In Anuradha Bhasin, the Supreme Court protected constitutional freedoms exercised through the internet but stopped short of declaring internet access itself a fundamental right. In Pragya Prasun, digital access entered Article 21. Now, in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, the Court has completed that constitutional journey: the right to access and use the internet belongs to every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) — including children, irrespective of age.
- On 15 October 2026, the Supreme Court held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a).
- That protection extends to children irrespective of age.
- Blanket restrictions preventing children from accessing the internet were rejected as disproportionate.
- The ruling does not prevent targeted restrictions on inherently harmful content or services, including adult-content websites.
- The Court also placed greater responsibility on platforms and regulators, including creation of a National Hash & URL List Database, stronger reporting mechanisms and consideration of a proportionate “child mode” framework.
- The proceedings are not over. The matter is listed again on 10 December 2026 for further consideration of implementation and compliance.
Constitutional freedoms exercised through the internet are protected, but the Court leaves open whether internet access itself is a fundamental right.
Digital access is recognised as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21.
Access to and use of the internet is expressly recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a).
The Supreme Court has held 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). Children enjoy the same constitutional protection irrespective of age. Their online safety must therefore be secured through proportionate safeguards aimed at harmful content, offenders and deficient platform systems — not through blanket exclusion from the internet.
How a Child-Safety Case Became a Constitutional-Rights Case
The declaration of a fundamental right to internet access did not arise from a conventional challenge to an internet shutdown. It emerged from proceedings concerning one of the most serious problems of the digital environment: the circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) through online platforms.
In its earlier 2024 judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, reported as 2024 INSC 716, the Supreme Court had examined the growing circulation of CSEAM and the methods being used to evade conventional detection. One particular problem was the sharing of indirect links. Instead of uploading or storing prohibited material directly, offenders could circulate links redirecting users to external locations where the material was hosted.
The Court had also expressed concern over failures by social-media intermediaries to report such material to the authorities contemplated under the POCSO framework. Compliance with the intermediary safe-harbour regime under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act could not, in the Court’s view, operate as a substitute for obligations arising under child-protection law.
The 2026 miscellaneous applications brought the issue back before the Court. The Bench recorded that, despite the earlier judgment, the situation continued to raise serious concerns. Material placed before the Court referred to paid promotion of CSEAM through redirect links and external websites.
At that point, the case moved beyond individual takedowns. The Court began examining the larger architecture of online child protection: technological detection, hash matching, URL listing, intermediary reporting, grievance mechanisms, penalties, national coordination and, ultimately, the increasingly popular suggestion that children below a particular age should simply be kept away from social media or the internet.
From Anuradha Bhasin to an Independent Right of Digital Access
The significance of the 2026 ruling becomes much clearer when it is placed beside the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions on digital access. What began in Anuradha Bhasin as protection for constitutional freedoms exercised through the internet has now developed into an express recognition of access to the internet itself as a fundamental right.
| Case | What the Supreme Court held | Why it mattered |
|---|---|---|
|
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India
(2020) 3 SCC 637 |
Freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to carry on trade or business through the medium of the internet are constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). | The Court protected constitutional freedoms when exercised through the internet, but deliberately left open whether access to the internet itself was a fundamental right. |
|
Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India
2025 INSC 599 |
While considering exclusion of persons with disabilities from digital KYC processes, the Court recognised digital access as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21. | The focus shifted from protecting activities performed online to recognising meaningful digital access as part of dignity, autonomy, equality and participation. |
|
Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish
2026 INSC 1149 |
The right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), including children irrespective of age. | The Court expressly answers the constitutional question that Anuradha Bhasin had left open. |
Why Article 19(1)(a) enters the picture
Freedom of speech and expression has never meant merely the liberty to speak. Indian constitutional law also protects the ability to receive information, know, communicate and exchange ideas.
That matters enormously in the digital age. The internet is not simply another technology through which speech happens. It has become one of the principal spaces in which information is discovered, opinions are exchanged, communities are formed and public discourse takes place.
Internet access therefore becomes constitutionally significant not because the word “internet” appears in the Constitution, but because exclusion from the medium may substantially impair freedoms that the Constitution already protects.
Article 21 takes the argument further
Article 21 supplies a different but complementary foundation. Education, banking, healthcare, welfare services, government portals, employment opportunities and ordinary social participation are increasingly mediated through digital systems.
The constitutional issue is therefore no longer limited to whether a person can speak online. It is whether a person can participate meaningfully in contemporary life while being excluded from the digital infrastructure through which so much of that life now operates.
The 2026 ruling brings these two strands together. Article 19(1)(a) protects the expressive and informational dimension of digital access; Article 21 connects that access with dignity, autonomy and meaningful participation.
Why the Supreme Court Rejected Blanket Internet Bans for Children
The Court did not minimise the dangers children face online. It expressly acknowledged that the internet, as it presently exists, is far from completely safe for them.
What the Court rejected was the next step in the argument: that because the internet can be dangerous, children may simply be excluded from it.
“The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both.”
This is where proportionality becomes central. Child protection is unquestionably a legitimate governmental objective. But identifying a legitimate objective does not end the constitutional inquiry. The means chosen must actually address the problem, less restrictive alternatives must be considered and the cost imposed upon constitutional freedoms cannot be excessive.
A prohibition does not necessarily take children offline
The Court noted that children do not necessarily stop using the internet merely because a law prohibits them from doing so. Some may simply move to other platforms and websites, including spaces that are less regulated and potentially more dangerous.
The result can be the opposite of what the restriction was meant to achieve: children remain online, but outside the environments in which parents, regulators and platforms can more effectively protect them.
A ban can also make abuse harder to report
There is another practical problem. If a child is prohibited from being online in the first place, admitting that he or she encountered grooming, coercion, threats or exploitation may simultaneously mean admitting to having broken the prohibition.
That can make a vulnerable child less willing to approach a parent, guardian or trusted adult at precisely the moment when intervention is most necessary.
The internet is also a place of learning and participation
The Court’s reasoning does not treat internet access purely as entertainment. For children living in remote areas, online resources may provide educational material and information that would otherwise be difficult to obtain.
For some children with special needs, digital communities may also provide access to people with similar experiences and challenges.
A blanket prohibition therefore does much more than remove a social-media application. It can also remove access to learning, information, communication and participation.
Universal age verification creates its own privacy problem
Any universal age-based prohibition creates another question: how will every platform know the age of every user?
The Court was concerned that such systems could require widespread collection and monitoring of personal information and could create disproportionate risks of misuse and surveillance.
Child safety, on this reasoning, cannot become an unlimited justification for monitoring the identity of everyone who uses the internet.
The distinction is crucial. The judgment constitutionalises access to and use of the internet. It does not create an unrestricted constitutional entitlement to every website, service, application or category of material available online.
Platform Accountability: Regulate the Harm, Not the Child
Perhaps the most important policy instinct running through the order is the shift in where responsibility should fall.
In the context of CSEAM, the Court identifies the real sources of the problem: those who create, circulate, sell or seek out such material, and intermediaries that fail to detect and remove it.
Preventing children from using the internet because others have failed to make digital spaces safe would turn that logic upside down. It would place the burden of systemic failure on the very person the law is supposed to protect.
Systemic controls against CSEAM
- Creation of a National Hash & URL List Database for detecting and removing confirmed CSEAM.
- Guidelines or standard operating procedures for perceptual hash matching and URL listing.
- Deployment of appropriate technological detection tools across significant social-media intermediaries.
- Cross-platform detection of material matching confirmed hash or URL entries.
- Stronger reporting and grievance-redressal mechanisms.
- Consideration of substantial monetary consequences for serious or persistent intermediary defaults.
A proportionate “child mode”
- Greater parental consent, guidance and supervision.
- Dedicated “child mode” settings for children’s accounts.
- Accounts made private by default.
- Restrictions on contacts and messages from unknown adults.
- Moderation of advertisements shown to children.
- Moderation of categories of content accessible to children.
- Proportionate parental-consent verification for pre-teens.
“Child mode” matters — but the distinction is important
The judgment should not be read as though the Supreme Court has already imposed a single statutory “child mode” on every social-media platform.
The Court described such a mechanism as a possible regulatory model and left its detailed design to the Union of India. Some parts of the order are concrete directions; the child-mode discussion, by contrast, indicates the kind of proportionate architecture the Government may develop.
What the National Hash & URL List Database is meant to do
At present, one of the weaknesses identified by the Court is that platforms may operate in silos. Material identified and removed by one intermediary does not necessarily become immediately detectable by every other intermediary.
Hash matching offers a way around that problem. Once prohibited material has been identified, a digital identifier associated with it can be used to detect matching material elsewhere. URL listing performs a related function by identifying internet locations at which prohibited material has been confirmed to exist.
The Court has therefore directed creation of a national repository so that intermediaries do not have to rediscover independently what another platform has already identified.
Importantly, the database is to contain the relevant hash identifiers and URLs — not the underlying CSEAM itself. Entries are also to be subjected to multiple levels of verification, including final assessment by trained human analysts.
If implemented carefully, this changes the logic of online enforcement. Harmful material identified on one platform can become detectable across a much wider intermediary ecosystem instead of remaining trapped inside separate platform-specific databases.
The DPDP Act Connection: Child Safety Cannot Become Mass Surveillance
The judgment also sits alongside India’s developing framework under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Section 9 of the DPDP Act deals specifically with processing children’s personal data. Among other things, the statutory framework contemplates verifiable parental consent and restrictions on certain forms of processing involving children, including behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising, subject to the Act and its exceptions.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 further develop the machinery for determining whether the person giving consent on behalf of a child is an adult parent or lawful guardian.
There is a timing issue worth noticing. Although Section 9 of the DPDP Act had already been enacted when the Supreme Court passed this order in October 2026, its substantive obligations were among the provisions subject to phased commencement. The judgment and the DPDP framework therefore point in a similar regulatory direction, but they should not be presented as though every obligation under Section 9 was already operational on the date of this ruling.
The larger constitutional issue goes beyond that commencement timetable.
Age-assurance systems cannot become an excuse for indiscriminate identity collection. A system designed to protect children by continuously identifying, tracking or monitoring every internet user may itself raise serious questions of privacy and proportionality under Article 21.
The approach emerging from the judgment is more targeted: identify harmful material, restrict inherently unsuitable content where necessary, create safer settings for children and place meaningful obligations on platforms — without converting child protection into a system of mass digital surveillance.
What This Judgment Actually Changes
The constitutional position is now considerably clearer. Anuradha Bhasin protected speech and business conducted through the internet. Pragya Prasun connected digital access with dignity and Article 21. Just Rights for Children Alliance goes the final step and expressly recognises the right to access and use the internet under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a).
That protection extends to children. The Court does not accept the idea that constitutional freedom begins only after a person crosses a particular age threshold. A child’s vulnerability online may justify stronger safeguards, but it does not erase the child’s interests in speech, information, learning, communication and autonomy.
The ruling also changes where the regulatory burden falls. Instead of solving online harm by excluding children from digital spaces, the Court places greater responsibility on platforms, regulators and law-enforcement agencies to detect harmful material, improve reporting mechanisms and create safer forms of access.
The right to internet access is not a right to unrestricted content. Targeted restrictions on inherently harmful services and material remain possible. The constitutional objection is to indiscriminate exclusion, not to proportionate child-safety regulation.
Privacy now becomes part of the child-safety conversation. Any future age-assurance or parental-consent framework will have to protect children without quietly becoming a mechanism for identifying and monitoring every internet user. That is where the judgment’s Article 21 reasoning and India’s developing data-protection framework are likely to meet.
The importance of Just Rights for Children Alliance therefore goes well beyond the sentence declaring internet access a fundamental right. The ruling chooses between two competing approaches to online child protection.
One approach attempts to make the child safe by removing the child from the digital public square. The other accepts that the digital public square has become too central to education, information, expression and participation simply to close its gates to young people.
The Supreme Court has chosen the second approach.
Its message is not that the internet should be left unregulated for children. Quite the opposite. The judgment demands stronger regulation, better detection, greater platform responsibility and more meaningful safeguards.
But it draws an equally important constitutional boundary: children should not be asked to surrender their freedom merely because the systems around them have failed to make that freedom safe.
The harder task now falls on the State, intermediaries and regulators — to build a digital environment in which safety and freedom can actually coexist.
LexBatch | Learn. Litigate. Succeed.
This article is intended for legal information and analysis. Readers should
consult the complete Supreme Court order, the relevant statutes, rules and
commencement notifications before relying upon any proposition in legal
proceedings.