Right to Access and Use the Internet is a Fundamental Right: Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling — Spotlight

1. Right to Access and Use the Internet as a Fundamental Right

Basic Concept

Part III of the Constitution guarantees Fundamental Rights, and two provisions are central to this ruling. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds such as sovereignty, public order, decency and morality. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court has read Article 21 expansively — not merely as protection against arbitrary deprivation of life, but as the source of a bundle of unenumerated rights (privacy, livelihood, a clean environment, health, and now digital access) that are essential to a life of dignity. Any restriction on a Fundamental Right must also satisfy the doctrine of proportionality: the restriction must pursue a legitimate aim, be the least restrictive means available, and must not be excessive in relation to the aim pursued. For children specifically, the Constitution (Article 15(3) and Article 39(e)-(f)) and statutes like the POCSO Act, 2012 and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 place a special responsibility on the State to protect them from exploitation, which is the backdrop against which the Court had to balance child protection with digital rights. This topic is directly relevant to GS Paper II (Indian Polity — Fundamental Rights, judicial interpretation of Article 21) and Social Justice (child protection mechanisms).

Core Context

On 15 October 2026, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, hearing miscellaneous applications in Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. (arising out of Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161-2162 of 2024), passed directions to strengthen the detection and removal of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) from social media and other online intermediaries. In doing so, the Bench went a step further and expressly declared that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual — including children — traceable to Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a). The Court rejected submissions seeking a blanket, age-based restriction on children's internet access, holding that such a prohibition would be disproportionate and would, in effect, punish the victims of online exploitation rather than those responsible for it.

Latest Developments

• The judgment builds on a line of precedent: in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) — arising from internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir — the Court had held that freedom of speech and the freedom to carry on trade or business through the internet are protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), but had stopped short of declaring internet access itself a standalone fundamental right. In Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025), the Court had read digital access into Article 21 in the context of accessibility. The October 2026 ruling goes further, expressly recognising a freestanding right to access and use the internet.

• The Court reasoned that a blanket ban would likely push children onto less-regulated, riskier platforms rather than protect them; could deter children already facing grooming or abuse from seeking help online or reporting it to trusted adults; and would require large-scale age-verification systems that carry their own risks of data misuse and surveillance.

• The Bench also stressed the internet's value for children in remote and underserved areas and children with special needs, warning that an outright ban would deepen the existing digital divide rather than close it.

• Instead of a ban, the Court endorsed proportionate, age-appropriate safeguards — parental consent and oversight, a default "child mode," private-by-default accounts for minors, curbs on contact from unknown adults, and moderation of advertising and content — while leaving the detailed design of these measures to the Union Government. The State may still restrict categories of content that are inherently harmful to minors, such as adult websites, which the Court distinguished from a blanket ban on internet use itself.

• The Bench directed the creation of a national CSEAM database to help platforms and law-enforcement agencies identify and take down such content more effectively, reinforcing the due-diligence obligations already placed on intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021.

UPSC Prelims Pointers

• The case is Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors., decided by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran in October 2026.

• The right to access and use the internet was held to flow from Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) arose from internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir and protected online speech and trade under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), decided by a nine-judge Bench, recognised the right to privacy as part of Article 21 — a precedent relevant to concerns about age-verification and surveillance.

• The POCSO Act, 2012 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 form the statutory framework for child protection referenced in such cases.

• The doctrine of proportionality requires that any restriction on a Fundamental Right be suitable, necessary, and not excessive relative to its legitimate aim — the test the Court applied to reject a blanket ban.

• Intermediary due-diligence obligations in India flow from the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021, as interpreted in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).