Madras HC Suggests Australia-Like Law to Restrict Children’s Internet Use, Orders Awareness Drive on Child Pornography [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has suggested that the Union of India explore the possibility of enacting legislation similar to Australia’s recent law prohibiting internet usage by children below the age of 16, while directing child rights commissions to accelerate awareness campaigns on the menace of pornographic content accessible to children.

The Bench comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by S. Vijayakumar, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the Tamil Nadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights to implement a “Parental Window” service through Internet Service Providers across the country.

The writ petitioner, expressing concern over pornographic content available on virtual platforms and easily accessible to young children, invoked the powers vested under Section 13(1)(c) and (j) of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. He sought directions to ISP companies to provide parental control services as stipulated in the Union of India’s communication dated March 27, 2017.

The petition further sought a mandamus directing the authorities to implement the Union Government’s directions to Internet Service Providers for providing the “Parental Window” service and to create awareness among children regarding online safety.

Counter affidavits were filed by the respective respondents, including the Union of India, the National and State Child Rights Commissions, ISP associations, and major telecom operators such as Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea, Reliance Jio, and BSNL. However, the Court found these responses to be inadequate.

The Bench observed, “However, they are not impressive enough to convince this Court that the respondents are adequately discharging their responsibilities as mandated under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act.”

Mr. K.P.S. Palanivel Rajan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that “the Commission has a statutory duty and responsibility to spread child rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights.”

While acknowledging that certain awareness campaigns were being conducted in schools, the Court noted, “However, the said campaigns are not adequate. Publications, media outreach, seminars, and other available means are not being fully utilized.”

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s guidance in Just Rights For Children Alliance & Another v. S. Harish, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2611, which laid down suggestions concerning the rights of POCSO victims.

Counsel appearing for the ISPs submitted that intermediaries periodically review the situation and, in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, take necessary action. It was further submitted that whenever objectionable websites are brought to the notice of the concerned ISP, such websites are blocked.

Senior Counsel for the petitioner emphasized that “awareness among stakeholders and the availability of parental control mechanisms on devices will substantially control the menace of obscene pornographic material accessible to children.”

He specifically referred to “recent legislation passed by the Australian Government prohibiting internet usage by children below the age of 16” and submitted that the Union of India may also consider enacting similar legislation.

Examining the existing framework, the Court observed, “From the submissions made by the learned counsels, as well as the order passed by the Union of India dated 18.04.2017, we understand that a dynamically updated database of URLs containing online CSAM is available and active.”

However, emphasizing the necessity of user-end safeguards, the Court held, “There must also be control at the user end, which can be achieved only if parental control applications are available on devices. For this purpose, end users must be made aware of the menace of child pornography and the measures available to prevent it.”

Balancing individual rights with child protection, the Court observed, “Ultimately, it is an individual’s choice and right to access such material or to avoid it. However, insofar as children are concerned, their vulnerability is higher, and therefore, parental responsibility is correspondingly greater.”

On the Australian legislation, the Court remarked, “As suggested by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the Union of India may explore the possibility of passing legislation similar to that of Australia.”

Pending such legislation, the Court issued clear directions, stating, “Until such legislation is enacted, the authorities concerned shall accelerate their awareness campaigns more effectively and disseminate the message to vulnerable groups through all available media.”

Expressing its expectation, the Court observed, “We hope that the Commission, both at the State and Central levels, will draw up an action plan in this regard and implement the same in letter and spirit.”

The Bench also noted that ISPs are governed by separate statutory frameworks, including the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and that appropriate action is taken whenever objectionable content is reported.

Emphasizing a multi-stakeholder approach, the Court underscored the shared responsibility of ISPs in implementing parental controls, government authorities in conducting awareness campaigns, and parents in exercising vigilance over their children’s internet usage.

The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

Case Title: S. Vijayakumar v. Union of India & Ors.

[Read Order]