The Supreme Court has recognised digital access as a fundamental right, but meaningful protection demands a safer online environment.
1. A constitutional recognition
The relationship between children and the internet has reached a stage where access to digital technology can no longer be treated merely as a matter of parental discretion or administrative policy. Education, communication, access to information and opportunities for personal development are increasingly facilitated through digital platforms. It is against this background that the Supreme Court of India, in Just Rights for Children Alliance and Another v S Harish and Others, through its order dated 17 October 2026, has recognised the right to access and use the internet as a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(a), of the Constitution.
The significance of this recognition lies in its express application to children, irrespective of their age. The Court has made it clear that the protection of children cannot be pursued by denying them altogether a right that is increasingly necessary for their development. The constitutional position has therefore been placed beyond the narrow understanding that internet access is merely a privilege to be granted or withdrawn at the discretion of adults.
The more important question, however, is whether the digital environment is sufficiently safe to enable children to exercise this right meaningfully.
2. The problem of exposure
A casual examination of the content encountered on social media platforms raises legitimate concerns about the adequacy of existing safeguards. On platforms such as Instagram, reels containing suggestive imagery, sexually explicit material, unrealistic portrayals of lifestyles and inappropriate commercial messaging may appear alongside educational and recreational content. Inadequate age verification, ineffective moderation and the repeated recommendation of similar material can increase the possibility of children encountering content unsuitable for their age.
The concern is not that every portrayal of fashion, popularity, wealth or personal expression should be censored. Nor should the freedom of lawful content creators be curtailed merely because their work does not conform to conventional expectations. The difficulty arises when material intended for adults is made accessible to children without adequate safeguards, or when exploitative content is allowed to circulate despite the availability of mechanisms for its detection and removal.
3. Freedom without exclusion
The Supreme Court has declined to endorse blanket restrictions on children's access to the internet as a substitute for effective protection. The reasoning deserves attention because prohibition does not necessarily eliminate exposure to harm. Children may continue to access digital platforms without the knowledge of their parents or migrate to less regulated websites, thereby making the detection of exploitation and the provision of assistance more difficult.
The Court has nevertheless acknowledged the need for proportionate, age-appropriate safeguards, including parental guidance, suitable account settings and moderation of content accessible to children. The distinction is important. The constitutional right to access the internet does not mean that every category of online content must be made available to every user.
A comparable principle is reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 17 recognises the importance of children's access to information from diverse sources while also calling for their protection against material injurious to their well-being. Articles 28 and 29 address education and the development of children's abilities, while Article 31 recognises their rights to rest, leisure, play and participation in cultural life.
These provisions highlight the need to reconcile access with protection. Neither objective should be pursued at the expense of the other. A child must be enabled to learn, communicate and develop through the internet without being unnecessarily exposed to material capable of causing harm.
4. Responsibility of platforms
The Supreme Court's discussion extends beyond the question of whether children should be permitted to use social media. Particular concern has been expressed about the circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material and the inadequacy of safeguards designed to identify and remove it.
The Court has also contemplated dedicated child-friendly account settings, including private accounts by default and proportionate restrictions for younger users. Such safeguards are particularly relevant where children may not possess the experience necessary to distinguish harmless interactions from attempts at manipulation or exploitation.
5. Education and empowerment
Regulation alone cannot provide complete protection. Children must also be equipped with the knowledge necessary to recognise danger, protect their privacy and seek assistance when inappropriate conduct is encountered. The Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of age-appropriate education concerning consent, healthy relationships, personal boundaries, online grooming, sexual extortion and the safe use of digital platforms.
Schools in Goa could contribute meaningfully by incorporating digital citizenship and online safety into appropriate classroom activities. Teachers and parents must be made aware of the warning signs of online exploitation, the availability of reporting mechanisms and the importance of responding to disclosures with sensitivity.
Above all, the child's right to seek help must be protected. Silence should never be encouraged by the fear that access to a phone or the internet will automatically be withdrawn.
6. A collective duty
The Supreme Court's recognition of the fundamental right to access the internet should be viewed as an opportunity to reconsider how the digital environment is governed. The right must be accompanied by proportionate safeguards, effective enforcement and a clear allocation of responsibility among the State, digital intermediaries, educational institutions and parents.
For Goa, as elsewhere in the country, the challenge lies in ensuring that children are not excluded from the benefits of digital development merely because harmful content remains insufficiently regulated. At the same time, freedom of access cannot be treated as an excuse for overlooking the foreseeable consequences of inadequate moderation.
The internet must remain a space in which children can discover knowledge, develop their abilities, express themselves and participate in the wider world. Their protection must not be reduced to a choice between unrestricted exposure and complete exclusion.
