The Supreme Court questioned whether a complete ban on children’s internet access would actually make them safer. It said the effectiveness of such restrictions remained contested and that no jurisdiction had demonstrated that children were safer simply because they were prohibited from going online.
The bench also warned that children might continue using the internet despite a legal ban. Instead of stopping, they could move to other platforms or websites that were unregulated and potentially more dangerous.
Such restrictions could also discourage children from telling parents, guardians or trusted adults about threats and exploitation they encountered online.
A child who fears punishment for breaking an internet ban might hesitate to report being threatened, manipulated or sexually exploited. The court said this could undermine the very purpose of laws intended to protect children, including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The judges also questioned the methods that broad age restrictions could require. Establishing the age of every user could involve collecting and continuously monitoring sensitive personal information.
According to the court, these processes create risks of surveillance, misuse of data and interference with the right to privacy. Such concerns must be considered when governments decide how to regulate children’s access to online platforms.
The court’s reasoning was not that all restrictions are ineffective, but that a blanket ban carries serious risks and has not been shown to provide a reliable solution.