Supreme Court internet access fundamental right: the Bench has held that the right to access and use the internet belongs to every individual under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a), and that children, irrespective of age, enjoy it equally.
New Delhi: Ruling on applications over the circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material on social media, 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) of the Constitution, and has declined to endorse blanket age-based bans on children’s internet use [Just Rights for Children Alliance and Anr. v. S. Harish and Ors.].
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran heard the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, for the Union of India, and counsel for the applicants, and passed the order in M.A. Nos. 2553-2554 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161-2162 of 2024. It is dated 15 October 2026.
How the case reached here
The applications arise from the Court’s judgment of 23 September 2024 in the same appeals, which held that social media intermediaries lose the safe harbour of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act if they fail to report such material to the authorities under the POCSO Act. The applicants, Just Rights for Children Alliance and Bachpan Bachao Andolan, returned to the Court after a media report alleging that paid advertisements promoting such material had run on a social media platform. The allegation has not been tested in these proceedings.
On 14 August 2026 the Court issued notice and asked the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Law and Justice to respond. On 24 September 2026 it gave the Union “one last opportunity” after no reply had been filed. In its order the Bench said that, despite more than two years having passed, “there has been no progress worth the name”.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Urges Centre To Take Child Sexual Abuse Material Issue Very Seriously
The right to access the internet
The Bench noted that it had considered limiting children’s access to social media by age, as some jurisdictions have attempted, and “decided consciously not to endorse the same”. It relied on Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, where a three-Judge Bench protected speech and trade over the internet but left open whether access itself is a fundamental right, and on Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 599, which treated digital access as part of the right to life under Article 21. It then held:
In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in saying 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) of the Constitution. Our children, irrespective of their age enjoy the same rights, and to deny the same altogether would be as absurd as saying children below a certain age do not have a conscience worth protecting or a freedom of speech worth expressing.
Why blanket bans were rejected
The Court said safety measures must be aimed at harmful material and those responsible for it, “and not at the children themselves”. Age-based restrictions, it observed, require verifying every user’s age and continuously collecting sensitive data, with a disproportionate risk of misuse and surveillance. It added that children denied access tend to move to unregulated platforms and may hesitate to report enticement to parents. It summed up:
All that we are trying to say is that any blanket restriction on the access of internet by children is nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality.
The Bench did not rule out safeguards. It suggested greater emphasis on parental consent and oversight, a dedicated “child mode”, private accounts by default, restrictions on contact from unknown adults and moderation of advertising for pre-teens, leaving the modalities to the Union. It clarified that the Union may still restrict children’s access to inherently harmful categories such as adult content websites.
Directions on child sexual abuse material
The Union must create a National Hash and URL List Database, confined to the detection and removal of such material, with entries made only after assessment by at least three trained human analysts. Intermediaries must remove matches immediately, display a notice where content is removed, and report removals of material of unknown origin within two hours. Every intermediary must publish grievance officer details and monthly compliance reports, and the Union is to consider exemplary fines and the disgorgement of revenue earned through paywalled content. The Union must file an affidavit on progress, and the matter is posted for 10 December 2026.
Why the judgment matters
The Court has now answered the question left open in Anuradha Bhasin, placing internet access within Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) and extending it to children. That framing will shape how any future age-gating law or rule made by the Union is tested, since restrictions will have to meet the proportionality standard the Bench applied. The Court also confined the new database to child sexual abuse material alone, and made clear it is not an endorsement of using such tools for other purposes.
Case Title: Just Rights for Children Alliance and Anr. v. S. Harish and Ors. [M.A. Nos. 2553-2554 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161-2162 of 2024]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union of India; counsel for the applicants
If you know a child who is in danger or has been abused, CHILDLINE 1098 offers free, round-the-clock help.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
SEO | keyword: Supreme Court internet access fundamental right | title: Supreme Court Internet Access Fundamental Right Extends To Children, Bench Rejects Blanket Age Bans | desc: Supreme Court internet access fundamental right covers every individual including children under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a), and blanket age bans are rejected. | slug: sc-internet-access-right | alt: Supreme Court of India building where a Bench held internet access a fundamental right of every individual, including children.