Editor,
The Supreme Court’s recognition of children’s fundamental right to access and use the internet marks an important moment in India’s constitutional journey. In Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish the Court emphasised that protecting children from online harm cannot justify denying them internet access altogether. This ruling demands a shift from blanket restrictions to responsible digital governance.
The constitutional foundation is significant. Article 21 guarantees life and personal liberty, encompassing dignity, education and personal development. Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, including its exercise through digital platforms, subject to constitutionally permissible restrictions. Although children require special protection, they do not cease to be rights-bearing individuals. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 15(3) permits special provisions for children. These provisions must be harmonised to protect children without unnecessarily curtailing their freedoms.
The social importance of internet access is undeniable. Digital platforms provide educational resources, scholarship information, career guidance and opportunities to participate in public discussions. For children in rural, economically disadvantaged and geographically isolated communities, online access can help overcome barriers created by inadequate educational infrastructure. Children with disabilities may also depend on digital tools for learning and communication. A blanket ban could deepen existing inequalities and widen the digital divide.
The psychological dimension deserves equal attention. The internet can foster curiosity, creativity, social connection and independent learning. However uncontrolled exposure can contribute to cyberbullying, online grooming, sexual exploitation, anxiety, sleep disturbances, social comparison and excessive screen use. Harmful content may affect a child’s self-esteem, emotional security and developing understanding of relationships. The appropriate response is neither unrestricted access nor complete exclusion but age-appropriate guidance, digital literacy and meaningful safeguards.
The judgment also raises questions of institutional accountability. Social media companies and other digital intermediaries must take effective steps to identify and remove child sexual exploitation and abuse material. The burden of safety cannot rest entirely on children and their families when platforms possess the technological capacity to detect and prevent the circulation of such material. Government regulation must be effective, transparent and consistent with constitutional freedoms and privacy.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, provide important legal protections against child sexual exploitation and abuse material. These laws must be enforced effectively, alongside accessible reporting mechanisms, prompt investigations and appropriate support for victims. Children who report online abuse should never be punished or humiliated for seeking help.
Parents and schools also have a vital role. Instead of relying exclusively on surveillance or confiscating devices, parents should encourage open communication and teach children how to recognise suspicious contacts, protect personal information and report threatening behaviour. Schools should incorporate age-appropriate digital citizenship and online safety education into their curricula. Platforms should consider child-friendly account settings, privacy by default, restrictions on unsolicited contact from unknown adults and effective parental controls.
Finally constitutional recognition must translate into practical inclusion. The State should expand affordable connectivity, provide safe digital learning facilities and ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are not excluded from technological progress. Safeguards must be proportionate and targeted at genuine risks rather than imposed indiscriminately.
The Supreme Court has rightly reminded us that safety and freedom are not competing objectives. A democratic society must protect children without isolating them from knowledge, opportunity and expression. The goal should not be to keep children away from the digital world, but to make that world safer for them.
Children deserve both constitutional freedom and effective protection and public policy must deliver both.
A.C. Vineeth Kumar
Thrissur
Kerala
