India's Supreme Court affirms children's internet rights and suggests child mode

India’s Supreme Court recognized internet access as a fundamental right for children and adults, grounding the right in Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Times of India reported that the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran proposed child-mode protections for social media accounts as a way to address children’s online safety without denying them internet access. The reports describe the ruling as rejecting a blanket ban on children’s internet use.

CNBC-TV18 also reports the court’s recognition of internet access as a right for every individual, including children. The Hindu, NDTV and Moneycontrol headlines likewise report the recognition of children’s internet access as a fundamental right; NDTV and Moneycontrol also characterize the ruling as rejecting a ban.

The Times of India reports the bench’s view that children’s safety and freedom are compatible. Its account presents child mode as a possible safety measure, but the reports do not establish how such a mode would function or what restrictions it might include. They also do not set out who would operate it or how any protections would be enforced.

The court’s reasoning, as described by CNBC-TV18 and The Times of India, connects the decision to prior Supreme Court rulings. Both cite Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), which recognized constitutional protection for speech and expression and trade or business conducted through the internet. CNBC-TV18 additionally cites Pragya Prasun v.

Union of India (2025), saying that ruling recognized digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Times of India’s blurb also says the court directed online services to strengthen detection and removal of child sexual exploitation and abuse material.

That detail does not appear in the outlet’s excerpt, which focuses on the fundamental-right ruling and the suggested child mode; CNBC-TV18 does not mention such a direction.

The accounts therefore emphasize different aspects of the decision: CNBC-TV18 foregrounds the constitutional basis and earlier judgments, while The Times of India adds the suggested social-media measure and, in its blurb, the direction concerning harmful material.

The Hindu, NDTV and Moneycontrol provide corroboration of the central ruling through their headlines, with NDTV and Moneycontrol explicitly describing the court as rejecting a ban. The reporting presents the decision as balancing children’s internet access with online safety, rather than treating a blanket restriction as the solution.

The concrete next issue raised by the coverage is whether online services will adopt child-mode protections and strengthen detection and removal of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, as described by The Times of India’s blurb.