In a significant observation aimed at safeguarding the digital well-being of the younger generation, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has suggested that the Union of India explore the possibility of enacting a law similar to Australia’s recent legislation, which restricts internet and social media use for children below a certain age.

The Court’s remarks come at a time when global concerns regarding the impact of algorithmic content, online pornography, and child sexual abuse material (CSEAM) on minors have reached a boiling point. While the Court stopped short of issuing a mandatory directive to the government, it sent a clear message: the current safeguards are not enough.

The matter reached the High Court through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by S. Vijayakumar. The petitioner expressed deep concern over the "unchecked and easy access" children have to sexually explicit material and child abuse content on digital platforms.

The petitioner’s primary argument was that statutory bodies—specifically the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and its state counterpart in Tamil Nadu—were failing to use their existing powers under the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.

According to the petitioner, these commissions have the authority to compel Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to offer a “Parental Window”—a dedicated control facility that allows parents to filter and block harmful content. He pointed out that while a 2017 communication from the Union of India had mentioned such facilities, they were not being effectively implemented or enforced.

A division bench comprising Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan impleaded several high-ranking respondents, including Union Ministries, state departments, and major telecom executives.

In their defense, the authorities and ISPs pointed to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. They argued that mechanisms exist to block objectionable websites whenever they are flagged. ISPs further contended that they act on complaints and periodically review content under the current statutory framework.

However, the Bench was far from satisfied. Describing the affidavits filed by the authorities as “not impressive,” the Court observed that child rights commissions were not adequately discharging their duties under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act.

“While some awareness campaigns are conducted in schools, they are insufficient given the scale of the problem,” the Bench noted, emphasizing that the commissions have a proactive duty to spread "child rights literacy."

The most striking part of the judgment was the Court’s reference to Australia’s legislative stance. Australia recently made headlines by enacting a world-first law that effectively bans children under the age of 16 from using major social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter).

The Madras High Court observed that India might need a similar structural change. The Bench noted that while adults have the "individual choice" to access various types of online content, children require a different level of protection because of their heightened vulnerability to grooming and psychological harm.

The Court highlighted a critical gap in the current system: even if the government blocks specific URLs, new ones pop up instantly. Therefore, control must also exist at the "user end."

The Bench emphasized two key pillars for the interim period until a law is considered:

Parental Control Tools: Devices should compulsorily offer or promote parental control applications that reduce exposure to harmful material.
Awareness: Parents must be educated on the "menace" of child pornography and how to use digital safeguards.

The division bench also drew strength from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024). In that case, the apex court clarified that possessing or watching child pornography (now increasingly referred to as CSEAM — Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material) is a punishable offense under the POCSO Act and the IT Act.

The Madras High Court echoed this sentiment, noting that a coordinated approach involving "awareness, prevention, and regulatory oversight" is the only way forward.

Disposing of the petition, the High Court directed the Central and State Child Rights Commissions to:

Draw up concrete action plans to create awareness among children, parents, and stakeholders.
Utilize media outreach, publications, and seminars to reach vulnerable groups.
Implement these measures in "letter and spirit" to ensure that children are not left defenseless in the vast digital landscape.

While the "Australian Model" remains a suggestion for the legislature to debate, the High Court’s observation serves as a wake-up call for the government to move beyond reactive "blocking" and toward proactive "protection."

Case Title: S. Vijayakumar vs UOI and Others

Date of Order: December 9, 2025

Bench: Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan