: “Every word applies to parental consent as the Rules define it”, and so “The court has described the disease and prescribed it.” Check: para 286 is written about age-based restrictions, and the Court then said safeguards are still “necessary”, in measures “proportionate” to safety. So the Court saw a difference of degree where the column sees none. Whether a consent check can be proportionate is exactly what the Union’s modalities will decide.

5. Who the parent is. A consent regime, the column says, “makes the father the platform’s compliance officer”. For “a girl in a conservative home, a queer teenager, a child being abused by the very adult who holds the Aadhaar”, parental oversight “is not a safeguard”. The data it cites point the same way: in ASER 2024 (rural), among 14 to 16-year-olds who could use a smartphone, girls were less likely than boys to report using social media (73.4 per cent against 78.8 per cent). A gate held by the household narrows access most where the household already decides who uses the device. (On how the law asks adults to act when a child is abused, see our page on POCSO and child safety.)

6. Why no one resists. The column’s answer: platforms “can live with it”, and the state “gets a verified identity layer across the entire social internet without ever having to pass a law that says so”. Our analysis: parental consent for processing a child’s data is in an Act of Parliament (Section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023), and Rule 10 is made under it. What is still open is whether consent also becomes a gate to social media itself, which is what the pending petition and the Karnataka proposal are about.

7. The harder route. The column’s alternative is a set of duties on platforms (private by default, no contact from unknown adults, controls on advertising to children), which it says the Centre can impose “under the IT Rules without new legislation”; an age check that returns “one bit, over or under”; and a test. The Court has directed the Union to file an affidavit “on the tools and technological measures that have been put in place by intermediaries for the detection and removal of CSEAM” (child sexual exploitation and abuse material). If the answer is thin, the column says, the remedy is “penalties for the platform, not papers from the parent”. Check: the order itself contemplates guidelines, SOPs and “suitable amendments to the IT Act and the IT Rules, where necessary” (para 318). The advertising duty is already in the Act, though not yet in force: Section 9(3), which comes into force eighteen months after the Rules were notified in November 2025, bars “tracking or behavioural monitoring of children or targeted advertising directed at children”, and a breach of the Section 9 duties will then be liable to a penalty of up to Rs 200 crore. Our analysis: a child mode for pre-teens works only if the platform knows who is a pre-teen, so the column’s route also needs an age check. The real choice is how much that check reveals and keeps, which the column concedes with its one-bit test: data minimisation, not no data.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

The order:

  • Order dated 15 October 2026, made public 17 October 2026; reported as 2026 INSC 1149.
  • Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Chandran; in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish.
  • Earlier judgment in the case: 23 September 2024 (2024 INSC 716).
  • Holding: internet access a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), children included.
  • Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): internet as a medium of speech and trade protected; access itself left open.
  • Next listing: 10 December 2026; the Union to file a progress affidavit by then.

The consent passage:

  • Para 300: there “could be” a system of parental consent, guidance and oversight, with a dedicated “child mode”.
  • Para 301: private by default, curbs on contact from unknown adults, moderation of advertising, “for pre-teens”.
  • Para 301: verification of parental consent by “reasonable and proportionate” means; modalities left to the Union.
  • Para 302: the Union may restrict children’s access to inherently harmful content, such as adult content websites.

The DPDP law:

  • DPDP Act, 2023, Section 9(1): verifiable consent of a parent before processing a child’s personal data.
  • Section 2(f): a child is one who has not completed 18 years.
  • Section 9(3): no tracking, behavioural monitoring or targeted advertising directed at children.
  • Breach of Section 9 duties (in force from 2027): penalty up to Rs 200 crore.
  • DPDP Rules, 2025: notified November 2025; Rule 10 (parental consent) in force 18 months after publication.
  • Rule 10(2): an adult is a person who has completed 18 years.

The other petition:

  • WP(C) No. 1120 of 2026: notice issued 10 September 2026; heard 28 September 2026 by a bench led by the Chief Justice; pending.

The data and the States:

  • ASER 2024 (rural, 14 to 16, smartphone users): social media use, boys 78.8%, girls 73.4%.
  • Karnataka: under-16 social media proposal announced in the Budget 2026-27 speech, 6 March 2026.

⚠️ Watch the trap: The order did not direct a parental-consent rule. It said such a system “could be” built, spoke of protections “for pre-teens”, and left the modalities to the Union. The DPDP Act’s child is anyone under 18. And the 15 October order came from the Pardiwala bench in the 2024 case, not from the Chief Justice’s bench, whose petition is pending.

The Debate

The column’s case The other side
Parental consent needs every user’s age, the harm the Court found in age-based restrictions The Court still called safeguards “necessary” and asked only for measures that are proportionate
A consent check ties a child’s account to an adult’s identity record That is the column’s reading; Rule 10 also allows details given voluntarily or through a virtual token
Family gatekeeping hurts girls, queer teenagers and abused children Consent keeps a responsible adult in the loop; the order frames it as “guidance and oversight”, with platform duties alongside
Put the duties on platforms, without identity checks The order pairs those duties with consent verification for pre-teens, and a child mode needs some age check anyway
The state gets an identity layer without passing a law that says so Parental consent for data processing is already in Section 9 of an Act of Parliament

Balanced verdict: the column is right that consent has a privacy and equality cost, and that the Court’s own words on age checks apply to it in part. It overstates the consensus by leaving out “for pre-teens” and by treating the order’s platform duties as an alternative to consent. The test now sits with the Union’s modalities.

How to Think About This

  1. Separate the holding from the suggestion. “A fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a)” is law declared by the Court. “There could be a system” of parental consent is a suggestion whose design is left to the Union. Quote each for what it is.
  2. Separate the goal from the instrument, and price each in data. The goal (a safer internet for children) is shared. The instruments differ: a consent check identifies an adult for every child account; default settings put the duty on the platform; a one-bit age check reveals the least. Ask what each one collects and keeps.
  3. Ask who holds the key. A safeguard that runs through the household works only where the household is safe. Any child-safety rule should be tested on the child who most needs the internet: the girl whose phone use is already limited at home, or the child who needs help against an adult in the house.

Diagram-in-Words

Argument map

Parental consent and children’s right to the internet

The column’s chain, from the Court’s win to the consensus it fears and the route it prefers, ending with the order’s own qualifier.

The win: order of 15 October 2026 internet access a fundamental right; children 'irrespective of their age'; blanket restrictions disproportionate Petitioner and government 28 September hearing: the Solicitor General suggested a parental-consent mechanism could be considered Both benches (the column’s claim) Pardiwala bench, para 300: there 'could be' a system of parental consent and a child mode the consensus the column fears How consent works: DPDP law Section 9(1): verifiable consent of a parent; Rule 10: the platform checks that the parent is an adult Surveillance the order’s own warning: age checks require identifying the age of each and every user Who the parent is a girl in a conservative home, a queer teenager, a child abused at home the column’s objections Platform duties private by default; no contact from unknown adults; controls on advertising to children One-bit age check an age check that returns only over or under Penalties for platforms if the Union’s affidavit on detection tools is thin the column’s alternative The order’s qualifier (para 301) such measures 'may be implemented for pre-teens', with verification of parental consent; modalities left to the Union
The column’s chain of argument, with the order’s own qualifier at the end: the protections it prefers are, in the order, for pre-teens and paired with verification of parental consent.

Read the map top to bottom: the Court’s win, the consensus the column fears, how consent works, the column’s objections and its alternative, and the order’s own qualifier at the end.

Takeaway Box

  • Lift line: “The ban was always the easy thing to oppose. The consensus is the dangerous thing.”
  • The argument: parental consent, backed by all sides, would condition children’s right to the internet on an adult being identified for them.
  • The order’s words: consent and a child mode “could be”; protections “may be implemented for pre-teens”; modalities left to the Union.
  • The law: DPDP Act, 2023, Section 9: verifiable parental consent, no targeted advertising to children, penalty up to Rs 200 crore; Rules notified November 2025, Section 9 in force from 2027.
  • The column’s alternative: platform duties by default, a one-bit age check, penalties for platforms.
  • Prelims hooks: Article 21 read with 19(1)(a); 2026 INSC 1149; child under the DPDP Act is under 18; next listing 10 December 2026.
  • Mains keywords: proportionality, verifiable parental consent, safety by design, data minimisation, child autonomy, platform accountability, digital divide.
  • Ethics and Interview: a child’s autonomy against parental authority; how to protect a child whose own parent is the risk.
  • Probable question: “Do parental-consent mechanisms protect children online or create fresh risks to their privacy and equality? Examine in the light of the Supreme Court’s recognition of internet access as a fundamental right.”

Revision Flowchart

Revision flowchart

Children’s internet right and parental consent

Covers the terms, Prelims pointers and traps, Mains pointers, the way forward, quick recall and a practice question.

Children’s internet right and parental consent Column in The Indian Express, 18 October 2026, on the Supreme Court order dated 15 October 2026 GS2: fundamental rights, children; GS3: data protection Know the terms Internet right Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a); children included Verifiable parental consent DPDP Act, Section 9(1): before processing a child’s personal data Child mode a dedicated mode for children’s accounts with proportionate safety measures (para 300) Prelims pointers 2026 INSC 1149 order dated 15 October 2026; Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Chandran Child under the DPDP Act one who has not completed 18 years Section 9 penalty breach of Section 9 duties: up to Rs 200 crore DPDP Rules, 2025 notified November 2025; Rule 10 in force 18 months after publication Mains pointers Privacy cost Rule 10 checks the parent’s identity and age; the order warns of surveillance in age checks Family gatekeeping ASER 2024 (rural, 14 to 16, smartphone users): social media use, boys 78.8%, girls 73.4% Platform accountability affidavit on detection tools; Section 9(3) bars targeted advertising to children Way forward and watch next Design duties first private by default; curbs on contact from unknown adults Data minimisation an age check that returns only over or under Watch next next listing 10 December 2026; the Union’s modalities; WP(C) No. 1120 of 2026 pending PRELIMS TRAPS left: the tempting wrong line · right: the fact ✗ The Court directed a parental-consent rule for every minor. ✓ It said a system 'could be' built, spoke of protections 'for pre-teens' and left the modalities to the Union. ✗ Anuradha Bhasin (2020) made internet access a fundamental right. ✓ It left access itself open; the 15 October 2026 order held it under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a). ✗ The 15 October order decided the Chief Justice’s bench petition. ✓ It came from the Pardiwala bench in the 2024 case; WP(C) No. 1120 of 2026 is pending. QUICK RECALL cover the right column, then check Articles behind the internet right? Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) DPDP section on children’s data? Section 9 Who is a child under the DPDP Act? One who has not completed 18 years Penalty for breach of Section 9 duties? Up to Rs 200 crore Next listing of the case? 10 December 2026 MAINS KEYWORDS Proportionality Verifiable parental consent Safety by design Data minimisation Child autonomy Platform accountability Digital divide MAINS PRACTICE GS2 · 250 words The Supreme Court has held that children share the fundamental right to access and use the internet, while suggesting parental consent and a 'child mode' for social media. Critically examine whether parental-consent mechanisms protect children or create fresh risks to their privacy and equality.
Revision flowchart: terms, Prelims facts and traps, Mains pointers. Cover the answers and test yourself.

Sources: The Indian Express, column, “The court said children have a right to the internet. Parental consent makes it conditional”, 18 October 2026; Supreme Court of India, Just Rights for Children Alliance and another v. S. Harish and others, M.A. Nos. 2553-2554 of 2026, order dated 15 October 2026, 2026 INSC 1149 (copy hosted by Bar & Bench); Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (MeitY); Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, Rules 1 and 10; PIB, Ministry of Electronics and IT, “DPDP Rules, 2025 Notified” (November 2025); PIB, Ministry of Education, Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2024 (February 2025); Supreme Court of India, record of proceedings, WP(C) No. 1120 of 2026 (September 2026); Organiser, report of the September 2026 hearing; Internet Freedom Foundation, statement on Karnataka’s social media ban for children under 16 (March 2026); Constitution of India (Legislative Department)

Source: Children's Internet Right: Consent Makes It Conditional — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis