"Supreme Court Declares Internet Access a Fundamental Right"
Proportionality test
a restriction on a right must not be more than what is necessary to meet its aim
Internet shutdown
temporary suspension of internet or telecom services by government order
Part III of the Constitution protects two rights that are central to this ruling. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Courts have read Article 21 in a broad way for a long time. A Fundamental Right includes all that is incidental to it. So 'life' now means much more than just staying alive. Article 21 has been read to include dignity, livelihood, health and education, not just physical survival. The Supreme Court used this method in the K.S. Puttaswamy case. It held that privacy is part of Article 21. This means a person has the right to control information about themselves. The present ruling uses the same broad approach. It adds internet access to the list.
The internet question is not new to the courts. In the Anuradha Bhasin case (2020), the Supreme Court held something important. It said using the internet for trade, business or a profession is protected. This protection comes under Article 19(1)(g), the freedom to carry on any occupation. It said any restriction, such as a shutdown, must pass a test of proportionality. This means the restriction must be no more than necessary to meet its aim. That case also confirmed something else. An indefinite internet shutdown is not allowed under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017. The new ruling goes further. It places internet access not just in trade rights. It places it directly in the core liberty and speech guarantees.
On child safety, existing law already makes child sexual abuse material a crime. The POCSO Act and provisions of the Information Technology Act punish its creation and spread. The Court gave earlier directions on this in 2024. But it found continuing gaps in how platforms were following the Information Technology Rules. This led to the present stricter order.
The ruling delivered on October 15 has two distinct parts. First, it tightens the rules around child sexual exploitation material. The Court directed the government to build a national database of digital identifiers. These are unique codes, called hashes, that identify a known abusive file. You do not need to re-view the file to identify it. Platforms must remove any 'known origin' match from this database. They must do this even without separately verifying it. Platforms must also judge content by whether it could facilitate exploitation. This applies even if the content is not explicit. Hefty fines are proposed for intermediaries that fail to comply. …
Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.
With reference to the Supreme Court's recent ruling on internet access, consider the following statements:
1.The right to access and use the internet has been held to be a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a).
2.In the Anuradha Bhasin case, internet access for trade and business was earlier protected only under Article 19(1)(g).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Consider the following pairs of Supreme Court judgments and the right/principle they are associated with:
1.K.S. Puttaswamy case — Right to Privacy under Article 21
2.Anuradha Bhasin case — Internet access under Article 19(1)(g)
3.2026 ruling on internet access — Internet access under Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a)
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
Which Rules currently govern the suspension of telecom/internet services in India, as upheld in the Anuradha Bhasin judgment?
The 'proportionality test' applied to restrictions on internet access, as laid down in the Anuradha Bhasin case, requires that:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account