The Supreme Court has said children also have a fundamental right to use the internet.
In a 137-page order on October 15, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the internet is not a luxury anymore. It is the biggest source of information, ideas, learning and expression. For adults, it is essential. For children, it is even more so. For many children in remote villages, the internet is the only classroom. For children with special needs, it is often the only place where they can talk to others like them and feel less alone.
The order came on a petition filed by NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance, who had flagged the alarming rise in Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) on social media platforms. The Court took this concern seriously and ordered the Centre to create a national database to detect and remove sexually explicit content involving minors from digital platforms.
But at the same time, the Court refused to say that children should be banned from the internet or social media to protect them. This is the most crucial part of the judgment.
Around the world, there is a growing trend to ban social media for children below 16. Australia has done it. Some states in America are trying it. In India too, many people feel that banning is the easiest way to keep children safe. The Supreme Court has disagreed.
Bans do not work. Children still find ways to go online, but then they use unsafe, hidden platforms. They also become scared to tell parents or police if someone troubles them online, fearing they will be punished for using the internet.
Also, to enforce a full ban, platforms will have to check the age and collect data of every single user. That will create a huge privacy and surveillance problem for all citizens.
Safety and freedom are not enemies. Children need both.
So instead of banning, the Court suggests a middle path. It says some restrictions are needed, but they should be reasonable. Adult websites and other inherently harmful content can be blocked for children. For the rest, the focus should be on parental consent, parental guidance and a special “child mode” on platforms with stronger safety features.
This balanced approach puts the real responsibility where it belongs—on the government, police and tech companies to clean up the internet, instead of just locking children out.
The Court’s direction to build a CSEAM database and make platforms proactively remove such material is much needed. Till now, action is taken only after someone complains, by which time damage is done. The Court’s direction for a national database and proactive detection by intermediaries, MeitY and law enforcement is a much-needed step.
But this will only work if it is done properly. The database must have clear rules. Who will manage it? How will it be secured? How will wrong flagging be corrected? Without transparency, such a powerful tool can be misused or become ineffective.
Technology alone is not enough. We need better cyber cells, faster investigation, and better coordination between platforms and agencies like NCRB and Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C).
The judgment is a reminder that running away from a problem is not solving it. If we accept that internet access is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21, then the State has a duty to make that access safe, meaningful and equal for all children, not to take it away.
