The Supreme Court rejected a blanket social media ban for children, saying online safety measures must target child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) and those responsible for circulating it.
The court directed the Centre to develop guidelines for detecting and removing CSEAM, including a National Hash and URL List Database.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated its order prohibiting further construction and tarring of forest roads amid concerns over alleged violations of forest conservation laws in Seraj.
The High Court also questioned multi-storey construction in Solan-Barog after inspections found eight of 21 projects had exceeded six storeys, raising concerns over building safety in hilly terrain.
Online child sexual abuse material
The Supreme Court on October 15, 2026, rejected a blanket ban on children's access to social media while expressing serious concern over the alarming increase in child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) circulating on online platforms.
The apex court said that ‘any blanket restriction on the access of internet by children is nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality. No jurisdiction has, so far, been able to demonstrate that children are any safer on account of such measures.’
The court acknowledged that the internet, as it exists today, is far from safe for children. However, it stressed that measures to protect children must target harmful material and those responsible for it, rather than restricting children's access to the internet.
In cases involving CSEAM, the wrongdoers are those who create, circulate, sell or seek out such material, as well as intermediaries that fail to detect and remove it, the court observed. Restricting children's access to the internet because of these failures, it said, mistakes the victim for the problem.
In a 137-page judgment, the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Chandran outlined a proposed regulatory framework for detecting and removing CSEAM.
The court directed the Union government to provide information on the tools and technological measures deployed by intermediaries to detect and remove CSEAM from their platforms.
It also asked the government to frame guidelines or standard operating procedures for the use of perceptual hash matching and URL listing by all significant social media intermediaries to identify and remove such material.
The standard operating procedures should specify other technological tools and measures that intermediaries must deploy for detecting and removing CSEAM. Appropriate amendments to the Information Technology Rules should also be made wherever necessary.
The Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should periodically revise these guidelines or standard operating procedures.
The court further directed the Union government to establish a National Hash and URL List Database exclusively for detecting and removing CSEAM. The database could be created as part of the Sahyog Portal or as a standalone repository.
Whenever an intermediary removes material identified as CSEAM, it should be required to prominently display a notice in place of the removed content on its platform.
The Centre was also directed to frame appropriate guidelines to ensure that intermediaries properly scrutinise paywalled and subscription-based content for the detection and removal of CSEAM.
These guidelines should also prescribe reasonable and proportionate measures to regulate the types of content that children can access or subscribe to.
Construction and tarring of forest roads in Himachal Pradesh
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on October 8, 2026, reiterated its earlier direction that no construction or tarring of roads in forest areas should be undertaken until further orders.
The court reaffirmed its August 17, 2026, order in CWPIL No. 96 of 2026. The matter will next be heard on December 2, 2026.
The bench of Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi issued the directions after amicus curiae Deven Khanna submitted a chart showing that 55 roads had been constructed in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, within the Seraj Assembly constituency, under the Nachan forest division.
The chart indicated that proposals from user agencies had yet to be received, although roads had already been constructed in most cases.
However, work on roads listed at serial numbers 51 to 55 had not been completed. The Bagsaid–Rahidhar–Kathyali–Dharwar–Dhansal road, listed at serial number 11 and measuring 10.165 km, was marked as ‘in progress, approved’.
Another list submitted by the amicus curiae detailed roads approved under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, in the Seraj Assembly constituency after August 19, 2026.
The public interest litigation raised questions about the legal provisions under which permission for these roads had been granted and whether approvals had been wrongly issued under the Forest Rights Act, apparently without benefiting forest dwellers or forests.
The documents also indicated that as many as 16 helipads existed in Seraj.
The court noted concerns that such facilities in forest areas could disturb wildlife and warranted an assessment of their environmental impact, particularly as large-scale felling of green trees had reportedly taken place during road construction.
High-rise construction in Solan-Barog
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on October 13, 2026, directed the state government to submit a report detailing permissions granted under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, in Kullu, Kangra and Sirmaur districts.
The state was also asked to clarify whether mandatory environmental clearances had been obtained for large-scale projects, considering their built-up areas.
In addition, the High Court directed the government to disclose the total number of permissions granted across Himachal Pradesh under Section 118 of the Act over the past decade.
The matter concerns alleged illegal construction in the Solan-Barog area.
In compliance with the court's previous order dated September 15, 2026, Sukh Ram Thakur, Under Secretary in the state's Town and Country Planning Department, filed an affidavit.
The affidavit stated that the department had constituted a committee headed by the State Town Planner to verify permissions under Section 118 and sanctioned building plans, particularly those relating to 21 multi-storey projects in the Solan-Barog area.
Details of the 21 projects were submitted to the court. The affidavit also stated that directions to stop construction beyond six storeys had been issued on August 29, 2026.
Site inspections revealed that construction exceeding six storeys had been detected in eight of the 21 projects.
According to the affidavit, permissions for these projects had been granted before the court's May 11, 2026, order restricting construction beyond six storeys in Solan.
The affidavit also contained charts detailing planning permissions, planning areas and the issuance of ‘Put to Use’ notices.
The land-use details showed that permissions had been granted for housing projects, Real Estate Regulatory Authority-registered projects, and hotel and tourism developments. However, most of these developments were not exclusively residential.
The High Court observed that developers had obtained approvals for buildings exceeding six storeys after receiving permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.
In several cases, the authorities did not even have information on the current status of construction at the sites.
The court noted that planning permissions are ordinarily granted on the condition that construction be completed within two years, subject to extensions that must be formally sought, considered and approved. Under the relevant statutory provisions, failure to complete construction within the prescribed period results in the permissions being deemed revoked.
After examining photographs submitted with the affidavit, the bench of Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C Negi observed that several projects involved large apartment blocks that, at first sight, appeared incompatible with structural standards suitable for hilly terrain.
The court also expressed serious doubts about whether adequate distances had been maintained between buildings to mitigate fire hazards, whether minimum setbacks between adjacent blocks had been observed, and whether specific norms governed such distances.
The court referred to the Regulations for Development of Apartments and Colonies, which prescribe a maximum building height of 30 metres in plains and 25 metres, including sloping roofs, in hilly areas of the state. A height of 25 metres corresponds roughly to six or seven storeys.
The High Court directed the state government to file an affidavit explaining how permissions had been granted for construction exceeding 25 metres, including for the 21 projects whose developers had subsequently received stop-construction notices.
The affidavit must also explain the applicable norms governing distances between building blocks and fire-safety clearance requirements.
A separate affidavit filed by Anil Chauhan, Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh, disclosed that 187 permissions had been granted under Section 118 in Patwar Circle, Barog, Solan district, to non-agriculturists.
Of these, 64 permissions were for purchasing land for various purposes, while 123 were for purchasing built-up structures or flats.
In Shimla district, a total of 801 permissions had been granted under Section 118 over the past decade.
In Nahan tehsil of Sirmaur district, 270 permissions had been granted, including 159 for industrial or tourism purposes and 111 for residential or tourism purposes.