Introduction:

In S Vijayakumar v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(MD) No. 23323 of 2018; 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 499], the Madras High Court dealt with a sensitive and contemporary issue concerning children’s unrestricted access to the internet and their exposure to pornographic and harmful online content. The public interest litigation was instituted by S. Vijayakumar, who approached the Court raising serious concerns about the increasing internet usage among children and the alarming ease with which they could access abusive pornographic material and dangerous online games. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to protect children from digital exploitation and psychological harm by urging regulatory oversight over internet service providers and the introduction of parental control mechanisms. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, who were tasked with balancing individual freedoms, parental responsibility, and the constitutional obligation of the State to safeguard child rights. While refraining from issuing mandatory directions to enact new legislation, the Court made a significant recommendation to the Union of India to explore the possibility of introducing a statutory framework, akin to Australian law, to monitor and regulate children’s internet usage, thereby placing the spotlight on legislative accountability and proactive governance in the digital age.

Arguments:

The petitioner, S. Vijayakumar, argued that the exponential growth of internet usage among children had exposed them to grave psychological and moral dangers, particularly through easy access to pornographic content and harmful online challenges such as the Blue Whale game. It was submitted that children, due to their age and vulnerability, lack the cognitive maturity to filter or comprehend such content, making them highly susceptible to exploitation and trauma. The petitioner emphasised that despite the existence of statutory bodies such as the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the Tamil Nadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights, effective mechanisms to regulate content consumption at the user level were largely absent. He contended that blocking objectionable websites at the service provider level alone was insufficient, as new websites and platforms continuously emerged. The petitioner proposed the introduction of a “parental window” or parental control mechanism to be mandatorily provided by internet service providers and device manufacturers, which would empower parents to regulate, monitor, and restrict the content accessible to their children. It was argued that such a system, combined with awareness programmes, would substantially curb the menace of children being exposed to obscene and harmful online material. The petitioner also relied on comparative jurisprudence, pointing out that countries like Australia had enacted specific legislation to regulate children’s internet access, thereby demonstrating the feasibility and necessity of such legal intervention in India.

On behalf of the respondents, including the Union of India, the State authorities, and statutory commissions, it was argued that adequate regulatory frameworks already existed under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The respondents submitted that intermediaries and internet service providers regularly conducted periodic reviews and promptly blocked objectionable websites whenever such content was brought to their notice. It was contended that imposing additional statutory obligations could infringe upon individual autonomy and freedom of access to information, which are integral to a democratic society. The respondents further argued that awareness campaigns were already being undertaken by the concerned commissions and authorities to educate children, parents, and other stakeholders about online safety and digital hygiene. According to them, the responsibility of monitoring children’s internet usage primarily rested with parents, and excessive State intervention could be counterproductive. It was also pointed out that technological solutions such as parental control applications were already available in the market, and parents could voluntarily install them on devices used by their children. Hence, it was argued that judicial directions mandating legislative changes or imposing additional regulatory burdens were neither necessary nor appropriate.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the submissions of all parties, the Madras High Court delivered a nuanced judgment acknowledging the gravity of the issue while respecting the limits of judicial intervention. The Bench observed that pornographic and obscene content was indeed widely available on the internet and that children constituted a particularly vulnerable group due to their impressionable age and lack of mature judgment. The Court recognised that while adults might exercise their individual choice to access or avoid such material, children required a higher degree of protection, thereby imposing a corresponding higher responsibility on parents and the State. The Court noted that statutory bodies such as the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commissions had a clear mandate to spread child rights literacy and promote safeguards available to children under existing laws. However, the Bench found that the awareness campaigns undertaken so far were inadequate in addressing the magnitude of the problem. The Court acknowledged the efforts of intermediaries and internet service providers in blocking objectionable content under the IT Rules, 2021, but emphasised that such measures alone were insufficient, as control was also required at the user end. The Bench observed that effective user-level control could be achieved only through parental control applications or similar technological solutions. Importantly, the Court accepted the suggestion made by the petitioner’s counsel that the Union of India could explore the possibility of enacting legislation similar to that in Australia to monitor and regulate children’s internet usage. While clarifying that it could not compel the legislature to enact a particular law, the Court strongly recommended that the Central Government examine the feasibility of such legislation in the larger interest of child welfare. Until such statutory measures were put in place, the Court directed the authorities concerned to accelerate and strengthen awareness campaigns using all available media platforms to reach vulnerable groups, including children and parents. The Court further expressed hope that both the Central and State Commissions would draw up a concrete action plan and implement it in letter and spirit to effectively combat the menace of child exposure to harmful online content.