Delicate balance: Editorial on children’s internet rights and need for online safety

The Supreme Court of India has recognised internet access as a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution extending to all children irrespective of age. Rejecting blanket internet restrictions for children as “unproven measures of proven disproportionality”, the court has rightly held that protecting the young cannot mean denying them access to information, education and independent expression. But the apex court has also expressed substantial concerns about children’s online safety. Children face sexual exploitation, extortion, exposure to harmful content and psychological distress from unchecked internet use. The scale of the problem is disturbing. A 2024 study by Childlight estimated that more than 300 million children worldwide experienced online sexual exploitation or abuse in a year. A World Health Organization study found worrying social media use among adolescents that led to higher suicidal ideation. These findings demand effective regulation.

The apex court has laid out detailed guidelines on how to ensure that children are not deprived of internet access without being exposed to a dangerous environment. The responsibility for a safer digital world has been placed equally on social media intermediaries and regulatory authorities. The directions include a national database of verified digital identifiers and URLs associated with child sexual exploitation material, two-hour* reporting deadlines for removal of offensive material, dedicated grievance officers, independent scrutiny and transparent complaint mechanisms. The court has also asked the State to consider hefty penalties for persistent non-compliance and the forfeiture of revenue earn­ed from exploitative content. For children, it recommends parental supervision, private-by-default accounts, restrictions on unsolicited contact and age-appropriate digital education. Interestingly, these proposals appear to be at odds with the international momentum towards regulation, especially that of social media, for minors. Australia, for instance, has prohibited under-16s from holding accounts on specified social media platforms, while Britain plans similar restrictions from 2027. In India, some states have examined age-based curbs, although the Centre has denied considering an under-18 prohibition. The Sup­reme Court’s preference for proportionate safeguards is a constitu­tionally grounded alter­native. But the mea­sures outlined by the court might not be enough. Relying on social media intermediaries is a voluntary model that has proven to be flawed. The government must thus establish enforceable standards and independent audits rather than rely on voluntary corporate compliance.

There is also a larger, attendant question. In India, rights, fundamental or otherwise, are more honoured in the breach than in observance. The Supreme Court has repeatedly attempted to widen the ambit of fundamental rights guaranteed to Indian citizens. But the State has been equally adept at restricting citizens from exercising those very rights by using means more foul than fair. So much so that even the most basic of rights in a democracy — the right to vote — has now come under a cloud. It would be a good idea for the State to begin honouring rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The expansion of fundamental rights to wider areas can follow suit.