A Supreme Court judgment delivered on October 15, 2026, recognised children's fundamental right to access and use the Internet. The Court emphasised that protecting children from online exploitation requires stronger action against harmful content and those responsible for its circulation, rather than restricting children's Internet access.

Why in the News?

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran issued directions to strengthen the detection, removal and reporting of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) online.

  • The Court observed that it had largely ignored its directions issued on September 23, 2024, in a petition filed by Justice Rights for Children Alliance.
  • It expressed concern about the growing circulation of CSEAM on social media platforms.
  • The judgment emphasised that children are entitled to both online safety and freedom of Internet access.

Right to Internet Access and Child Safety

The Court described the Internet as an important space for information, education, creative expression and social interaction. The Court held that measures to protect children must target harmful content and those responsible for it, rather than restricting the rights of children.

  • For children in remote areas, the Internet can be an important source of learning and information.
  • For children with special needs, it can provide opportunities to connect with others facing similar experiences.
  • Children should not be denied Internet access because of the failure of platforms to control harmful content.
  • Responsibility lies with those who create, circulate, sell or seek abusive material, as well as intermediaries that fail to detect and remove it.

What Led to the Judgment?

The Court observed an alarming increase in child sexual exploitation and the circulation of CSEAM on social media platforms.

  • Links to abusive material were reportedly circulated and sold for amounts ranging from ₹40 to ₹5,000.
  • Social media algorithms and indirect links were used to promote such material and bypass legal safeguards.
  • The Court described the failure of online platforms to exercise adequate due diligence as a serious concern.
  • Platforms are expected not only to remove illegal content but also to report it promptly to the police under applicable laws, including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences POCSO Act.

A Lack of Synergy

The Court found that the existing system for detecting and removing CSEAM relied heavily on reports from users or authorities. Although social media intermediaries had introduced their own safeguards, coordination between detection and enforcement measures remained inadequate.

Repeated Victimisation of Children

Justice J.B. Pardiwala, who authored the judgment, observed that the harm caused by CSEAM continues beyond the initial act of exploitation.

  • Every instance of circulation, viewing, or downloading can further victimise the child.
  • Continued circulation increases demand for abusive material and may normalise child exploitation.
  • Prosecution and punishment after the offence may not undo the harm already caused.

Misuse of Advertisements and Links

Providers of illegal content may use deceptive advertisements and links to direct users to websites hosting CSEAM.

  • Advertisements may not directly display abusive material but may redirect users to platforms where it is available.
  • Intermediaries must examine the entire context of advertisements, including text, captions, keywords, links, and the function of the promoted tool or application.
  • Such advertisements may attract punishment under the Information Technology Act and Rules, where applicable.

Loss of Safe-Harbour Protection

Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, intermediaries receive conditional protection from liability for third-party content. Failure to comply with applicable legal requirements may result in the loss of this safe-harbour protection, potentially exposing intermediaries to criminal prosecution.

Some Foreign Jurisdictions- United States, United Kingdom and European Union

Different countries have made laws to prevent the spread of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) online. These laws require online service providers to report suspected cases, identify risks, and take action against illegal content.

United States

  • Section 2258A of Title 18 of the United States Code requires covered electronic communication and remote computing service providers to report apparent instances of CSEAM that come to their actual knowledge.
  • Reports are submitted to the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
  • Penalties for reporting failures are stated as $600,000 or $850,000, depending on the provider's size, with subsequent failures attracting penalties of up to $1 million.

United Kingdom

  • The Online Safety Act, 2023 imposes duties on providers of user-to-user online services.
  • Providers must assess the risk of illegal content appearing on their services and take proportionate measures to reduce these risks.
  • They must act promptly against illegal content once alerted to it.
  • CSEAM is treated as one of the most serious categories of illegal content under the Act.

European Union

  • The Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065) establishes obligations for providers of intermediary services concerning illegal content.
  • Non-compliance may attract fines of up to 6% of annual worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year.
  • Continuing defaults may attract periodic penalties of up to 5% of average daily worldwide turnover for each day of default.

Comprehensive Directives and Safeguards

The Supreme Court of India directed online intermediaries to strengthen the detection, removal and reporting of CSEAM through standardised procedures.

Creation of a National Hash and URL List Database

  • A National Hash and URL List Database is to be created to help identify known abusive material.
  • Entries must undergo preliminary software screening, followed by independent verification by at least three trained human analysts.
  • CSEAM matching the national database, classified as known-origin material, must be disabled and removed immediately without further verification.

Reporting of Unknown-Origin Material

  • CSEAM of unknown origin, identified through complaints or internal due diligence, must be reported to the appropriate authorities within two hours.
  • This requirement aims to improve the reporting of material not already identified in the national database.

Accessible Reporting Mechanism

  • Platforms must provide a clearly labelled and easily accessible CSEAM reporting category within two steps.
  • Complaints must be reviewed by trained officers.
  • Reports must be acknowledged within 24 hours, with a tracking reference number.

Monitoring Paid Content

  • Subscription-based and paywalled content must undergo strict scrutiny to prevent the circulation of CSEAM.
  • Intermediaries must strengthen safeguards to prevent illegal material from being distributed through paid services.

Financial Penalties and Revenue Forfeiture

  • Violations may attract substantial monetary fines.
  • Revenue derived from prohibited content must be forfeited and disgorged, as directed by the Court.

Larger Implications of the Judgment

  • Platform Accountability: Intermediaries are expected to take proactive measures rather than rely solely on user complaints.
  • Standardised Enforcement: Common procedures for identifying, reporting and removing CSEAM can improve coordination.
  • Child Protection: Stronger detection and removal mechanisms aim to prevent repeated victimisation.
  • Financial Accountability: Monetary penalties and revenue forfeiture increase the consequences for those facilitating illegal content.
  • Digital Rights: The judgment reinforces the need to protect children from online exploitation without denying them access to information and opportunities available on the Internet.

Conclusion

The judgment seeks to balance children's fundamental right to Internet access with protection from online exploitation. Stronger detection systems, prompt reporting and greater accountability of intermediaries are central to creating a safer digital environment while preserving children's digital rights.