Internet access is fundamental right for children: Supreme Court on blanket ban

The Supreme Court has said that the right to access the internet is a fundamental right of every individual, including children, irrespective of their age. It warned that complete bans on internet access for children in the name of safety risk eroding their freedom, privacy and ability to seek assistance when they face online abuse.

“The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both,” a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Chandran said in an order dated October 15. The order stated that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right falling under Article 21. Their freedom of speech and expression is also guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The court statement came as it was examining measures to detect and remove child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) from the internet. The measures come amid the growing international debate over restricting children’s access to social media.

While recognising the legitimate concerns behind such proposals, the bench deliberately refrained from endorsing a blanket ban, holding that safeguarding children cannot come at the cost of excluding them from a medium that has become essential to education, information and social participation.

Children’s social media access

The court’s remarks carry weight against the backdrop of mounting pressure on governments to limit children’s social media access, including through minimum-age thresholds. The bench found that such bans were not only doubtful in their effectiveness but risked backfiring by pushing children toward unregulated corners of the internet that posed greater dangers.

“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,” it said.

Applying this constitutional reasoning to children specifically, the bench emphasised that the internet’s worth extends beyond the information it offers, encompassing the opportunities it creates for learning, self-expression and human connection. “For many children, particularly in remote areas, it is often the only source of learning and information. Likewise for children with special needs, the internet is often the only place where they can find company in others like them,” the court said.

The bench further challenged the notion that keeping children off the internet would automatically make them safer. Pointing to experiences in other countries, it noted that legal prohibitions do not actually stop children from going online — instead, they often end up migrating to less regulated platforms and websites that carry even greater risks.