The decision came in a case concerning the failure of online platforms to identify, report and remove child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM). The bench held that internet access is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, which covers life and personal liberty, read with Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

“The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both,” the judges said. The court made clear that children enjoy these rights regardless of age.

Why the Supreme Court opposed blanket internet bans

The judges examined whether barring children from social media would make them safer. They said such restrictions could drive children towards less regulated websites, where parents and authorities would have even less knowledge of their activity.

Children subjected to threats or manipulation online might also hesitate to tell a parent or teacher if they feared punishment for using a prohibited service, the court said. Requiring every user to prove their age could involve collecting sensitive personal information and create risks to privacy.

The bench also pointed to the everyday importance of internet access. Children use it for lessons, communication and information, especially where other learning resources are scarce. For children with special needs, online communities can provide contact with others who share their experiences.

In 2020, the court protected freedom of speech and business conducted through the internet without deciding whether access itself was a fundamental right. A 2025 judgement recognised digital access as part of the right to life. The latest order expressly covers access to and use of the internet, including for children.

What a ‘child mode’ for social media could include

The bench suggested separate safety settings for young users, including accounts that are private from the start. Social media services could limit messages and contact requests from unknown adults and control the advertisements and content shown to children.

For pre-teens, the judges suggested parental consent, guidance and supervision, with age checks that do not demand excessive personal information. They left the design of these safeguards to the Union government.

The court also said the government could restrict access to particular services or material that is inherently harmful to children, including adult-content websites.

Court orders national system to identify child abuse material

Alongside its findings on internet rights, the court directed the Centre to create a National Hash and URL List Database to help platforms identify previously confirmed CSEAM. A hash is a digital fingerprint of a file, while a URL is a web address. The database may be part of the government’s Sahyog Portal or a separate system.

The order requires each database entry to be independently checked by at least three trained human analysts. Only digital identifiers and web addresses are to be stored in the list, with a process for challenging wrongful removals.

Platforms must remove material that matches a confirmed database entry immediately. For newly identified abuse material, the order sets rules for verification and reporting to the appropriate authorities. In specified cases, platforms must make that report within two hours of removing the content.

The judges also called for a clearly labelled reporting option, accessible within two steps, and acknowledgement of complaints within 24 hours. Platforms are to publish monthly figures on complaints and action taken. Schools and public bodies have been directed to strengthen digital safety education, while governments must provide counselling and psychological support for victims.

The Centre has been asked to prepare guidelines, standard operating procedures and changes to information technology rules where necessary. It must report its progress to the court before the next hearing on December 10.