Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors: Right to Internet Access for Children SC Ruling Explained

Key Takeaways

• Internet Access Is a Fundamental Right: The Supreme Court recognised 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 of India.
• Children Enjoy Equal Constitutional Protection: The Court held that children, irrespective of their age, possess fundamental rights, including the right to access the internet for education, communication and information.
• Blanket Internet Bans Are Disproportionate: The Supreme Court opposed blanket restrictions on children’s internet access, observing that such measures may violate fundamental rights without effectively ensuring online safety.
• Restrictions Must Satisfy Constitutional Requirements: Any restriction on internet access must have a valid legal basis, pursue a legitimate objective and satisfy the principle of proportionality.
• Child Safety Measures Must Target Harmful Content: The Court emphasised that online safety measures should focus on harmful material and those responsible for distributing it, rather than preventing children from accessing the internet.
• Parental Controls and Child-Friendly Features Are Important: The Court suggested safeguards such as parental consent, private accounts by default, restrictions on messages from unknown adults and stronger content moderation.
• Government and Digital Platforms Have Greater Responsibilities: The Supreme Court directed stronger action against child sexual exploitation and abuse material, including improved reporting mechanisms, a national database for identifying harmful material and stricter compliance measures for online platforms.

The Supreme Court of India has recognised that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right available to every individual, including children, irrespective of age. In its ruling dated 15 October 2026, the Court held that protecting children from online dangers cannot justify completely denying them access to the internet.

The ruling came in Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors., where the Supreme Court examined the growing circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) on digital platforms.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that children’s safety and freedom should not be treated as opposing interests. Instead of imposing blanket restrictions on internet access, the Court emphasised the need to regulate harmful content, strengthen the responsibilities of online platforms and introduce appropriate child safety measures.

The decision has important implications for fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, children’s digital rights, internet regulation, online safety and government policies restricting children’s use of social media.

What Was the Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. Case About?

The ruling originated from proceedings concerning the circulation and possession of child sexual exploitation and abuse material on the internet.

In September 2024, the Supreme Court delivered an important judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, examining the legal consequences of viewing, storing and possessing such material under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Find the latest legal internship opportunities, updated daily.

Find Internships →

The proceedings arose after the Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an accused person who had downloaded and privately viewed child sexual abuse material. The High Court had taken the view that merely downloading and watching such material, without publishing or transmitting it, did not constitute the alleged offence.

The Supreme Court overturned that decision and clarified the scope of criminal liability under the relevant statutory provisions. It also addressed the responsibility of internet intermediaries in preventing the circulation of such material.

However, concerns continued regarding the failure of digital platforms to comply effectively with the Court’s earlier directions.

The Just Rights for Children Alliance subsequently brought these concerns before the Supreme Court. The proceedings highlighted the continued availability of illegal material, the use of redirect links and the monetisation of exploitative content through digital platforms.

While examining these issues, the Supreme Court considered a broader constitutional question: whether children should be prevented from accessing the internet in the interest of protecting them from online harm.

The Court declined to endorse such an approach and instead recognised children’s fundamental right to internet access.

What Did the Supreme Court Rule About Children’s Right to Internet Access?

The Supreme Court held that the right to access and use the internet forms part of the fundamental rights protected under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, while Article 19(1)(a) protects the freedom of speech and expression.

Explore the latest legal opportunities for law students and lawyers.

Explore Opportunities →

The Court explained that these constitutional protections are not available exclusively to adults. Children also possess fundamental rights, and their age cannot be used as the sole justification for completely denying those rights.

The Bench observed:

“The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both.”

The Court recognised that the internet has become an essential medium for education, communication, learning, expression and access to information.

For children living in remote and underserved areas, digital connectivity may be one of the few available sources of educational material and information.

Consequently, denying internet access altogether could affect not only children’s freedom of expression but also their educational opportunities and participation in modern society.

Importantly, the judgment does not mean that children must be allowed unrestricted access to every website, application or type of online content. It establishes that restrictions must be constitutionally justified and proportionate to the objective of protecting children.

Why Is Internet Access Considered a Fundamental Right in India?

The Constitution of India does not expressly mention the internet as a separate fundamental right. However, constitutional rights are interpreted in light of changing social, technological and economic conditions.

The Supreme Court has progressively recognised that several existing fundamental rights are exercised through digital technologies.

Learn at your own pace with LawBhoomi's recorded law courses.

View Recorded Courses →

Three important judicial decisions provide the constitutional foundation for recognising internet access as a fundamental right.

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined restrictions on internet services imposed in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Court held that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business through the internet enjoy constitutional protection under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

The judgment established that restrictions affecting these freedoms when exercised through the internet must satisfy constitutional requirements.

It also emphasised that restrictions on internet services must be examined through the principles of necessity and proportionality.

The decision did not recognise an unlimited right to internet connectivity. Instead, it established that constitutionally protected activities do not lose their protection merely because they are carried out online.

Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025)

In Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined barriers faced by persons with disabilities in accessing digital services, particularly digital Know Your Customer (KYC) processes.

The Court recognised that digital access is closely connected with the right to life under Article 21.

It held that the right to digital access forms an intrinsic component of the right to life, particularly when important services increasingly depend on digital technologies.

This judgment expanded the understanding of constitutional rights in the digital environment by emphasising accessibility and inclusion.

Its significance extends beyond disability rights because it acknowledges that exclusion from digital services can affect meaningful participation in everyday life.

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

In this judgment, the Supreme Court recognised that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information and ideas.

Although the case concerned broadcasting rather than the modern internet, its underlying constitutional principle remains relevant.

The right to freedom of expression protects not only the communication of ideas but also access to information.

By applying this principle to internet access, the Supreme Court recognised the importance of digital platforms as channels for receiving information, expressing opinions and participating in public discussion.

Together, these judgments establish the constitutional basis for protecting internet access under Articles 19 and 21.

Why Did the Supreme Court Oppose Blanket Internet Bans for Children?

The Supreme Court expressed serious concerns about laws and policies that completely prevent children below a particular age from accessing the internet or social media.

Although such restrictions may be introduced to protect minors, the Court questioned whether they are effective, necessary or constitutionally proportionate.

The judgment identified several problems with blanket restrictions.

First, blanket restrictions interfere with fundamental rights. Children are entitled to constitutional protection even when their rights are exercised through digital platforms. A complete prohibition would prevent access to educational resources, communication services and legitimate information, along with harmful content.

Second, restrictions may not effectively prevent online harm. The Court observed that prohibiting children from using certain platforms does not necessarily prevent them from accessing the internet. Children may instead move towards less regulated websites or services that offer weaker safety protections.

Third, age-based restrictions create privacy concerns. Enforcing a comprehensive age-based prohibition may require digital platforms to verify the ages of all users. Such systems could involve extensive collection of identity information, continuous monitoring and processing of sensitive personal data.

Fourth, restrictions may disproportionately affect disadvantaged children. Students who rely on internet services for learning, particularly those living in rural or remote areas, could face greater difficulties if access is restricted.

The Court therefore questioned the justification for placing the burden of online safety primarily on children rather than on those responsible for creating and distributing harmful content.

The judgment reflects the principle that protecting children from exploitation should not require excluding them from legitimate digital opportunities.

Can the Government Still Restrict Children’s Internet Access?

Yes. The Supreme Court did not hold that every restriction on children’s internet access is unconstitutional.

The judgment distinguishes between blanket restrictions that disproportionately interfere with fundamental rights and targeted safeguards designed to protect children from specific dangers.

The government may introduce measures regulating harmful online content, child safety features, parental consent and access to services that are inherently unsuitable for minors.

However, restrictions affecting fundamental rights must satisfy constitutional requirements.

What Is the Test of Proportionality?

The principle of proportionality requires the government to justify restrictions imposed on fundamental rights.

In the context of internet access, the constitutional analysis includes three central considerations identified in the ruling.

1. Legal authority: A restriction must have a valid legal basis. Fundamental rights cannot be restricted merely through arbitrary administrative decisions without proper legal authority.

2. Legitimate state objective: The restriction must pursue a legitimate objective, such as preventing child exploitation or protecting minors from harmful content. There must also be a rational connection between the restriction and that objective.

3. Proportionality: The restriction must not interfere with fundamental rights more extensively than necessary to achieve the intended objective. Less restrictive and effective alternatives must be considered.

The broader constitutional doctrine of proportionality also requires an assessment of necessity and a balancing of the restriction’s benefits against its impact on protected rights.

For example, restricting children’s access to websites containing sexually explicit material may serve a legitimate protective objective.

However, preventing all children below a specified age from accessing the entire internet would affect educational, informational and communication activities that are unrelated to the identified harm.

The difference lies in whether the restriction is appropriately directed towards the danger it seeks to prevent.

What Online Safety Measures Did the Supreme Court Suggest?

The Supreme Court recognised that the internet exposes children to serious risks, including sexual exploitation, inappropriate content, harmful interactions and misuse of personal information.

Rather than excluding children from digital services, the Court suggested measures that could make online environments safer.

Parental Consent and Supervision

The Court suggested greater emphasis on parental consent, guidance and oversight, particularly concerning younger children’s social media accounts.

Parental involvement can help ensure that children use digital services in an age-appropriate manner.

However, consent verification mechanisms must themselves be reasonable and proportionate. Systems designed to protect minors should not create unnecessary privacy risks through excessive collection of personal data.

Child Mode on Social Media Platforms

The judgment suggested introducing a dedicated child mode for social media accounts.

Such a feature could provide additional safeguards for minors while preserving access to legitimate online services.

Possible safeguards include:

• Private accounts by default: Children’s profiles could remain private unless appropriate settings are changed, thereby limiting unnecessary exposure of personal information to strangers.
• Restrictions on messages from unknown adults: Platforms could limit unsolicited contact and direct messages from unfamiliar adult users to reduce the risk of grooming, harassment and exploitation.
• Age-appropriate content moderation: Platforms could introduce stronger filters and moderation systems to reduce children’s exposure to harmful material.
• Advertising safeguards: Online advertisements and promotional material shown to children could be subject to additional restrictions to prevent exposure to inappropriate or exploitative content.

The Court left the detailed design and implementation of these measures to the Union Government rather than prescribing a single technological framework.

Restrictions on Inherently Harmful Content

The Supreme Court clarified that the government may restrict children’s access to categories of content or services that are inherently harmful to them, including adult-content websites.

Such restrictions differ from a blanket internet ban because they focus on particular forms of harmful material rather than prohibiting access to the internet itself.

What Directions Did the Supreme Court Issue Regarding Child Sexual Exploitation Material?

A major part of the proceedings concerned the failure of online platforms to prevent the circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material.

The Supreme Court issued several directions aimed at strengthening detection, reporting, removal and accountability mechanisms.

National Hash and URL List Database

The Court directed the creation of a national database containing digital identifiers and web addresses associated with CSEAM.

A hash is a digital fingerprint that can help identify particular files. Hash-based systems can assist platforms in detecting previously identified illegal material without relying entirely on manual searches.

The Court required safeguards for inclusion in the database, including confirmation by at least three trained human analysts.

This verification requirement is significant because inaccurate identification could result in legitimate material being wrongly classified or removed.

Reporting and Removal Mechanisms

The judgment called for stronger reporting procedures and timely action against identified exploitation material.

It required platforms to make reporting mechanisms accessible, provide clear grievance officer details and ensure that complaints receive appropriate attention.

The directions included acknowledgement of relevant complaints within 24 hours and reporting of removals within two hours after removal, in the categories covered by the order.

The judgment also emphasised the role of trained human grievance officers in making final decisions, while permitting automated technologies to assist in preliminary identification.

Financial Accountability

The Court directed the Union Government to consider exemplary monetary penalties for failures relating to CSEAM compliance.

It also addressed situations where illegal material is monetised through subscriptions or paywalls.

Revenue generated from such prohibited material should be forfeited and disgorged, according to the Court’s directions.

These measures seek to prevent online platforms and other entities from financially benefiting from the exploitation of children.

Digital Safety Education and Victim Support

The Supreme Court also addressed preventive education and assistance for children affected by online exploitation.

It directed attention towards incorporating digital safety and age-appropriate sex education into school curricula, with involvement from NCERT, SCERTs and relevant experts.

The educational measures include awareness of consent, online exploitation, safe and unsafe touch, and mechanisms for reporting abuse.

The directions also covered teacher training, parental awareness and access to counselling and psychological support for affected children.

What Does the Ruling Mean for State Governments Planning Screen-Time Restrictions?

The ruling is particularly relevant as several governments consider policies to regulate children’s use of smartphones, social media and other digital services.

Proposals concerning screen-time limits and age-based restrictions have attracted attention in states such as Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

The Supreme Court’s decision establishes that measures affecting children’s access to the internet must respect their constitutional rights.

This does not automatically invalidate every proposed screen-time regulation. The constitutional validity of a particular measure would depend on its legal basis, scope, objective and proportionality.

For example, a narrowly framed regulation addressing children’s exposure to specific harmful material raises different constitutional considerations from a general prohibition on all internet access.

The judgment also creates an important distinction between regulating harmful online activities and restricting access to the medium through which legitimate activities are conducted.

State governments considering such policies must therefore examine whether their objectives can be achieved through less restrictive alternatives, including stronger platform accountability, privacy protections, parental controls and digital literacy measures.

Does the Ruling Affect Internet Shutdowns in India?

The judgment also has broader implications for the constitutional understanding of internet restrictions in India.

Internet shutdowns are sometimes imposed for reasons relating to public order, security and prevention of unlawful activities.

Such restrictions affect access to information, communication, education and economic activities.

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court established that restrictions affecting the exercise of fundamental freedoms through the internet must satisfy applicable constitutional requirements.

The October 2026 ruling strengthens the recognition of internet access as an important constitutional interest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.

However, it does not mean that every internet shutdown is automatically unconstitutional. The legality of a shutdown must be examined according to the governing law, the reasons for imposing it and the constitutional principles of necessity and proportionality.

The recognition of children’s internet rights also adds an important consideration when assessing the consequences of restrictions on education and access to information.

Does the Fundamental Right to Internet Access Mean the Government Must Provide Free Internet?

Recognising internet access as a fundamental right does not automatically establish an unconditional entitlement to free internet services for every child.

The Supreme Court’s ruling principally concerns the constitutional protection of internet access and the limits on government measures restricting that access.

A distinction exists between recognising a right and determining the specific infrastructure, funding and services necessary to implement it.

The judgment nevertheless has broader implications for digital inclusion.

Where education, public services and essential information increasingly depend on internet connectivity, lack of access can create significant inequalities.

Children from economically disadvantaged families and remote regions may face difficulties because of inadequate connectivity, limited access to digital devices and the cost of internet services.

The recognition of internet access as a fundamental right provides an important constitutional basis for examining such barriers. However, the precise extent of any positive obligation to provide internet infrastructure or subsidised connectivity would require further legal and policy consideration.

What Is the Significance of the Supreme Court’s Ruling?

The decision represents an important development in Indian constitutional law because it expressly recognises that children’s fundamental rights extend to their participation in the digital environment.

Its significance can be understood through four major implications.

Recognition of children’s digital rights: The judgment establishes that children possess constitutional freedoms that must be respected when governments regulate internet access. Their age does not automatically justify excluding them from digital services.

Greater accountability for online platforms: The ruling shifts attention towards harmful content, those responsible for its creation and circulation, and the obligations of digital intermediaries.

Constitutional limits on restrictive policies: Government measures designed to protect children must have a valid legal basis and satisfy the requirements of proportionality. Child safety cannot serve as an automatic justification for excessive restrictions.

Balancing protection with participation: The judgment recognises that children need both protection from online exploitation and opportunities to benefit from digital education, information and communication.

The Court has directed the Union Government to undertake regulatory and implementation measures, including guidelines and amendments to the Information Technology Rules where necessary, and to file a progress affidavit before the next hearing scheduled for 10 December 2026.

The effectiveness of the ruling will therefore depend partly on how these directions are implemented and how future regulatory measures balance safety, privacy and constitutional freedoms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish establishes that children have a fundamental right to access and use the internet under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

The Court rejected the assumption that completely restricting children’s internet access is an appropriate solution to online dangers. Instead, it emphasised targeted regulation, stronger intermediary accountability, parental guidance, child-friendly safety features and effective action against exploitation material.

The decision does not prohibit all restrictions on children’s online activities. It requires that such restrictions be lawful, reasonable and proportionate.

The central constitutional principle emerging from the judgment is that children’s safety must be protected without unnecessarily depriving them of the freedoms and opportunities available through the internet.