Internet access as a human right: what India's Supreme Court decided, and why it should be worldwide

Internet access as a human right: what India's Supreme Court decided, and why it should be worldwide

On 15 October 2026, the Supreme Court of India declared that "the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual," children included. The ruling is real and the headline is accurate, but it is a ruling under India's Constitution, not a new global right. This write-up sets out what the Court actually said, what international law already says, and the case for making meaningful, affordable and accessible connectivity a right everywhere.

Prepared 17 October 2026. Facts and sources come first; the advocacy argument is in its own section and is labelled as such.

Part 1: What the Court actually decided

The case

- Case: Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors., M.A. Nos. 2553-2554 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161-2162 of 2024 (full judgment, PDF — https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/10/17/just-rights-for-children-alliance-v-union-of-india-707066.pdf)

- Citations: 2026 INSC 1149; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1063

- Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Chandran (two judges)

- Date signed: New Delhi, 15 October 2026. LiveLaw first reported it on 16 October (LiveLaw report — https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/right-to-access-use-internet-a-fundamental-right-of-every-individual-including-children-supreme-court-555139), which is why some coverage gives later dates.

- Form: a 136-page reportable "Order" on applications in a child-protection case

The proceeding was about child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) online. Most of the judgment orders stronger detection and removal: a national database of hash identifiers and URLs of confirmed material, reporting within two hours after platforms remove material, trained grievance officers to review complaints, and digital-safety training in schools. The case returns to court on 10 December 2026, when the Union government must file an affidavit on its progress (paragraphs 319 and 320; LiveLaw summary of the directions — https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-directs-union-to-create-national-database-on-child-sexual-exploitation-abuse-materials-cseam-for-removal-across-platforms-555162).

The key passage

The internet-rights declaration sits in section E, "Article 21 and the Right to Access Internet." Paragraph 292 reads:

  "In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in saying that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Our children, irrespective of their age enjoy the same rights, and to deny the same altogether would be as absurd as saying children below a certain age do not have a conscience worth protecting or a freedom of speech worth expressing. The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both."

Article 21 is India's right to life and personal liberty. Article 19(1)(a) is freedom of speech and expression, which Indian courts have long read to include the right to receive and impart information (paragraph 287).

How the Court got there

- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): a three-judge bench reviewing the Kashmir internet suspension held that speech and business carried on through the internet are constitutionally protected. It deliberately left open whether internet access itself is a fundamental right (paragraphs 289 and 290 of the new judgment).

- Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025): acid-attack survivors and a visually impaired petitioner challenged digital KYC checks they physically could not complete. The Court held that "the right to digital access" is "an intrinsic component of the right to life" and that the State must "proactively design and implement inclusive digital ecosystems" (LiveLaw on Pragya Prasun — https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/right-to-digital-access-part-of-article-21-supreme-court-directs-to-make-ekyc-process-accessible-to-persons-with-disabilities-290778). Justice Pardiwala sat on that bench too.

- The new step: building on both, the Court said the question is "no longer res-integra" (no longer open) and made the declaration in paragraph 292.

What it does not say

- It is not absolute. The Court said this "does not mean that there should be no age-based restrictions" (paragraph 299), suggested parental consent and a "child mode" (paragraphs 300 and 301), and said the government may still block children from "inherently harmful" services such as adult sites (paragraph 302).

- It rejects blanket bans, not all rules. Its target was sweeping age bans on children: "any blanket restriction on the access of internet by children is nothing more than unproven measures of proven disproportionality" (paragraph 297). Keeping children offline because platforms fail to remove abuse "would be to mistake the victim for the problem" (paragraph 285).

- It does not order free or universal connectivity. The ruling protects access and use against unjustified denial. It does not direct the government to provide connections or set affordability targets. Pragya Prasun's "inclusive digital ecosystems" language is the closest the Court has come to a duty to provide.

- Its weight may be argued. My reading, not the Court's: the declaration came in a case about abuse material, framed as a point "we deem necessary to clarify" (paragraph 280), and it is not restated in the judgment's formal summary of conclusions (paragraph 316). Future litigants may argue over whether it is binding precedent or strong guidance, and whether a two-judge bench can settle what a three-judge bench left open. It is still a clear, signed statement from India's highest court.

- It does not end shutdowns. Access Now counted 65 internet shutdowns in India in 2025, the lowest since 2017 but second only to Myanmar worldwide (KeepItOn 2025 report, PDF — https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/KeepItOn-Internet-Shutdowns-2025-Annual-Report.pdf). How the declaration affects shutdown orders is still to be tested.

Part 2: Where international law stands

No binding international treaty yet names "internet access" as a standalone human right. The protection comes through existing rights applied online.

- ICCPR Article 19 protects the freedom to seek, receive and impart information "through any media." The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment 34 — https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/GC/34 (2011) says restrictions on internet services must meet Article 19's tests and that generic bans on whole sites or systems are not compatible with it (paragraph 43).

- UN Human Rights Council resolution 32/13 (2016) affirms that the rights people have offline must also be protected online, and "condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law" (A/HRC/RES/32/13 — https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/RES/32/13). It is politically weighty but not legally binding.

- The 2011 report of UN Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue found that cutting users off from internet access, "regardless of the justification provided," is disproportionate and violates Article 19(3) (A/HRC/17/27 — https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/17/27). This is expert interpretation, not treaty text.

- The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 9(2)(g), obliges States Parties to "promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet" (CRPD text — https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities). This is binding treaty language.

- The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child's General Comment 25 — https://docs.un.org/en/CRC/C/GC/25 (2021) calls on states to ensure all children have equal and effective access to the digital environment in ways that are meaningful to them. India's Court reached a similar place on children.

Canada offers a useful contrast. In 2016 the CRTC declared broadband a "basic telecommunications service" and set a target of 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload for every household (Telecom Regulatory Policy 2016-496 — https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2016/2016-496.htm). That is a regulatory service goal, not a constitutional right that a person can enforce in court.

The scale of the gap: the ITU estimates that 2.2 billion people were still offline in 2025, most of them in low and middle income countries, and that quality and affordability gaps persist even where mobile coverage exists (ITU Facts and Figures 2025 — https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/facts-figures-2025/). Access Now documented at least 313 shutdowns in 52 countries in 2025, a new record (KeepItOn 2025 report, PDF — https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/KeepItOn-Internet-Shutdowns-2025-Annual-Report.pdf).

Part 3: The case for a worldwide right (advocacy)

This section is argument, not a statement of current law.

The internet is now the doorway to other rights

Banking, health care, benefits, education, work, voting information and family contact increasingly run online. When the doorway is shut, people lose access to rights they already hold on paper. India's Court made the point for children: for many in remote areas the internet "is often the only source of learning and information," and for children with special needs "the only place where they are able to find company in others like them" (paragraph 288). That is true of adults too: disabled people, elders, rural and Indigenous communities, and anyone with mobility or pain challenges for whom getting to an office is hard.

A right that exists only for those who can afford a good plan, live in the right postal code, or use a standard screen is not universal. It is a privilege.

What a meaningful right should include

- Affordable: a basic, reliable connection priced within reach of low-income households, supported by public funds where markets will not deliver.

- Accessible: websites, apps and identity checks designed for people with disabilities from the start, as Pragya Prasun and CRPD Article 9 require, with non-digital alternatives for those who need them.

- Meaningful, not nominal: enough speed and data to use real services, in local languages, with digital-skills support.

- Private: access should not depend on surrendering identity or being tracked. The Indian Court warned that age-verification schemes can require "continuous collection and monitoring of sensitive data" with "disproportionate risk of misuse and surveillance" (paragraph 286).

- Protected from arbitrary shutdowns: any interruption should be lawful, necessary, proportionate, time-limited, published and open to independent challenge, with blanket and region-wide shutdowns treated as presumptively disproportionate.

Restrictions can be legitimate, but they must be narrow

Arguing for a right is not arguing that every rule is unlawful. Courts and treaty bodies accept targeted limits, such as removing child-abuse material, blocking specific unlawful content, or age-appropriate protections. The Indian ruling itself pairs the right with strong duties on platforms. The principle is that safety measures should be "directed at the harmful material and those responsible for the same, and not at the children themselves" (paragraph 284), and the same logic applies to adults: punish the harm, do not cut off the population.

Who wins when the plug is pulled

Shutdowns and unaffordable access fall hardest on people with the least power: protesters, minorities, people in conflict zones, the poor, the disabled. Those who benefit are the ones who would rather not be watched, questioned or organised against. Treating connectivity as a right moves the burden: the state must justify every cut-off, rather than people having to justify their need to be online.

What to ask for

1. A UN-level recognition, through a Human Rights Council resolution or a general comment, that meaningful internet access is itself a human right, not only a channel for other rights.

2. National laws or constitutional protections that make arbitrary disconnection challengeable in court, following India's lead.

3. Universal-service funding tied to affordability and disability-access standards, not only coverage maps.

4. Mandatory transparency for every shutdown order: legal basis, scope, duration and review.

5. Privacy-preserving approaches to child safety that do not require identity checks on every user.

Sources

- Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, judgment of 15 October 2026 (PDF) — https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/10/17/just-rights-for-children-alliance-v-union-of-india-707066.pdf

- LiveLaw: Right to access and use internet a fundamental right of every individual including children — https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/right-to-access-use-internet-a-fundamental-right-of-every-individual-including-children-supreme-court-555139

- LiveLaw: Supreme Court directs national CSEAM database — https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-directs-union-to-create-national-database-on-child-sexual-exploitation-abuse-materials-cseam-for-removal-across-platforms-555162

- LiveLaw: Right to digital access part of Article 21 (Pragya Prasun, 2025) — https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/right-to-digital-access-part-of-article-21-supreme-court-directs-to-make-ekyc-process-accessible-to-persons-with-disabilities-290778

- UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 34 (2011) — https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/GC/34

- UN Human Rights Council resolution 32/13 (2016) — https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/RES/32/13

- Report of the Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue, A/HRC/17/27 (2011) — https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/17/27

- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities

- UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment 25 (2021) — https://docs.un.org/en/CRC/C/GC/25

- CRTC Telecom Regulatory Policy 2016-496 — https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2016/2016-496.htm

- ITU Facts and Figures 2025 — https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/facts-figures-2025/

- Access Now, KeepItOn: Internet shutdowns in 2025 (PDF) — https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/KeepItOn-Internet-Shutdowns-2025-Annual-Report.pdf

Tweets by @bordode