Internet access a fundamental right for all, including children, says SC

The Supreme Court held that internet access is a fundamental right for every citizen, including children. This does not mean children should face no safeguards online. It means a complete denial of access would wrongly remove an important way to learn, communicate, create and gather information.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran compared total denial to saying children have no conscience worth protecting or freedom of speech worth expressing. The court was considering whether children should be completely shielded from the internet and social media platforms.

The court said children are entitled to both safety and freedom. It noted that the internet is a marketplace of ideas and, for many children in remote areas, the only source of learning and information. The ruling came during a case about platforms allegedly failing to report child sexual exploitation material.

A fundamental right is a basic liberty that the Constitution protects for people. Governments must respect it, and courts can examine restrictions on it. Such rights are not simply benefits handed out by a company or authority. They carry stronger legal importance and cannot normally be removed arbitrarily.

Permission to use a service is different. A platform, school or provider may set ordinary conditions for access, such as age rules or account requirements. Those conditions can often be changed or withdrawn under applicable law. A fundamental right does not guarantee unlimited access to every website, nor does it eliminate reasonable protections.

In this case, the Supreme Court treated internet access as connected to learning, information, expression and companionship. The court therefore rejected completely denying children access in the name of safety. The article does not detail the full constitutional reasoning or define every permissible restriction, so specific safeguards remain a matter for law and policy.

The court stressed that internet access is not equally replaceable for every child. In remote areas, children may have fewer nearby educational resources, libraries or information channels. Online access can therefore connect them with learning and knowledge that might otherwise be unavailable.

The bench also highlighted children with special needs. It said the internet was often the only place where they could find companionship. This points to a wider role than entertainment: online spaces can support communication, creative expression and social connection.

These examples explain why the court rejected a complete ban as a safety solution. Removing access could protect children from some harmful material, but it could also cut off education, information and relationships. The court instead said children are entitled to both safety and freedom. The article does not specify which alternative safeguards should be used, but it frames targeted protection as necessary.

The article mentions four countries or Indian states considering or imposing restrictions on social media for children under 16. They are Australia, the United Kingdom, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The count includes two countries and two Indian states.

Australia became the first country to block social media for people under 16 in December. The United Kingdom announced in June that it would ban users under 16 to protect them from dangerous and harmful content. The article does not provide implementation dates for these measures.

Karnataka announced a planned ban in March, although the chief minister did not say when it would begin. Andhra Pradesh said in 2025 that it was considering a ban for the same age group. The Internet Freedom Foundation called for evidence-based policy rather than headline-driven prohibitions, showing that the debate remains active.

Denying internet access altogether could cost children much more than entertainment. The Supreme Court described the internet as a marketplace for ideas, creative expression and information. A complete ban could therefore restrict children’s ability to learn, communicate and express themselves.

The losses may be greatest for children in remote areas and children with special needs. The court said the internet is often the only source of learning and information for children in remote areas. It also said children with special needs may rely on it as their only place to find companionship.

The court’s central point was that safety and freedom are not mutually exclusive. Protecting children from sexual abuse material and other harmful content remains essential, but removing the entire medium can also cause harm. The article does not prescribe a particular alternative, though it rejects complete shielding and supports a more balanced approach.

Social-media companies are expected to meet legal obligations when they encounter child sexual exploitation and abuse material. The petition before the Supreme Court alleged that platforms were failing to report such material to authorities. This places responsibility on platforms to respond rather than allow illegal content or promotions to continue.

The article states that publishing or transmitting child sexual abuse material is illegal under the 2000 Information Technology Act and the 2012 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It also reports that Meta received a government notice directing it to disable advertisements and content allegedly promoting access to such material.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act adds another duty involving children’s data. A data fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent from a parent or lawful guardian before processing a child’s personal data. The article does not list every platform procedure or penalty, so those details cannot be inferred from the text.

Regulating harmful content and banning a communication medium are different choices. Content regulation focuses on illegal or dangerous material, such as child sexual abuse material. A total ban blocks the medium itself, including lawful uses such as education, creative expression, information and companionship.

The article gives a clear example of the tension. Instagram was reported to have carried paid advertisements using phrases such as rape video and child video, directing users to Telegram channels where material could be purchased. The Union government then told Meta to disable advertisements and content allegedly promoting access. That approach targets harmful activity rather than all users.

The balance is difficult because children need protection, but restrictions can also remove essential opportunities. The Supreme Court said children are entitled to both safety and freedom. Digital governance must therefore address platform responsibility, illegal content and child-data protection without treating complete exclusion as the only answer.