Balancing Safety and Freedom in Children’s Internet Access

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2- Constitution of India

Introduction

Internet access gives children opportunities to learn, develop skills, express ideas and connect with others. In Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2026), the Supreme Court recognised children’s right to access and use the internet as a fundamental right. The challenge is to protect children from online abuse and harmful content without imposing blanket restrictions that deny their constitutional freedoms and support an informed society.

Constitutional and Legal Framework for Children’s Digital Rights

1. Internet as a Fundamental Right: In Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2026), the Supreme Court recognised children’s right to access and use the internet.
2. Freedom of Expression: Internet access is an essential part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
3. Right to Receive Information: In Cricket Association of Bengal (1995), the Court linked Article 19(1)(a) with the right to know and receive and impart information.
4. Online Freedoms in Earlier Rulings: In Anuradha Bhasin (2020), the Court protected online speech and trade under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), respectively.
5. Digital Access and Right to Life: In Pragya Prasun (2025), excluding persons with disabilities from digital KYC violated Article 21, as digital access forms part of the right to life.
6. Authority-Liberty Coordination: The Constitution must limit both State authority and citizens’ liberty, as excessive State control may encourage dictatorial tendencies while unrestricted freedoms may lead to anarchy.

Significance of Internet Access for Children

1. Access to Knowledge and Education: The internet provides access to knowledge and information across sectors, expanding children’s learning opportunities beyond their immediate surroundings.
2. Capabilities and Technological Skills: Digital technologies widen choices and develop children’s capabilities and technological skills; Amartya Sen linked capability enhancement with development, while Joseph Stiglitz stressed transformation too.
3. Creativity and Self-Expression: Digital access gives children opportunities to express their opinions, explore creativity and share their ideas with others.
4. Communication Across Boundaries: The internet enables children to connect with people across geographical boundaries and exchange information and ideas.

Challenges and Risks Associated with Children’s Internet Access

1. Cyberbullying and Online Harassment: Children may face cyberbullying and online harassment, which can make digital spaces unsafe and discourage their participation.
2. Privacy Violations and Fraud: Internet use can expose children to privacy violations and different forms of online fraud, threatening their safety and personal information.
3. Harmful and Obscene Content: Children may encounter obscene or otherwise harmful material online, making effective content controls and responsible platform practices necessary.
4. Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM): The continued circulation of CSAM, including through alleged paid promotions and redirect links, raises serious child-protection concerns.
5. Complaint-Based Reporting Mechanism: Existing mechanisms for reporting and removing CSAM depend largely on individual complaints, limiting the effectiveness of content removal.
6. Limited Cross-Platform Detection: When one platform detects and removes abusive material, the same content is not automatically flagged on other platforms, allowing its circulation to continue.
7. Delayed Law-Enforcement Response: The Centre pressed technology companies to report CSAM cases directly to Indian law-enforcement agencies, as the existing reporting process could delay police intervention.

Balancing Children’s Digital Freedom with Online Safety

1. Freedom and Safety Are Compatible: The Supreme Court rejected the idea that children’s safety and internet freedom are opposing goals; protection need not mean denying access.
2. Rejection of Blanket Restrictions: The Court rejected blanket age-based restrictions on internet access, holding that children retain the fundamental right to access and use the internet.
3. Risks of Driving Children Towards Unsafe Platforms: Age-based bans may push children towards unregulated and potentially more dangerous websites instead of making their online activity safer.
4. Fear of Reporting Abuse: Children who are enticed or threatened online may avoid seeking help from trusted adults if they fear punishment for breaking restrictions.
5. Responsible Limits Rather Than Denial: Age-appropriate boundaries and safeguards can address risks without preventing children from accessing information across different sectors.
6. Different Regulatory Approaches: Australia has implemented a ban on social media accounts for children under 16, while Brazil, China, Indonesia, Malaysia and the UAE have adopted restrictions, including screen-time limits. Brazil also requires children to link their social media accounts to a legal guardian. In India, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have considered screen-time curbs, while the Centre planned changes to restrict internet access for children under 18.

Way Forward

1. National Databases of Hashes and URLs: The Supreme Court directed the Centre to frame guidelines for national databases of perceptual hashes and URLs to identify matching CSAM across platforms.
2. Coordinated Cross-Platform Action: Platforms should use matching information to detect and remove abusive material across services, reducing delays caused by isolated reporting systems.
3. Verification Before Action: Content should not be removed or added to databases mechanically on the basis of one complaint; multiple safeguards and verification must come first.
4. Grievance Redressal: The framework must provide a grievance mechanism for people whose content is wrongly flagged through an incorrect hash match or URL.
5. Limit Database Use: Hash and URL databases must remain limited to identifying the specified abusive material and must not be repurposed against other kinds of content.
6. Direct Reporting to Authorities: Following discussions with the Centre, Google and Meta agreed to report CSAM cases directly to Indian law-enforcement agencies instead of routing them through a US-based non-profit first.
7. Awareness from Primary School: Online safety awareness and sensitisation should begin at the primary school level, helping children recognise risks and seek help when they face abuse or threats.
8. Shared Responsibility and Prevention: Parents, government, schools and service providers must work together to restrict harmful content and prevent abuse rather than curtail children’s internet rights.

Conclusion

Children’s online safety must be secured without denying their right to internet access. Effective regulation, accountable platforms, cross-platform detection, safeguards against wrongful removal and early digital awareness can reduce online harm. A coordinated effort by families, schools, government and service providers can protect children while preserving their freedom.

Question for practice:

Discuss the need to balance children’s right to internet access with online safety and examine the measures required to create a safe digital environment for children.

Source: The Hindu ; IndiaToday