Trace how the Indian judiciary has expanded Article 21 to cover digital rights. What obligations does this create for the State and for digital platforms?

Article 21 guarantees life and personal liberty, and the Supreme Court has read it to mean a dignified and autonomous life. That reading has now moved online. Privacy and Internet access have become enforceable rights, and they bind both the State and private platforms.

Judicial expansion of Article 21 into the digital sphere

Puttaswamy (2017)  →  Anuradha Bhasin (2020)  →  SC order (Oct 2026)
   Privacy         →   Internet as medium     →  Internet access itself

Fig: Three steps in the digital reading of Article 21

• Privacy: A nine-judge Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) held that privacy, including informational privacy, is part of Art. 21. Any limit on it must be lawful, necessary and proportionate [1].
• Internet as medium: Anuradha Bhasin (2020) protected speech and trade through the Internet under Arts. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). It barred indefinite shutdowns and required the least restrictive means [2].
• Access itself: In October 2026, Justices Pardiwala and Chandran held Internet access to be a fundamental right under Art. 21 read with Art. 19(1)(a), extending to children "irrespective of their age". They called blanket bans "unproven measures of proven disproportionality" [3].

Obligations on the State

• Negative duty: No arbitrary shutdowns or blanket bans. Every restriction must pass the proportionality test [2][3].
• Positive duty: Legislate for data protection. This was done through the DPDP Act, 2023 and the DPDP Rules notified in November 2025, which give an 18-month phased compliance window [4].
• Child safeguards: Mandate verifiable parental consent for under-18s, with exemptions for healthcare, education and real-time safety [4].
• Privacy-light design: Keep age checks minimal. PRS notes that the consent rule forces platforms to verify every user's age, which may erode anonymity [5].

Obligations on digital platforms

• Safety by design: Offer a "child mode" and age-appropriate safeguards [3].
• Data-fiduciary duties: Process children's data only after verifiable parental consent [4].
• Accountability: Provide accessible grievance outlets [3]. UN General Comment No. 25 (2021) requires businesses to prevent, mitigate and remedy harm to children online [6].

The judiciary has thus moved Article 21 from privacy to access, with proportionality running through each step. Making these rights real needs a State that regulates rather than prohibits and platforms that take responsibility for safety by design. As the Court said of children, citizens are "entitled to both" safety and freedom [3]. This fulfils the Constitution's promise of dignity.