Supreme Court rejects age-based internet ban, suggests ‘child abuse’ for social media
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that access to and use of the internet is a fundamental right for everyone, including children and has rejected the idea of blanket age-based restrictions. Instead, it suggested measures such as a ‘child mode’ for social media accounts to make online spaces safer for young users.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the observations while issuing directions to strengthen the detection and removal of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) from online platforms.
According to LiveLaw, the court said, “The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both.”
The bench held that the right to access and use the internet falls under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It noted that freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to receive information and ideas.
Why SC rejected blanket restrictions
The court acknowledged the risks children face online but said cutting off their internet access was not the answer to the failure of platforms to remove harmful content. It warned that blanket restrictions could affect children’s access to education, information and communication.
The bench also pointed out that the internet can be a vital source of learning for children in remote areas. For children with special needs, online platforms can offer opportunities to connect with others in similar circumstances.
The observations come as the Centre considers changes to IT intermediary rules that could restrict internet access for children under 18. The court had earlier asked whether children should be prevented from creating social media accounts without parental consent.
SC seeks stronger action against abusive content
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the continued circulation of child sexual abuse material despite existing safeguards. It said the current system relies heavily on individual complaints, meaning harmful content removed from one platform may continue circulating elsewhere.
The court directed the Centre to frame guidelines for national databases of perceptual hashes and URLs to help platforms identify matching content across services. It also called for safeguards against wrongful removal, along with a grievance redressal mechanism.
The bench stressed that such databases must not be used to target other types of content. It also called for awareness programmes starting at the primary school level to help children recognise online risks and seek help when needed.
The court’s directions aim to improve online safety without denying children their fundamental rights.