Background and Facts
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant development in constitutional law, recognised the right to access and use the internet as a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The observation arose in proceedings concerning the circulation of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) on social media platforms and other online services.
The proceedings originated from concerns regarding the continued circulation of abusive material despite the Court’s earlier judgment dated 23 September 2024 in the same case. The applicants highlighted the use of indirect links, online advertisements and external websites to distribute such material, alongside failures by intermediaries to report offences to the appropriate Indian authorities.
The Court examined whether protecting children from online exploitation justified denying them access to the internet altogether. It concluded that children’s safety must be balanced with their constitutional freedoms.
Issues Before the Court
The principal issues were whether internet access enjoys constitutional protection, whether blanket restrictions on children’s online access are justified, and what legal obligations should be imposed on digital platforms to prevent online exploitation.
Judgment and Legal Reasoning
The Bench held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual, including children, under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a).
Article 21 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, while Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression. The internet facilitates education, access to information, communication and the exchange of ideas. Consequently, excluding children entirely from the digital environment would undermine interests that the Constitution protects.
The Court rejected blanket restrictions as an appropriate solution to online dangers. Instead, it favoured proportionate safeguards, including parental supervision, privacy protections, child-friendly account settings and restrictions on contact from unknown adults. The government may still restrict access to specific categories of inherently harmful content.
Relevant Legal Provisions
1. Article 21, Constitution of India: Protects life and personal liberty and provides the principal constitutional foundation for the right recognised by the Court.
2. Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India: Protects freedom of speech and expression, including constitutionally protected expression through the internet.
3. Section 67B, Information Technology Act, 2000: Penalises specified electronic activities involving sexually explicit material depicting children, including publishing, transmitting and facilitating the specified unlawful activities.
4. Section 79, Information Technology Act, 2000: Provides conditional safe-harbour protection to intermediaries for third-party information, subject to statutory requirements and due diligence.
5. Sections 19, 20 and 21, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012: Address reporting obligations, reporting by specified persons and punishment for failure to report or record certain offences.
6. Section 15, POCSO Act, 2012: Addresses specified forms of storage or possession of pornographic material involving a child, subject to the statutory conditions.
7. Rule 11, POCSO Rules, 2020: Prescribes the procedure for reporting offences under the POCSO framework.
Precedents and Significance
In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court recognised constitutional protection for freedom of speech and expression and trade or business exercised through the internet, while examining restrictions on internet services.
In Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025), the Court addressed digital accessibility as an aspect of Article 21.
The present order advances this constitutional discussion by expressly recognising the right to access and use the internet while emphasising that digital freedom must coexist with effective child-protection mechanisms.
Conclusion
The decision represents an important development in digital constitutionalism. It establishes that online safety cannot be pursued simply by excluding children from the internet. Instead, constitutional freedoms must be protected through proportionate regulation, accountable intermediaries and effective mechanisms against exploitation.