Under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, internet access and use carry the status of a fundamental right — a protection the court extended to children as well, ruling that this entitlement cannot be stripped away entirely from them. Writing in a two-member bench, Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran reasoned that a blanket denial of internet access to minors would be as indefensible as stripping them of moral agency or dismissing their capacity to express themselves. Their ruling also noted that the welfare of children and the preservation of their rights need not be placed in conflict — each goal, the bench held, was capable of standing alongside the other. The panel stated that children hold a right to both.
Judges on the bench took up the question of whether keeping minors away from online platforms and social media altogether would serve their protection. Under Article 19(1)(a), the freedom of speech and expression guarantee was interpreted to extend beyond mere utterance — encompassing the entitlement to seek out, absorb, and pass along information and ideas. The ruling characterised the internet as a forum for ideas, creative work, and the flow of information, holding that its worth extended beyond the material it conveyed to encompass the access it opened up for users of all ages.
The bench noted that for children in geographically isolated communities, connectivity through the internet frequently stood as their sole avenue for education and knowledge. Digital access was highlighted as holding particular value for children with disabilities, given that virtual environments can open pathways to friendship and shared experience with peers facing comparable situations.
Judges sitting on the panel found that the internet, in its current state, poses real risks to children. The ruling also noted that restricting children's access to online spaces was not an appropriate response to platform failures in identifying and taking down harmful content. In the court's view, treating the victim as the source of the difficulty would represent a fundamental confusion of cause and consequence.
Legal observers noted that a prohibition on minors accessing the internet does not guarantee they will actually stay off it. Some individuals in that situation may instead turn to platforms and websites that operate outside regulatory oversight, where the absence of safeguards leaves them open to a broader range of harms.
The panel raised a further concern that sweeping internet prohibitions could deter children who face online enticement, threats, or abuse from disclosing those experiences to parents, guardians, or other trusted adults, out of worry that accessing the internet itself would draw reprimand. The bench stated that across-the-board restrictions on children's internet access amount to measures lacking evidentiary support while carrying a disproportionate burden that has itself been well established.
Among the justices' stated concerns was the possibility that restricting platform access by age would push services toward ongoing systems for identifying and re-checking who their users actually are. Privacy advocates have noted that gathering and tracking intimate personal information through these tools leaves the door open to exploitation and state-level monitoring.
The bench drew a distinction between sweeping prohibitions, which it turned away, and targeted measures designed to shield minors in digital spaces, noting the latter remained an open avenue. The ruling pointed to parental consent, oversight, and guidance as areas where stronger emphasis on children's use of social media platforms could be warranted. A dedicated "child mode" for accounts belonging to minors was among the options the court raised for potential future implementation.
Among the protective measures under discussion are setting children's profiles to private by default, restricting contact and messaging from adults they do not know, and overseeing the types of advertisements and content that reach them. Judges hearing the matter raised the possibility that age-appropriate safeguards for children under thirteen could incorporate balanced, workable mechanisms for confirming that a parent or guardian had given approval. Responsibility for working out how those protections would be put into practice was handed to the Union Government.
In a separate clarification, the bench noted that nothing in its ruling would stand in the way of government action to limit minors' exposure to categories of online material or platforms deemed inherently harmful to them, with adult-content websites among those cited.
Alongside those remarks, the court issued a set of directives requiring platforms and online services to strengthen their detection and removal capabilities for child sexual exploitation and abuse material — content widely abbreviated as CSEAM. In the same ruling that addressed children's rights online, the court set out measures aimed at bolstering how platforms identify and take down material depicting the sexual exploitation and abuse of minors. Among the steps outlined is the establishment of a nationwide registry designed to flag and take down harmful content appearing across social media platforms.
