ExplainedSupreme Court
Children's right to the internet: what the Supreme Court has said, and what platforms must now do
Last week the Supreme Court held that access to the internet is a fundamental right of every person, children included, and ordered a national database to take down child abuse material. Where the right comes from, what it rules out, and what changes for families and tech companies.
The short answer
In an order dated 15 October, Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran held that the right to access and use the internet flows from Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), and that children share it. Blanket bans that keep children offline because platforms fail to remove abuse material are not allowed, though proportionate safeguards such as parental controls or a 'child mode' are. The court told the Centre to build a National Hash & URL List Database of child sexual abuse material, tightened takedown and grievance duties for platforms, and wants digital safety and sex education in the school curriculum. The Centre must report progress before 10 December.
What did the court decide?
That being online is a fundamental right, and that children have it too.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran grounded the right in Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty, read with Article 19(1)(a), which covers the freedom to receive and share information. Shutting children out of the internet altogether would be unreasonable, the bench said. “For many children, particularly in remote areas, it is often the only source of learning and information.”
The case was brought by the NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance, which said platforms were still failing to deal with child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) two years after the court’s last judgment on the subject. The bench agreed there had been “no progress worth the name”.
Is this the first time a court has said so?
No, but it is the clearest statement from the Supreme Court.
In September 2019 the Kerala High Court ruled in favour of Faheema Shirin, a student at Sree Narayana College in Kozhikode who was expelled from her hostel for breaking a rule banning mobile phones from 6 pm to 10 pm. Justice P V Asha held that access to the internet is part of the right to privacy and the right to education.
In January 2020, in Anuradha Bhasin, the Supreme Court held that free speech and the freedom to carry on a trade over the internet are protected, and that internet shutdowns cannot be indefinite. It stopped short of declaring access itself a fundamental right. Last week’s order goes further, and extends the right expressly to children.
Does it mean no limits on what children can see?
No. It rules out blanket bans, not safeguards.
The bench said protection has to target the harmful material and those who spread it. “To keep the child away from the internet on account of such failures would be to mistake the victim for the problem,” it said. It left room for proportionate measures such as parental oversight, content restrictions and a “child mode” for social media accounts, which it suggested as an alternative to age-based bans. That suggestion is not a binding direction.
What the order rules out, and what it allows
What is the hash database?
A national list of digital fingerprints of known abuse material, so that it can be found and removed automatically.
A hash is a short code calculated from a file; the same image produces the same code wherever it is uploaded. The court told the Centre to set up a National Hash & URL List Database, to be used only to detect and take down CSEAM. Before any hash or web address is added, material must pass several levels of checks, ending with an assessment by at least three trained human analysts. Platforms must then disable and remove matching content at once, without running their own checks.
What else must platforms do?
They must display the details of their grievance officers prominently, let users report abuse in no more than two steps, and leave final decisions on complaints to trained officers rather than automated systems. The Centre has to frame guidelines on hash-matching and URL lists for all significant social media intermediaries, and file an affidavit on the technology platforms use now. The court also asked the government to consider exemplary fines tied to the seriousness and repetition of failures and to a company’s size, and said money earned from such material behind paywalls should be forfeited.
What changes in schools?
Digital safety and sex education are to become part of the core curriculum. The court wants NCERT and state councils to teach age-appropriate lessons on consent, safe and unsafe touch, and how to report abuse without fear, with training for teachers, awareness programmes for parents and free counselling for victims.
What happens next?
The Centre must file a progress affidavit before the case returns on 10 December. As the bench put it: “The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both.”