Why in the News?

• On October 15, 2026, the Supreme Court recognised the right to access and use the internet as a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a), rejecting blanket restrictions on children's internet access as a solution to online abuse.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Right to Internet Access (Recent Judgement, Evolution, Limits of Blanket Restrictions, Safeguards, Responsibilities of the State & Digital Platforms)

Constitutional Basis of Internet Access

• The Supreme Court, in a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

• Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty.
• Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which can be exercised through digital platforms.
• Article 19(1)(g): Protects the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business, including through the internet, subject to constitutional restrictions.

• The internet has become an important medium for education, information, communication and creative expression.
• Its significance is particularly high for children in remote areas, where digital platforms may provide access to learning opportunities that are otherwise unavailable.
• The judgment also builds on the Supreme Court's recognition of digital access as an intrinsic component of the right to life in Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025).

Judicial Evolution of Digital Rights

• The constitutional status of internet access has evolved through judicial interpretation.
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
  • The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to carry on trade or business through the internet are constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).
  • However, it left open the question of whether internet access itself constituted a fundamental right.
• Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025)
  • The Court recognised digital access as an intrinsic component of Article 21 and emphasised the State's responsibility to develop inclusive digital ecosystems that serve both privileged and marginalised sections of society.
• Supreme Court ruling of October 2026
  • The Court expressly recognised the right to access and use the internet as a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a).
  • It also clarified that protecting children from online exploitation does not justify imposing a blanket ban on their internet access.

Child Safety and the Limits of Blanket Restrictions

• The case arose from a petition by the NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance concerning the continued availability of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) on social media platforms.
• The Court held that the primary responsibility lies with those who create, circulate or seek such material and with intermediaries that fail to detect and remove it.
• Denying children internet access because of these failures would shift the burden from the wrongdoers to the victims.
• Concerns with blanket restrictions
  • Questionable effectiveness: Children may bypass restrictions and migrate to unregulated platforms that expose them to greater risks.
  • Reduced reporting: Fear of punishment for accessing prohibited platforms may discourage children from reporting online threats, grooming or exploitation.
  • Privacy risks: Age-verification systems may require the collection and monitoring of sensitive personal data, creating risks of surveillance and misuse.
  • Digital exclusion: Broad restrictions may limit access to education, information, creative expression and other legitimate online opportunities.
• The Court therefore considered blanket restrictions disproportionate, while acknowledging that age-appropriate safeguards remain necessary.

Safeguards for Children in the Digital Environment

• The judgment favoured targeted and proportionate safeguards rather than a complete denial of internet access.

• Parental oversight: Encourage parental consent, guidance and supervision for children's access to social media platforms.
• Dedicated child mode: Develop child-specific accounts with age-appropriate privacy and safety settings.
• Privacy by default: Make children's accounts private by default and restrict contact or messages from unknown adults.
• Content moderation: Strengthen moderation of advertisements and content accessible to children.
• Detection and removal: Improve technological tools used by intermediaries to detect and remove CSEAM.
• Digital literacy: Teach children to recognise online risks, follow safe practices and seek help without fear of reprisal.

• The Court also recognised that the government may restrict children's access to specific categories of services that are inherently harmful, such as adult-content websites.
• Such restrictions must be distinguished from a blanket ban on internet access.

Responsibilities of the State and Digital Platforms

• Protecting children online requires coordinated action by government authorities, digital intermediaries, parents and educational institutions.
• The Supreme Court sought information from the Union government on the technological tools used by intermediaries to detect and remove CSEAM and on the feasibility of deploying such tools across the industry.
• Effective digital governance requires platforms to improve content moderation, respond promptly to reports of exploitation and adopt safety-by-design principles.
• Government regulation should establish clear accountability standards while protecting privacy and legitimate online expression.
• The State must also promote inclusive digital access so that safety measures do not disproportionately disadvantage children from rural, economically weaker or otherwise marginalised backgrounds.