New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that access to and use of the internet is a fundamental right of every individual, including children, under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court has also suggested introducing child-friendly modes on social media platforms to strengthen online safety without completely denying children access to the internet.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the observations while issuing directions to strengthen mechanisms for detecting and removing child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) from social media platforms and other online services, LiveLaw reported.

Emphasising that children’s safety and freedom must be protected together, the bench observed: “The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both.”

The court’s observations come amid growing concerns over children’s exposure to harmful online content and the challenges faced by digital platforms in identifying and removing such material. Rather than imposing blanket restrictions on children’s internet access, the bench indicated that platforms should adopt stronger safeguards, including the possibility of a dedicated ‘child mode’ for social media accounts.

Supreme Court says internet access is a fundamental right

The bench explicitly recognised internet access as a fundamental right under Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, read with Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

According to LiveLaw, the court said: “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.”

The judges also emphasised that children enjoy these constitutional protections irrespective of their age.

The bench observed that denying children access to the internet altogether would be as unreasonable as suggesting that children below a particular age do not have a conscience worth protecting or freedom of speech worth expressing.

The observations underline the court’s view that children must be protected from online harm without automatically excluding them from a medium that provides access to information, education and communication.

Why the court is against blanket restrictions

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the internet, in its current form, presents significant safety risks for children. However, it questioned whether restricting children’s access was the appropriate response to the failure of online platforms to detect and remove harmful content.

The bench indicated that preventing children from accessing the internet because platforms had failed to control abusive material would amount to mistaking the victim for the problem.

The distinction is important because children may encounter harmful material without actively seeking it out. The court’s reasoning places emphasis on strengthening the systems responsible for preventing the circulation of such content instead of making children bear the consequences of those failures.

The suggestion of a dedicated child mode reflects an approach that seeks to combine access with safeguards. Such measures could help platforms create age-appropriate online experiences while preserving children’s ability to use digital services.

However, the court’s observations do not, by themselves, establish a specific technical design or a uniform child-mode requirement for every social media platform. The directions issued in the case and their implementation will determine the precise obligations imposed on online services.

Internet provides access to education and information

The bench highlighted the internet’s importance as a source of learning, communication, creative expression and information.

It noted that the value of the internet extended beyond the content available online to the opportunities it provides people to learn, exchange ideas and communicate with others.

“For many children, particularly in remote areas, it is often the only source of learning and information,” the court observed.

The remarks draw attention to the potential consequences of broad restrictions, particularly for children who have limited access to libraries, educational institutions and other information resources.

Online platforms can provide access to educational materials, digital learning tools and opportunities to communicate with people beyond a child’s immediate surroundings. Restricting that access could therefore affect children’s ability to learn and participate in the digital world.

The bench also referred to children with special needs, noting that online platforms may offer opportunities for companionship and interaction with others facing similar circumstances.

For some children, these digital spaces can provide access to communities and information that may be difficult to find in their immediate environment.

The court’s observations suggest that any approach to online safety must account for these benefits while addressing the risks posed by harmful content and unsafe online interactions.

Freedom of speech includes the right to receive information

The Supreme Court also examined the relationship between internet access and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.

Article 19(1)(a) protects the right to freedom of speech and expression. The bench noted that this freedom includes the right to know, receive and impart information and ideas.

Describing the internet as a marketplace of ideas, information and creative expression, the court highlighted its role in enabling individuals to access different viewpoints and participate in public and social life.

The observations indicate that internet access is not limited to the ability to publish or communicate online. It also concerns the ability to receive information and engage with ideas made available by others.

For children, this access can be relevant to education, creativity, social interaction and the development of independent thought.

The bench’s position was that these interests should not automatically be sacrificed in the name of online safety. Instead, safeguards should be designed to protect children while allowing them to benefit from the opportunities offered by digital services.

Earlier Supreme Court judgments on internet rights

The bench referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions dealing with internet access and constitutional protections.

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the court held that freedom of speech and expression, as well as the freedom to carry on a trade or business through the medium of the internet, is constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

However, the earlier judgment had refrained from expressing a view on whether the right to access the internet, by itself, constituted a fundamental right.

The bench also referred to the 2025 judgment in Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court recognised the right to digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21.

By referring to these decisions, the bench placed its observations within the broader development of constitutional protections relating to digital access and the use of online services.

The latest remarks specifically address children’s position, emphasising that their age does not remove their entitlement to constitutional protections.

Child mode could strengthen online safety

The suggestion of a child mode for social media accounts points towards a model in which platforms take greater responsibility for creating safer online environments for younger users.

Depending on how such a system is designed, child-focused settings could potentially include age-appropriate content controls, restrictions on certain interactions, stronger privacy protections and safeguards against exposure to harmful material.

These are possible features rather than a list of measures expressly mandated by the observations described in the report. The effectiveness of any such approach would depend on its design, enforcement and ability to prevent harmful material from reaching children.

Platforms would also need to consider how age verification, parental involvement and privacy protections interact with children’s access to online services.

The court’s broader emphasis, however, is that online safety should not be pursued simply by excluding children from the internet. Greater responsibility must be placed on systems that distribute content and on mechanisms intended to detect and remove abusive material.

Stronger action against child sexual abuse material

The observations were made in the context of directions aimed at strengthening the detection and removal of child sexual exploitation and abuse material from online platforms and services.

CSEAM poses serious challenges because harmful material can be uploaded, circulated and reproduced across multiple services. Effective safeguards therefore require platforms to identify such content and respond promptly when it is detected.

The Supreme Court’s focus on stronger mechanisms reflects the need to address the availability and circulation of abusive material rather than treating children’s internet access itself as the primary problem.

The precise responsibilities of platforms will depend on the directions issued by the court and the applicable legal framework. The case also highlights the importance of ensuring that online safety measures protect children without unnecessarily limiting their access to legitimate information and educational resources.

Balancing children’s safety and digital freedom

The Supreme Court’s observations set out a clear principle: protecting children online and recognising their freedom to access information are not mutually exclusive goals.

The internet can expose children to harmful content, but it can also provide educational opportunities, social connections and access to information that may otherwise be unavailable to them.

The bench has therefore questioned blanket restrictions and suggested that child-friendly features, alongside stronger content detection and removal mechanisms, could offer a more balanced approach.

The practical impact will depend on how the court’s directions are implemented and how social media companies respond to their responsibilities.

For now, the observations mark an important statement on children’s digital rights, placing their safety and freedom within the same constitutional framework. The court’s message is that online risks must be addressed through effective safeguards rather than by denying children access to the internet altogether.