Supreme Court: children have a right to the internet, and platforms must block child abuse material

Children and the internet: what happened?

Every parent knows this tug-of-war. A child needs the phone for online classes, videos and friends, and yet the same phone can open a door to people who mean harm. Many people say the answer is a ban. The Supreme Court has now said, quite firmly, that a ban punishes the victim and lets the wrongdoer go.

• 15 Oct 2026: a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran 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), and that children enjoy the same right (The Hindu).
• It found that its directions of 23 September 2024 had been largely ignored, and that links to child sexual abuse content were being sold for ₹40 to ₹5,000.
• Every intermediary must ensure that no Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) is offered or promoted through any paywall or subscription; revenue earned from such content is to be forfeited and disgorged.
• The Centre must create a National Hash & URL List Database and frame SOPs for perceptual hash matching by significant social media intermediaries, and consider exemplary fines linked to the size and turnover of a platform.

What is CSEAM and why does the term matter?

• CSEAM stands for Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material. In 2024 the Court asked Parliament to consider using this term in the POCSO Act in place of “child pornography”, because every such image is a record of a crime against a child.
• The 2024 judgment (Just Rights for Children Alliance case, 23 Sept 2024) held that watching and downloading such material is an offence under the POCSO Act and the IT Act.
• Hash matching turns a known abusive image into a digital fingerprint. Platforms can then find and block copies automatically, without people having to view them again.
• Safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act protects platforms from liability for user posts only if they follow due diligence. The Court said a platform that fails this loses the shield and can face prosecution.
• Why not ban children? The Court said children who are banned simply move, often secretly, to unregulated and less safe sites. It called blanket bans “unproven measures of proven disproportionality”.

Ban children, or clean the internet?

Which constitutional and legal provisions apply?

• Article 21 (life and personal liberty) read with Article 19(1)(a) (speech and expression): the Court located the right to access the internet here.
• Article 39(f) (DPSP): children are to be protected against exploitation, and Article 15(3) allows special provisions for children.
• POCSO Act, 2012, Section 15: punishes storage of pornographic material involving a child; IT Act, 2000, Section 67B: punishes publishing or transmitting material showing children in sexually explicit acts.
• IT Act, Section 79 and the IT Rules: due diligence by intermediaries; failure means loss of safe-harbour protection.

How must platforms deal with abuse material now?

From detection to report

1. Content is screened by software against the National Hash & URL List
2. Known-origin match: disabled and removed at once
3. Unknown-origin material: verified, removed and reported to authorities within 2 hours
4. Users get a CSEAM reporting option within two steps; complaints acknowledged within 24 hours
5. Defaults attract fines; revenue from such content is forfeited

Which numbers should you remember?

The judgment links money to responsibility. If a platform earns from paywalled content that turns out to be abuse material, it must give up that revenue.

Why does this matter?

What are the challenges?

• Building and running a national hash database needs trained analysts, secure storage and coordination with global databases.
• Smaller platforms may struggle with the cost of detection tools and two-hour reporting.
• Encrypted messaging makes scanning hard, and scanning itself raises privacy worries.
• Police and cyber cells must be able to act on thousands of reports quickly, or the system will clog.

What should be done next?

• Notify the hash and URL database and the SOPs quickly, with clear privacy safeguards.
• Amend the POCSO Act to use the term CSEAM, as the Court suggested in 2024.
• Train State cyber cells and fund them to handle reports within the time limits.
• Teach digital safety in schools so children know how to report and whom to trust.

What can Prelims ask on child online safety?

• Oct 2026 judgment: right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right under Art. 21 read with Art. 19(1)(a), for children too.
• CSEAM = Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material.
• POCSO Act, 2012, Section 15; IT Act, 2000, Section 67B (child sexual material); Section 79 (safe harbour).
• National Hash & URL List Database: ordered by the Supreme Court.
• Unknown-origin CSEAM: report within 2 hours.
• EU Digital Services Act: fines up to 6% of worldwide turnover.

How to write about child online safety in Mains

Practice question (15 marks, 250 words): “Protecting children online should not mean shutting them out.” Discuss in the light of the Supreme Court’s October 2026 judgment.

• Intro: internet as a right under Arts. 21 and 19(1)(a), for children too.
• Body 1: the problem: CSEAM sold through links and paywalls; 2024 directions ignored.
• Body 2: the remedy: hash database, 2-hour reporting, fines, revenue forfeiture, loss of safe harbour.
• Body 3: concerns: privacy, encryption, capacity of cyber cells.
• Conclusion: safety and freedom together, as the Court said.