The Supreme Court has held that blanket bans on children's Internet use are 'unproven measures of proven disproportionality'. Critically examine the case for regulation over prohibition in protecting children online.

In October 2026, the Supreme Court held that every child has a fundamental right to access the Internet under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a). It rejected blanket bans in favour of "intelligent restraints" [1]. Regulation is the better path, but it works only if it is enforced.

Case for Regulation

• Children as rights holders: UN General Comment No. 25 (2021) treats children online as people with rights, not only as people to be protected [2].
• Proportionality: A limit on a right must be needed, must work, and must be the least harmful option. Bans are "unproven", so they fail at the first step [1].
• Practical realism: Children keep going online despite bans, with less supervision. Keeping them off social media would not reduce the online abuse reported in the media [1].
• Equity: A ban hurts children who depend on digital learning. The DPDP framework already lets education, healthcare and real-time safety go ahead without parental consent [3].
• Calibrated tools: The Court backed a "child mode", age-appropriate safeguards, parental oversight and grievance outlets [1].

Limits of Regulation

• Platform incentives: Platforms are built to keep users scrolling. A child mode designed by the same company may not change that.
• Uneven parental capacity: Parental oversight assumes parents have time and digital skills. Poorer homes bear the heaviest burden.
• Privacy cost: Because parents must consent for every user under 18, platforms have to check the age of all users. This reduces everyone's anonymity online [4].
• Enforcement gap: The DPDP Rules were notified in November 2025 with 18-month phased compliance, so the consent system is not yet fully binding [3].
• Legal tension: The Court protects children "irrespective of their age" [1], but the DPDP Act requires guardian consent for anyone under 18 [4].

Making Regulation Work

• MeitY should run Child Rights Impact Assessments before issuing further rules [2].
• Virtual-token age checks should be the default, to limit how much identity data is collected [3].
• The child mode should limit tracking and targeted ads, which the DPDP framework already bars for children [3].
• Grievance outlets should be child-friendly and available in Indian languages [1].

Prohibition gives the appearance of safety, while regulation keeps both safety and freedom, and "our children are entitled to both" [1]. If platforms are held accountable, DPDP compliance arrives on time and parents get support, the Court's rights-based model can meet India's Article 21 promise and its UNCRC commitments.