In an order issued Thursday, a two-judge bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran held that internet access constitutes a fundamental right for all citizens, minors included. The bench noted in its ruling that barring children from that right entirely would be as illogical as arguing that those below a particular age possess neither a conscience deserving protection nor a voice deserving expression.

A petition before the court centred on claims that social media companies had not fulfilled their statutory duty to notify authorities about child sexual exploitation and abuse material. The ruling examined whether minors ought to be kept entirely away from online platforms and social media.

The ruling drew a distinction between the two concerns, holding that protecting minors and allowing them freedom of movement are complementary rather than competing goals — both, the court stated, are rights to which children are entitled.

Those findings came several months after a broadcaster regarded as credible published an investigation indicating that Meta-owned photo and video platform Instagram had been displaying paid promotional content in India that facilitated the advertisement of child sexual abuse material. Distributing or sharing material that depicts the sexual abuse of children carries criminal liability under two pieces of legislation — the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act of 2012.

According to a report published on 3 July, promotions containing terms such as "rape video" and "child video" directed users toward Telegram channels where such content was available for purchase. A formal notice went out from the government to Meta two days later, instructing the platform to take down advertisements and content reportedly facilitating access to child sexual abuse material.

At Thursday's hearing, the bench described the internet as a space where ideas circulate, creative work finds an audience, and people access knowledge, noting that for children in geographically isolated areas it frequently serves as their sole avenue for education and information. The bench also noted that online spaces frequently served as a primary avenue for social connection among children with disabilities.

The court observed that across a range of jurisdictions, moves to cap or restrict minors' access to online platforms — social media in particular — have been gathering pace, with child welfare cited as the driving rationale. The bench weighed the matter and ultimately chose not to approve such restrictions.

Legislation passed in Australia during December drew attention as the measure placed that country among the first to prohibit social media access for anyone younger than 16. That same month, the United Kingdom put forward a rule barring anyone younger than 16 from using social media platforms, citing the need to shield young people from content deemed harmful to their wellbeing.

Legislators in two of India's states are moving toward measures that would restrict minors under 16 from accessing social media platforms. A plan to bar children younger than 16 from accessing social media platforms was put forward by Karnataka's then-chief minister, Siddaramaiah, during March of that year, though no timeline was given for when the ban would come into force. Authorities in Andhra Pradesh put forward a proposal earlier in 2025 to restrict access to social media platforms for children falling within that age bracket.

Following the Karnataka government's announcement, the Internet Freedom Foundation — a digital rights advocacy organisation — put forward the position that protecting children online calls for policy grounded in evidence rather than measures shaped by the desire for public attention. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, any organisation handling children's information is required to collect verifiable agreement from a parent or appointed guardian before that data can be processed.