A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Chandran made the observations in an order passed on October 15, which has now been made public. The bench said children's safety and freedom are not mutually exclusive and that children are entitled to both. It held that the fundamental right to use the internet is linked to Article 21 of the Constitution and the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
Supreme Court Opposes Blanket Restrictions on Children's Internet Use
The Supreme Court was examining measures to identify and remove Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material (CSEAM) from the internet. During the proceedings, the debate over restricting children's access to social media also came into focus.
The court acknowledged that concerns about children's online safety are genuine but said completely cutting off their access to the internet would not be an appropriate solution. The internet has become an important medium for education, access to information and social interaction.
The bench also questioned whether proposals to prohibit social media use based on age would prove effective. It warned that such restrictions could have the opposite effect, pushing children towards less regulated and more dangerous online platforms or websites.
Internet Is a Crucial Learning Tool for Children in Remote Areas
Emphasising the importance of internet access, the bench said its value extends beyond providing information. It also enables children to learn, express themselves and connect with others.
According to the court, the internet is the only means of learning and accessing information for many children, particularly those living in remote areas. Similarly, for children with special needs, it can sometimes be the only way to connect with people who have similar experiences.
The court observed that imposing a legal ban on internet use does not necessarily stop children from accessing it. Instead, they may turn to platforms and websites where monitoring is limited and the risks are greater.
The Supreme Court warned that restrictions could also discourage children from reporting incidents in which they are lured, threatened or exploited online. If children fear that they themselves will be punished for using the internet, they may hesitate to disclose such incidents to their parents, guardians or another trusted adult.
The bench noted that children already find it difficult to speak about such experiences, and restrictions could deepen their reluctance. This, the court said, would weaken child protection and undermine the objectives of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The court also questioned an approach that places the responsibility for online safety on children themselves. According to the bench, action should be taken against harmful content and those responsible for harming children rather than excluding children from the internet.
The Supreme Court clarified that keeping children away from social media alone is not sufficient to protect them from online dangers. Such restrictions would neither automatically stop the circulation of objectionable content nor prevent those who create, distribute or use it from doing so.
Instead, social media platforms, law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies must work together. They need to adopt effective safeguards to identify and remove such material.
Age-Based Restrictions Could Also Threaten Privacy
The Supreme Court also raised concerns about the practical implications of imposing age-based restrictions on internet use. According to the court, implementing such measures could require the identification and age verification of every user.
This could create a need to continuously collect and monitor sensitive personal information, increasing the risks of privacy violations and misuse of data.
However, the bench clarified that opposing a complete internet ban does not mean age-based safeguards have no role to play.
Supreme Court Suggests Child Mode and Stronger Online Safeguards
Rather than imposing blanket restrictions, the Supreme Court called for a framework that places greater emphasis on parental consent, guidance and supervision to protect children online. The bench also suggested the possibility of introducing a separate 'Child Mode' for social media accounts.
Under such a system, children's accounts could be private by default. Restrictions could be placed on contact and messages from unknown adults, while the content and advertisements shown to children could be regulated. Appropriate measures could also be introduced to verify parental consent for younger children.
The bench left it to the Central Government to determine how these measures should be implemented.
At the same time, the court clarified that its observations would not prevent the government from restricting children's access to content or services that are inherently harmful to them, such as websites containing adult content.
The court said technical safeguards and the removal of objectionable material alone would not be enough to ensure children's safety. Children must also be taught to recognise online dangers, understand consent and healthy relationships, protect their personal information and seek help when they encounter a problem.
The bench described digital safety and sex education as interconnected. According to the court, children should receive age-appropriate awareness about safe and unsafe touch, consent, respect for others, online privacy, blackmail for sexual exploitation and ways to report abuse.
Separate Plea Seeks Age-Based Restrictions on Children's Social Media Use
The Supreme Court's observations come as a separate petition seeking age-based restrictions on children's social media use is also under consideration.
On Friday, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the Central Government, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights on the petition.
The petition has been filed by Emerald Heights International School, based in Indore, and its director, Siddharth Singh. It seeks a comprehensive and effective regulatory framework to protect children from cyberbullying, online grooming, sexual abuse, exposure to harmful content and other risks associated with social media.
The petition also seeks directions to the government to prohibit social media use by children below a specified age, regulate access for older children, and introduce age-based restrictions governing account creation and usage.
The proceedings bring into focus the challenge of balancing children's access to information and freedom of expression with the need to protect them from online exploitation. While the Supreme Court has cautioned against blanket restrictions, it has emphasised the need for coordinated safeguards, stronger accountability for harmful content and age-appropriate education to improve children's online safety.
About The Author
Comment List