Strengthen your UPSC exam preparation with daily IAS and UPSC current affairs

Recent Developments:

• On 15 October 2026, the Supreme Court, in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2026 INSC 1149), 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.
• The Court clarified that children, irrespective of age, enjoy this right and that online safety and digital freedom are complementary, not conflicting, objectives.
• It rejected blanket restrictions on children’s internet access as disproportionate and ineffective, observing that such restrictions may push children towards unregulated and less secure platforms.
• The Court suggested proportionate safeguards, including parental consent and supervision, dedicated child-friendly accounts, private-by-default settings and restrictions on contact with unknown adults.
• It directed the Union Government, particularly the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to formulate guidelines, standard operating procedures and necessary amendments to the Information Technology Act and Rules. The Government was asked to submit a progress affidavit before the next hearing on 10 December 2026.

Internet Access as a Fundamental Right:

Importance of Internet Access:

• The internet has become essential for education, information, communication, healthcare, economic opportunities, creativity and participation in public life.
• For children in remote areas, it may be a primary source of learning and information, while persons with disabilities can use digital platforms to access education, public services and social participation.
• Meaningful digital access requires more than physical connectivity; it also involves affordable devices, reliable networks, accessible platforms, digital literacy and content in regional languages.
• The digital divide creates unequal opportunities for rural populations, economically weaker sections, senior citizens, persons with disabilities and linguistic minorities.

Constitutional Basis:

• Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including the right to know, receive and impart information and ideas through digital platforms.
• Article 19(1)(g): Protects the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business, including constitutionally protected activities conducted through the internet.
• Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, encompassing dignity, autonomy and meaningful access to essential opportunities in an increasingly digital society.
• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws, supporting non-discriminatory access to digital infrastructure and public services.
• Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on specified grounds and informs the State’s responsibility to ensure inclusive access to essential digital opportunities.
• Article 38: Directs the State to promote social welfare and reduce inequalities, providing a broader constitutional basis for addressing digital exclusion.

Constitutional Framework: Balancing State Authority and Individual Liberty:

Authority-Liberty Coordination:

• A constitutional democracy must balance State authority and individual liberty, ensuring that public regulation does not unnecessarily undermine fundamental freedoms.
• The State may impose reasonable restrictions to protect legitimate interests such as public order, security, decency and the rights of others, but such restrictions must satisfy constitutional requirements.
• Excessive State interference can produce authoritarian tendencies, while unrestricted exercise of individual freedoms may sometimes conflict with legitimate public interests.
• The objective is to maintain a constitutional balance through legality, legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality.
• In the context of children’s internet access, regulation should address harmful content, exploitative behaviour and platform failures rather than treating children’s access itself as the problem.

Proportionality and Reasonable Restrictions:

• A restriction on a fundamental right must have a valid legal basis, pursue a legitimate State objective and maintain a proportionate relationship between the measure adopted and the objective sought.
• Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression on specified grounds, including sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency and morality.
• Article 19(6) permits reasonable restrictions on the freedom to practise a profession or carry on trade or business in the interests specified by the Constitution.
• Blanket restrictions that affect legitimate educational, informational and expressive activities may fail the test of proportionality when less restrictive alternatives are available.

Global Approaches to Children’s Online Safety:

Emerging Regulatory Approaches:

• Several countries have considered or introduced age-based restrictions, parental-consent requirements, screen-time controls and platform-level safeguards to address children's exposure to harmful content.
• Australia has adopted restrictions on social media access by children below a specified age, while other jurisdictions have explored parental supervision, age verification and restrictions on children's use of particular platforms.
• China has introduced measures regulating minors’ online activity and screen time, reflecting a more interventionist approach to digital consumption.
• These approaches reflect concerns about excessive screen exposure, harmful content, online exploitation, privacy risks and the influence of social media algorithms.

Indian Context:

• In March 2026, Andhra Pradesh announced a proposal to restrict social media use by children below 13 years, while Karnataka announced a proposed restriction for children below 16 years.
• Such announcements indicate growing concern about excessive screen time, mental well-being and children's vulnerability to harmful digital content; proposals should not be treated as enacted laws unless formally implemented.
• International regulatory models cannot automatically be replicated in India because their constitutional frameworks, enforcement capacities and social conditions differ.
• Any Indian policy must balance child protection, privacy, freedom of expression, digital inclusion and enforceability.

Judicial Developments on Internet Access and Digital Rights:

Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995):

• The Supreme Court recognised that Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to know, receive and impart information and ideas.
• The judgment established that communication and access to information are important dimensions of freedom of expression, providing a foundation for understanding digital access as an essential contemporary medium of expression.

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020):

• The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) are constitutionally protected when exercised through the internet.
• The Court clarified that freedom of speech through the internet is subject to Article 19(2), while internet-based trade and business are subject to Article 19(6).
• It held that indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible and that suspension orders must be published, periodically reviewed and open to judicial scrutiny.
• The Court did not decide whether access to the internet, by itself, constituted a fundamental right; this question was subsequently addressed in later judgments.

Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025):

• The Supreme Court held that excluding persons with disabilities from digital Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures violated Article 21.
• It recognised digital access as an intrinsic component of the right to life and emphasised the State’s responsibility to create inclusive digital infrastructure.
• The judgment highlighted the need for accessible websites, applications, assistive technologies and alternative verification procedures.
• It connected digital inclusion with substantive equality, dignity and meaningful participation in public life.

Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2026):

• The Supreme 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 clarified that children enjoy the same fundamental rights irrespective of age and that their safety cannot be secured by denying them access to the internet altogether.
• The Court observed that blanket restrictions may drive children towards unregulated platforms, discourage reporting of online abuse and create privacy risks through intrusive age-verification systems.
• It held that protective measures should target harmful material and those responsible for creating, circulating or hosting it rather than penalising children through indiscriminate restrictions.
• The judgment nevertheless recognised the need for age-appropriate safeguards and permitted restrictions on inherently harmful services, including adult-content websites.

Balancing Digital Freedom with Online Safety:

Limitations of Blanket Restrictions:

• A blanket prohibition on internet or social media access may deprive children of educational resources, digital services, information and opportunities for self-expression.
• Children may circumvent restrictions by shifting to less regulated platforms, where parental supervision and institutional safeguards are weaker.
• Intrusive age-verification systems may require continuous collection of sensitive personal information, increasing risks of surveillance, data misuse and privacy violations.
• Fear of punishment for violating restrictions may discourage children facing grooming, exploitation or online threats from reporting incidents to parents and trusted adults.

Proportionate Safeguards Recommended by the Supreme Court:

• Parental consent and supervision: Introduce age-appropriate parental oversight and guidance, supported by reasonable verification mechanisms.
• Child-friendly accounts: Provide dedicated child modes, private accounts by default, restricted contact from unknown adults and suitable controls over advertising and accessible content.
• Content moderation: Strengthen detection and removal of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, including harmful content circulated through indirect links and subscription-based services.
• Platform accountability: Ensure that intermediaries comply with legal reporting and due-diligence obligations, maintain effective grievance-redressal systems and face appropriate penalties for persistent failures.
• Privacy protection: Ensure that age-verification and safety mechanisms do not result in excessive collection, processing or monitoring of children's personal data.

Stakeholders and Their Responsibilities:

Parents and Guardians:

• Parents should encourage responsible internet use, establish age-appropriate boundaries and understand the platforms used by children.
• Parental supervision should promote trust and communication rather than excessive surveillance, ensuring that children can report uncomfortable experiences without fear of punishment.

Government and Law Enforcement:

• The Union and State Governments should establish effective regulatory frameworks, enforce child-protection laws and ensure accountability of digital intermediaries.
• Law enforcement agencies should strengthen reporting, investigation and victim-support mechanisms for online exploitation, harassment and abuse.
• The Government should ensure that internet restrictions, where necessary, are lawful, targeted, proportionate and subject to appropriate review.

Educational Institutions:

• Schools should integrate digital literacy, cyber safety and age-appropriate sex education into the curriculum.
• Students should be taught to identify online grooming, impersonation, sexual extortion, privacy violations and suspicious communication.
• Teachers and school staff should receive training to identify abuse, respond sensitively to disclosures and fulfil mandatory reporting obligations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
• The Supreme Court emphasised that digital safety education should include consent, healthy relationships, respect for others and awareness of reporting mechanisms.

Digital Service Providers:

• Technology companies should strengthen content moderation, privacy safeguards, age-appropriate settings and accessible grievance-redressal mechanisms.
• Intermediaries should detect and remove harmful material, report relevant offences to designated authorities and prevent the circulation of prohibited content through indirect links or subscription services.
• Platforms should provide safety reminders, reporting options and warnings when children attempt to interact with unknown adults.

Relevant Legal and Policy Framework:

Information Technology Act, 2000:

• Section 79 provides conditional safe-harbour protection to intermediaries for third-party information, subject to statutory due diligence and compliance requirements.
• The Supreme Court emphasised that intermediaries cannot claim this protection as a blanket exemption from their obligations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
• Section 67B criminalises specified activities involving sexually explicit material depicting children in electronic form.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012:

• The POCSO Act provides a child-protection framework against sexual offences, including offences involving child sexual exploitation and abuse material.
• Sections 19 and 20 establish reporting obligations in specified circumstances, including obligations relevant to persons and intermediaries becoming aware of offences.
• Section 21 provides penalties for failure to report or record certain offences.
• The Supreme Court emphasised that digital platforms must comply with applicable reporting obligations and cannot rely solely on their internal policies.

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023:

• The Act defines a child as an individual below 18 years of age.
• Section 9 provides for verifiable parental consent before processing a child's personal data, subject to statutory exemptions and prescribed conditions.
• It also addresses processing likely to have a detrimental effect on a child's well-being, tracking or behavioural monitoring of children and targeted advertising directed at them.
• The Act's provisions are subject to phased commencement; their implementation status must be checked against the applicable commencement notifications.

Way Forward:

• Rights-based regulation: Protect children's fundamental rights while targeting harmful content, exploitative conduct and platform failures through lawful and proportionate measures.
• Digital inclusion: Expand affordable connectivity, accessible digital infrastructure, regional-language content and digital literacy to reduce the digital divide.
• Platform accountability: Strengthen content moderation, mandatory reporting, grievance redressal and independent compliance monitoring.
• Privacy by design: Adopt data-minimisation practices and privacy-preserving age-assurance mechanisms instead of intrusive surveillance.
• Digital education: Integrate cyber safety, media literacy, consent and age-appropriate sex education into school curricula.
• Multi-stakeholder coordination: Promote cooperation among governments, schools, parents, civil society, technology companies and law enforcement agencies.
• Evidence-based policymaking: Evaluate restrictions through measurable outcomes, child-safety assessments and public consultation rather than assuming that blanket prohibitions automatically improve safety.

Value Addition for UPSC:

Constitutional and Legal Concepts:

• Fundamental Rights: Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21.
• Reasonable Restrictions: Articles 19(2) and 19(6), proportionality and judicial review.
• Digital Inclusion: Substantive equality, dignity, privacy and access to essential services.
• Child Protection: POCSO Act, 2012; Information Technology Act, 2000; Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Important Judicial Precedents:

• Cricket Association of Bengal (1995): Right to know, receive and impart information.
• Anuradha Bhasin (2020): Constitutional protection of internet-based speech and trade, safeguards against indefinite internet suspension.
• Pragya Prasun (2025): Digital access as an intrinsic component of Article 21.
• Just Rights for Children Alliance (2026): Fundamental right to access and use the internet, including for children, subject to proportionate safeguards.

General Studies Linkages:

• GS II: Fundamental Rights, judicial activism, constitutional interpretation, governance and child-protection mechanisms.
• GS III: Cybersecurity, digital infrastructure, technology regulation, data protection and the digital divide.