The Supreme Court has rejected blanket age-based restrictions on internet access, observing that children also enjoy the fundamental right to access and use the internet. However, it emphasised the need for stronger safeguards to protect children from online sexual abuse and ensure the swift detection and removal of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
The court observed that children’s safety and their freedom to access the internet are not mutually exclusive. A complete denial of internet access would be unreasonable, it said, stressing that protective measures must safeguard children without undermining their rights.
It also warned that age-based restrictions could drive children towards unregulated and potentially more dangerous websites. Children facing online threats or exploitation may hesitate to report such incidents to parents or trusted adults for fear of punishment for violating restrictions.
The development comes two weeks after the Centre informed the Supreme Court of its plan to amend the IT intermediary rules to restrict internet access for children under 18. Earlier, the court had asked the Centre whether minors should be prohibited from creating social media accounts without parental consent.
The issue has also gained attention in states and abroad. Andhra Pradesh Minister Nara Lokesh had announced plans to restrict social media use among children under 16, while Australia has introduced restrictions on social media accounts for under-16s.
SC RAISES CONCERN OVER CIRCULATION OF ABUSIVE CONTENT
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the continued circulation of child sexual abuse material online despite existing guidelines. It criticised regulatory authorities and social media intermediaries for failing to take adequate steps to protect victims.
The proceedings were partly prompted by reports alleging that paid promotions of child sexual abuse material were being circulated through redirect links and websites on social media platforms.
The court noted that the existing reporting and removal mechanism largely depends on individual complaints. When one platform identifies and removes such material, the same content may remain accessible on other platforms, delaying its complete removal.
The Centre has also urged technology companies to report cases involving child sexual abuse material directly to Indian law enforcement agencies instead of routing them through a US-based non-profit organisation. Officials said the existing process could delay police intervention in cases involving immediate threats to children. Google and Meta agreed to move towards direct reporting following discussions with the government.
The court stressed that an effective response from authorities and technology platforms could no longer be delayed.
NATIONAL DATABASE AND CROSS-PLATFORM DETECTION
The Supreme Court issued detailed directions to the Centre and internet and social media platforms to strengthen the identification and removal of child sexual abuse material.
It directed the Centre to frame guidelines for national databases containing perceptual hashes and URLs. These databases would help platforms identify matching content across services and improve coordinated detection and removal.
At the same time, the court emphasised the need for safeguards against wrongful deletion. Content should not be automatically removed or added to a matching database solely on the basis of a single complaint. Verification and adequate safeguards must precede such action.
The proposed framework must also include a grievance redressal mechanism for cases involving incorrect hash matches or flagged URLs. The court clarified that these databases must not be used to identify or remove unrelated categories of content.
CALL FOR ONLINE SAFETY AWARENESS FROM PRIMARY SCHOOL
The Supreme Court also called for extensive awareness and sensitisation programmes beginning at the primary school level. These initiatives should educate children about online risks and encourage them to seek help when confronted with abuse, exploitation or threats.
The directions aim to curb the circulation of abusive material while protecting children’s constitutional freedoms. The court underscored the need for a balanced framework that ensures online safety without imposing arbitrary restrictions on internet access or allowing the wrongful removal of content.