Children cannot be made to choose between their safety and the freedom to access the internet, the Supreme Court has said, recognising internet access as a fundamental right, and warning that blanket restrictions on children’s online activity may expose them to greater risks rather than protect them from sexual exploitation and abuse.Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Chandran made the observation on October 15 while hearing applications filed by the child rights NGO ‘Just Rights for Children Alliance’ and another applicant alleging that social media platforms were failing to meet their legal obligations to report child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) to Indian authorities.The applicants sought uniform reporting procedures, a centralised portal and action against non-compliant intermediaries. The court addressed these concerns and directed the Centre to create a national database of digital identifiers and URLs linked to confirmed abusive material to facilitate its detection and removal.“We have no hesitation in saying that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) read with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution,” the court said.“Our children, irrespective of their age enjoy the same rights, and to deny the same altogether would be as absurd as saying children below a certain age do not have a conscience worth protecting or a freedom of speech worth expressing. The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both,” it added. Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Chandran recognised children’s internet access as a fundamental right while calling for stronger safeguards against online abuse. (Image enhanced using AI)The order came amid concerns over gaps in the implementation of safeguards previously directed by the court. The bench said protecting children online required stronger detection and reporting systems, effective action by platforms and measures that allowed children to seek help without fear.Why SC questioned blanket bansThe court said the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Children, irrespective of their age, enjoy the same rights, it said, adding that denying them these freedoms altogether would be unreasonable.Story continues below this adThe bench cautioned that prohibiting children from accessing the internet would not necessarily stop them from using it. They could continue secretly, migrate to less regulated platforms, and encounter risks that parents and authorities might find harder to monitor. Restrictions could also discourage children facing grooming, threats or manipulation from reporting abuse to parents, guardians or trusted adults because they feared being punished for using the internet.Describing blanket restrictions as “unproven measures of proven disproportionality”, the court said their effectiveness in making children safer had not been demonstrated. Such bans, it added, could not substitute for efforts by technology companies, law enforcement agencies and the government to detect and remove abusive material.The court did not rule out targeted restrictions. It clarified that the government could restrict children’s access to specific categories of content or services that were inherently harmful, including adult-content websites.Child mode, parental safeguardsInstead of a blanket prohibition, the bench suggested safeguards such as parental consent, guidance and supervision, along with a dedicated “child mode” for children’s social media accounts. These could include making children’s accounts private by default, restricting contact and messages from unknown adults, and moderating advertisements and content accessible to children.Story continues below this adFor pre-teens, the court suggested proportionate ways of verifying parental consent, leaving the precise arrangements to the Centre. The suggestions were part of a broader framework aimed at making online spaces safer without denying children access to the internet altogether.The court also directed the Union government to create a National Hash and URL List Database exclusively for detecting and removing CSEAM. A hash is a digital identifier that can help recognise a particular file, while a URL identifies an internet address.A shared database would allow platforms to check content against material already confirmed to be abusive, rather than relying only on complaints or lists maintained separately by individual companies. The database may be created within the government’s Sahyog Portal or as a standalone repository.The court noted that the existing Sahyog Portal routes individual complaints and takedown notices to facilitate the removal of unlawful content, but it does not currently serve as a shared database that allows social media platforms to automatically identify and remove matching abusive material across their platforms. The bench mandated safeguards against wrongful identification and removal.Story continues below this adEach entry must undergo multiple levels of verification, with the final assessment carried out independently by at least three trained human analysts. The database must contain only the relevant hashes and URLs, not the abusive material itself.The court also called for records and audit mechanisms, along with an effective grievance-redressal process where content is wrongly identified and removed. It stressed that the database and similar tools must be used only to detect and remove CSEAM.Centre directed to frame rulesThe bench directed the Centre to frame guidelines and standard operating procedures for perceptual hash-matching, URL listing and other technological measures to detect and remove such material. Amendments to the Information Technology Rules must also be made where necessary.The order further addressed the scrutiny of paywalled and subscription-based content, reporting obligations of intermediaries, digital-safety awareness and support for victims, including access to counselling and psychological assistance. The government has been asked to file an affidavit detailing the progress made and the steps taken to implement the directions. The matter will be heard next on December 10.Story continues below this adThe court’s message was clear: protecting children online requires more than restricting their access. Platforms and authorities must strengthen detection, reporting and removal systems while ensuring that children can use the internet more safely and seek help when they need it.