In a landmark judgment, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran) formally declared the right to access and use the internet as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression) of the Constitution. The Court explicitly extended this right to children of all ages, ruling that blanket bans or age-based exclusions are disproportionate, impractical, and infringe upon children’s fundamental rights to learn, communicate, and receive information. The Court balanced digital rights with child protection by ordering mandatory, proportionate safeguards against Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM).
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Decision: October 17, 2026
Subject Area: Constitutional Law (Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) & 21) | Fundamental Right to Internet Access | Child Rights & Digital Safety | Intermediary Liability & CSEAM Removal | Proportionality of Administrative Restrictions
Core Legal Principles Established by the Supreme Court
1. Fundamental Right to Access & Use the Internet
- The Court took a decisive leap beyond prior precedents (Anuradha Bhasin and Pragya Prasun) by unambiguously declaring that the right to access and use the internet is itself a standalone fundamental right protected under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the corresponding constitutional right to know, receive, and impart information through the digital “marketplace of ideas.”
2. Constitutional Rights of Children
- Children, regardless of age, enjoy full entitlement to constitutional fundamental rights. Denying minors internet access altogether is as absurd as claiming that children below a certain age lack a conscience or freedom of expression.
- For children in remote areas or those with special needs, the internet serves as a primary hub for education, social inclusion, and companionship.
3. Rejection of Blanket Restrictions (Test of Proportionality)
- The Court held that blanket age bans or complete internet exclusions represent “unproven measures of proven disproportionality.”
- Keeping children away from the web due to tech intermediaries’ failure to curb abuse “mistakes the victim for the problem.” Excessive age verification schemes pose severe privacy risks by encouraging continuous, invasive surveillance of sensitive user data.
4. Mandate for Proportionate Safeguards & CSEAM Eradication
- Rejection of blanket bans does not preclude targeted, age-appropriate safeguards. The Court directed the implementation of:
- Default private accounts for pre-teens.
- Restricted direct messaging from unknown adults and moderated ad content.
- Integration of “Child Mode” supervised through verified parental consent.
- Issued binding national directives to establish a centralized CSEAM database for immediate identification and automated cross-platform removal of child abuse material.
Comparative Analysis: Prior Precedents vs. 2026 Ruling
| Feature / Metric | Anuradha Bhasin (2020) | Pragya Prasun (2025) | Just Rights for Children (2026) |
| Constitutional Basis | Art. 19(1)(a) & Art. 19(1)(g) | Article 21 | Articles 21 & 19(1)(a) |
| Scope of Right | Medium to express speech & trade. | Access to digital governance services. | Direct, Standalone Fundamental Right to Access & Use Internet. |
| Application to Minors | Unaddressed / General. | General application. | Explicitly extends fundamental rights to children of all ages. |
| State Restriction Standard | Suspensory orders must meet proportionality. | Administrative necessity. | Blanket bans declared unconstitutional & disproportionate. |
Key Quotes from the Judgment
“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.”
“The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both… Any blanket restriction on the access of internet by children is nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality.”
— Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice K. Vinod Chandran