Right to Access and Use Internet is a Fundamental Right

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court decided Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. (2026). The Court held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950, and that children, irrespective of their age, enjoy the same right. The Court made these observations while issuing directions to strengthen mechanisms for detecting and removing Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) from social media platforms and other online services. 

What was the Background of Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The matter arose through Miscellaneous Application Nos. 2553–2554 of 2026, filed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161–2162 of 2024. 
• The 2024 criminal appeals in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish dealt with offences relating to child sexual abuse material, where the Supreme Court had recommended the use of the term “Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material” (CSEAM). 
• In the present proceedings, the Court considered directions for detecting and removing CSEAM across social media platforms and online services. 
• In this context, the Court examined whether children should be altogether shielded from the internet and social media for their own safety. 
• Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1063. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the right to access and use the internet: 

• The right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 
• Children, irrespective of their age, enjoy the same rights. Denying this right to them altogether would be as absurd as saying that children below a certain age have no conscience worth protecting or freedom of speech worth expressing. 
• The safety of children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Children are entitled to both. 

On the internet as a part of free speech: 

• Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to know and to receive and impart information and ideas. 
• The internet is a marketplace of ideas, creative expression and information. Its value lies not only in the information it holds but also in the access it gives to adults and children alike. 
• For many children, especially in remote areas, the internet is often the only source of learning and information. 
• For children with special needs, it is often the only place where they find companionship with others like them. 

On earlier precedents: 

• In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Court held that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to carry on trade or business through the medium of the internet are constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). However, it did not express a view on whether the right to access the internet by itself is a fundamental right. 
• In Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India (2025), the Court recognised the right to digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21. 
• Building on these precedents, the Court declared the right to use the internet a fundamental right that cannot be denied to children. 

On blanket restrictions on children’s internet access: 

• The internet, as it exists today, is far from safe for children. 
• However, keeping children away from the internet because intermediaries have failed to detect and remove harmful material would amount to mistaking the victim for the problem. 
• Children do not stop using the internet merely because the law prohibits it. They may move to unregulated and potentially more unsafe platforms. 
• Restrictions may make children who are being enticed or threatened online reluctant to report such incidents to parents, guardians or trusted adults, out of fear of being reprimanded. 
• Blanket restrictions are “unproven measures of proven disproportionality”, and no jurisdiction has so far shown that children are safer because of them. 
• Age-based restrictions would require identifying and verifying the age of every user, involving continuous collection and monitoring of sensitive data, which creates a disproportionate risk of misuse and surveillance. 

On proportionate safeguards for children: 

• Rejecting blanket restrictions does not mean there should be no age-based safeguards. 
• Some safeguards are necessary to ensure children’s online safety and to regulate the content accessible to them. 
• The system could place greater emphasis on parental consent, guidance and oversight over children’s access to social media, along with a dedicated “child mode” for their accounts. 
• Such safeguards could include:  
  • Making children’s accounts private by default. 
  • Restricting contact and messages from unknown adults. 
  • Moderating advertisements and content accessible to children. 
• These measures could be implemented for pre-teens, with reasonable and proportionate means of verifying parental consent. The modalities were left to the Union Government. 
• The Union Government is not prevented from restricting children’s access to specific categories of content or services that are inherently harmful to them, such as adult-content websites. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court declared the right to access and use the internet a fundamental right of every individual, including children. 
• It also issued a series of directions to detect and remove CSEAM, including the creation of a comprehensive national database to enable identification and removal of such content across social media platforms.

What is the Right to Access Internet under the Constitution? 

About: 

• The right to access and use the internet has now been recognised as a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
• It is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution but has been read into the existing fundamental rights through judicial interpretation. 

Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression: 

• Guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. 
• Includes the right to know, and to receive and impart information and ideas. 
• The internet is a medium through which this freedom is exercised. 

Article 19(2) – Reasonable Restrictions: 

• The State may impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom under Article 19(1)(a) in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. 
• Any such restriction must satisfy the test of proportionality. 

Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: 

• No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• The Supreme Court has expansively interpreted Article 21 to include rights such as the right to privacy, education, health and, now, digital access and the right to access and use the internet. 

Article 19(1)(g) – Freedom of Trade and Business: 

• Guarantees the right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business. 
• In Anuradha Bhasin, the Court held that this freedom, when exercised through the internet, is constitutionally protected.