> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://signals.joincomrades.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # 24 Oct 2026 · Editorial > Comrades Editorial of 24 Oct 2026, by news group. > **[Comrades Editorial · 24 Oct 2026 (PDF)](https://dl.joincomrades.com/e/24-10-26)** *** ## In this edition 1. [Internet Access as a Fundamental Right](#h-1) Polity & Governance ## Polity & Governance ### Internet Access as a Fundamental Right [Source](https://www.drishtiias.com/current-affairs-news-analysis-editorials/news-editorials/24-10-2026) This editorial is based on "On right to internet, Supreme Court ruling isn’t enough" published in The Indian Express on 21/10/2026. The article highlights that mere judicial recognition of internet access under Articles 19 and 21 remains ineffective unless actively enforced against arbitrary state-sponsored shutdowns and executive overreach. The Supreme Court’s October 2026 ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish marks a major shift in digital-rights jurisprudence. Recognising internet access under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a), it connects connectivity with liberty, expression, education and participation. As Tim Berners-Lee argues, the internet should be recognised as a basic human right, essential for equitable access to knowledge and opportunities. Yet digital exclusion, arbitrary shutdowns and online exploitation threaten meaningful enjoyment. India must ensure safe, affordable access through proportionate safeguards and accountability. What are the Key Judicial Pronouncements on the Right to Internet Access? * **Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2026):** * **Express Recognition of Internet Access:** In its judgment dated 15th October 2026, the Court expressly recognised the right to access and use the internet under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), extending this protection to children. * While addressing online child sexual exploitation, it rejected blanket exclusion of children from the internet and favoured proportionate safeguards, including parental oversight and protective account settings. * The Court observed that keeping children offline due to regulatory and intermediary failures in filtering abuse material "would be to mistake the victim for the problem." It ruled that safety and digital freedom are not mutually exclusive and must be balanced via proportionate safeguards rather than blanket prohibitions. * It nevertheless permitted restrictions on categories of content inherently harmful to children. * **Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025):** * The Court recognised digital access as an intrinsic component of life and liberty under Article 21. * Addressing inaccessible digital KYC procedures affecting acid-attack survivors and persons with visual disabilities, it directed accessible alternatives, reasonable accommodation and human review of accessibility-related rejections. * The ruling places a positive obligation on the State to build inclusive digital systems. * **Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020):** * In this landmark judgment addressing the prolonged internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370, the Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the freedom to carry on any trade or business (Article 19(1)(g)) via the medium of the internet are constitutionally protected fundamental rights. * The Court held that any restriction or total suspension of internet services must adhere to the doctrine of proportionality. It cannot be indefinite; it must be the least intrusive measure necessary to achieve a legitimate state objective. * All orders imposing internet suspensions must be made public so they can be legally contested and subjected to judicial review. * **Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (2020):** * Addressing restrictions limiting mobile internet to 2G during the pandemic, the Court constituted a Special Committee headed by the Union Home Secretary to examine their continued necessity. * It directed consideration of geographically limited restrictions and trial restoration of faster internet in selected areas. * The Court required scrutiny of security restrictions while stopping short of ordering immediate, territory-wide restoration of 4G. * **Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (2019):** * The Kerala High Court declared that the right to have access to the internet forms part of the Right to Privacy and the Right to Education under Article 21 of the Constitution. * The court struck down a women’s hostel rule forcing students to hand over their mobile phones during study hours as unreasonable, ordering the petitioner's reinstatement to the hostel. What is the Significance of the Recognition of Right to Internet Access as a Fundamental Right? * **Positive Constitutional Obligation to Bridge Digital Inequalities:** * Recognising digital access as an intrinsic component of Article 21, read with equality guarantees, places a positive responsibility on the State to address digital exclusion, inaccessible services and inadequate connectivity. * This strengthens the constitutional basis for expanding broadband infrastructure, digital literacy and accessible public platforms among marginalised populations. * BharatNet had made approximately 2.21 lakh gram panchayats service-ready by June 2026, demonstrating the scale of existing infrastructure efforts. * **Judicial Containment of Arbitrary Executive Internet Shutdowns:** * Constitutional protection subjects network suspensions to legality, legitimate purpose, rational connection, necessity and balancing, strengthening judicial scrutiny of executive restrictions. * Under Section 20 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, any internet shutdown order must be published with reasoned justifications, consider alternative means, and have a specified duration not exceeding 15 days per order. * Access Now documented 65 shutdowns in India out of 313 globally in 2025—approximately 20.8%—underscoring the significance of enforceable safeguards and constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226. * **Protection of Digital Livelihoods and Economic Participation:** * Protecting trade and business conducted through the internet under Article 19(1)(g) strengthens safeguards for platform workers, freelancers, small traders and digital enterprises whose earnings depend on connectivity. * Restrictions affecting their livelihoods must remain consistent with Article 19(6) and constitutional proportionality. * ICRIER’s 2018 study estimated approximately USD 3.04 billion in cumulative losses from internet shutdowns during 2012–2017. * Constitutional recognition strengthens the case for considering these livelihood costs when assessing the necessity and geographical scope of network restrictions. * **Democratization of Digital Public Infrastructure and Entitlement Delivery:** * Recognition strengthens the constitutional foundation for inclusive service design, assisted access, accessible verification and effective grievance redressal across digital welfare systems. * DBT delivers benefits, UPI and Aadhaar-enabled Payment Systems facilitate payments, and DigiLocker enables access to digital documents, supporting different aspects of digital governance. * The official DBT dashboard lists 320 schemes across 56 ministries, illustrating the breadth of digitally supported entitlement delivery. * Rights-based governance strengthens demands for suitable alternatives and assistance when connectivity failures or inaccessible interfaces obstruct access to pensions, subsidies and other essential services. * **Substantive Realization of Educational Rights in Hybrid Learning Regimes:** * Internet access enables students to use DIKSHA, SWAYAM, digital libraries, online applications and accessible learning resources, reducing dependence on location and household purchasing power. * However, UDISE+ 2025–26 reported internet facilities in only 67.4% of schools, leaving 32.6% without connectivity. * Recognition strengthens the argument that expanding digital education must accompany investment in connectivity, devices and teacher support. Its deeper significance lies in equality of opportunity—ensuring that a learner’s access to knowledge and educational advancement is not determined primarily by geography or income. * **Strengthening India’s Alignment with International Human Rights Frameworks:** * Constitutional protection for internet access aligns with UN Human Rights Council Resolution 32/13 (2016), which affirms that rights protected offline must also receive protection online and calls for bridging digital divides. * It also complements UNCRC Article 13, protecting children’s expression and information freedoms, and Article 17, addressing access to information. * These international standards provide interpretive guidance for developing inclusive, child-sensitive digital governance. Effective implementation can strengthen India’s credibility in advocating a rights-respecting digital order that balances national security, online safety and individual freedoms. * **Access to Justice and Reduction of Procedural Disadvantage:** * Recognition strengthens the connection between digital inclusion and effective access to legal remedies as courts expand e-filing, remote hearings and online case information. * An August 2026 government brief recorded over 4.18 crore cumulative video-conferencing hearings and 2,584 e-Sewa Kendras functioning in June 2026. * These services can reduce travel costs and difficulties faced by distant litigants, witnesses and persons with mobility limitations. What Concerns are Associated with Making Internet Access a Fundamental Right? * **Indeterminacy of Constitutional Entitlements and Risk of Uneven Judicial Enforcement:** * Recognition raises difficult questions about the minimum enforceable standard of access—whether it covers connectivity alone or also affordable devices, sufficient data, reliable speeds and uninterrupted availability. * India’s administrative definition of broadband specifies a minimum download speed of 2 Mbps, but this threshold alone cannot establish whether access is adequate for education, telemedicine or employment. * Without clear standards, disputes over inadequate connectivity, service interruptions and responsibility for remedies could produce inconsistent enforcement and uncertainty over public obligations. * **Fiscal Sustainability and Coordination Challenges in Delivering Universal Access:** * Translating constitutional recognition into reliable services requires sustained expenditure on last-mile networks, electricity, maintenance, network redundancy and affordable access, particularly in commercially unattractive regions. * The Amended BharatNet Programme’s approved cost of ₹1,39,579 crore illustrates the scale of infrastructure commitments involved. Coordination among Union agencies, state governments, local authorities and implementing companies remains essential for land access, permissions and maintenance. * A major concern is the emergence of rights-based expectations without dependable funding or clearly assigned delivery responsibilities, especially in financially constrained jurisdictions. * **Private-Sector Dominance and Ambiguity over Corporate Accountability:** * Effective enjoyment of the right depends heavily on commercial providers whose decisions influence tariffs, coverage, service quality and customer disconnection. * TRAI’s August 2026 figures imply that Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel together accounted for approximately 84% of reported broadband subscriptions. This concentration makes it important to clarify responsibility among the State, regulators and service providers when access becomes unaffordable or unreliable. * Enforcement must also reconcile consumer protection, investment incentives, competition and legitimate contractual conditions, while distinguishing internet connectivity from access to particular privately operated platforms. * **Persistence of Capability Gaps beneath Formal Digital Inclusion:** * Connectivity can coexist with exclusion when citizens lack digital literacy, accessible interfaces, language support or the ability to complete online procedures. * The NSO’s Comprehensive Modular Survey: Telecom, 2025 found that among people aged 15–29, 63.4% in rural areas, compared with 79.7% in urban areas, reported being able to perform online banking transactions. These are self-reported capabilities, demonstrating a gap beyond network availability. * Governments could mistakenly treat expanded connectivity as sufficient justification for digital-only service delivery, increasing dependence on intermediaries and disadvantaging less digitally capable citizens. * **Tensions between Digital Freedoms and Legitimate Security Requirements:** * Authorities must address terrorist coordination, incitement, hostile disinformation and disclosure of sensitive operational information while preserving lawful communication. * During Operation Sindoor in 2025, the government reported issuing directions to block over 1,400 URLs containing allegedly harmful material. This illustrates the challenge of distinguishing targeted action against unlawful content from excessive restrictions affecting legitimate users. * Constitutional recognition increases the importance of credible evidence, narrowly tailored intervention, timely review and effective remedies, particularly when threats evolve faster than administrative or judicial processes can respond. * **Privacy Risks from Identity Verification and Safety-Based Access Controls:** * Implementing safe digital access can encourage identity-linked registration, age verification, behavioural monitoring and collection of sensitive personal information. Such mechanisms may create risks of surveillance, data breaches, function creep and exclusion through verification errors. * UNICEF’s 2026 analysis of social-media age restrictions highlights differing approaches, ranging from government-identity-based verification to systems designed to minimise data disclosure. * The constitutional challenge is to reconcile access, privacy, anonymity and user protection, ensuring that safety measures do not impose disproportionate identification requirements on every internet user. * **Mismatch between Digital Participation and Cybercrime-Redress Capacity:** * Rights-based access must be accompanied by effective protection against financial fraud, identity theft, account takeover and coercive online scams. * In a July 2026 parliamentary reply, the Home Ministry reported approximately 53.88 lakh cyber-fraud complaints involving amounts exceeding ₹56,087 crore during financial years 2023–24 to 2025–26. * The concern is that investigation, banking coordination and victim compensation mechanisms may lag behind digital participation, leaving citizens connected to essential services but inadequately protected when exploitation occurs. * **Reconciling Children’s Digital Autonomy with Protection from Online Exploitation:** * Protecting children’s access creates complex responsibilities concerning harmful recommendations, grooming, sexual exploitation, manipulative advertising and age-appropriate design. * UNICEF’s September 2026 report, Through Children’s Eyes, estimated that approximately 20 million children aged 12–17—around one in five internet-using children across the 21 countries studied—experienced technology-facilitated sexual exploitation or abuse within a year. * The central concern is developing proportionate, enforceable platform safeguards that protect children while preserving their privacy, educational opportunities and capacity to seek help. What Measures can Ensure Effective Implementation of Fundamental Right to Internet Access? * **Converting Constitutional Recognition into a Time-Bound Access Guarantee:** * India should adopt a Digital Access Guarantee specifying measurable standards for availability, affordability, accessibility and service quality, with clear responsibilities for governments and telecom providers. * It should distinguish immediately enforceable protections—such as non-discrimination and safeguards against arbitrary restrictions—from infrastructure obligations requiring phased investment. * Standards should assess whether users can actually complete essential tasks, including teleconsultations and online applications. * This would operationalise the Supreme Court’s emphasis in Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025) on proactively creating inclusive digital ecosystems. * **Shifting Infrastructure Financing towards Connectivity and Network Resilience:** * Digital Bharat Nidhi funding should increasingly reward functioning household connections, independently verified uptime and timely fault repair, alongside infrastructure construction. * Contracts should provide maintenance funding, proportionate penalties and public performance disclosures. * Shared infrastructure, fibre-ring redundancy, backup power and suitable satellite links should address difficult terrain and disaster vulnerability. * Gujarat’s 2025 Amended BharatNet agreement, covering 14,654 gram panchayats with a target exceeding 98% service uptime, provides a useful starting point. * **Targeted Affordability Support and Community-Owned Public Connectivity:** * Pilot portable connectivity vouchers for low-income students, persons with disabilities and other underserved groups, redeemable across participating providers. * Combine these with device-lending libraries, responsibly refurbished equipment and women’s self-help-group-operated PM-WANI hotspots in panchayats, hostels and health centres. Subsidies should support access to the open internet, preserving net neutrality. * The May 2026 PM-WANI reforms, introducing QR-based secondary-device authentication and short-duration plans, offer an existing platform for expansion. * **Universal Accessibility, Digital Capability and Non-Exclusion in Public Services:** * Government procurement should require accessibility testing by actual users, compliance with GIGW 3.0 and WCAG 2.1 Level AA, local-language interfaces and low-bandwidth functionality. * Alternative KYC procedures, screen-reader compatibility and assisted service counters should accommodate disability, limited literacy and unreliable connectivity. * Essential services should retain assisted and offline alternatives, ensuring that digital expansion strengthens substantive equality and preserves access during outages. * **Institutionalising Least-Restrictive Shutdowns and Transparent Emergency Decision-Making:** * Every proposed suspension should undergo a documented necessity and proportionality assessment, examining targeted alternatives, affected populations and disruption to essential services. * Create a searchable shutdown-order repository recording reasons, geographical scope, duration and review outcomes, subject to lawful protection of sensitive information. * Implementation should add trained decision-making teams, periodic rights audits and practical arrangements to maintain emergency communication and service delivery wherever technically feasible. * **Integrating Privacy by Design with Proportionate Child-Safety Architecture:** * Public platforms and services used by children should incorporate data minimisation, privacy-protecting defaults, understandable consent and effective abuse reporting. * Age-assurance systems should collect only necessary information, with accessible alternatives and safeguards against excessive identity-data retention. * India should translate these principles into independently evaluated safeguards, including targeted CSEAM (Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material) detection with strict purpose limitations, grievance mechanisms and protection against misuse. * **Making Cyber Resilience and Victim Assistance Integral to Digital Inclusion:** * Establish district-level cyber-assistance desks linking local police, banks and telecom providers with I4C and the 1930 helpline. * Connectivity programmes should include local-language fraud simulations, rapid complaint assistance and support for vulnerable users. * Public-service systems should undergo security audits, recovery drills and backup-restoration testing, while essential institutions maintain workable service-continuity arrangements. * Build on the Money Restoration and Grievance Redressal Modules operational since April 2026 by publishing clearly defined response and resolution indicators. * **Accessible Grievance Redressal and Citizen-Led Performance Accountability:** * Establish a single-window complaint interface, available through telephone, SMS, accessible websites and physical service centres, which routes complaints to the responsible provider or authority. * Clearly distinguish service-quality failures, accessibility barriers and unlawful restrictions, with published resolution timelines and escalation routes. * Automate compensation wherever existing regulations require it and publish anonymised district-level performance dashboards. **Conclusion** * As Richard Branson warns, unequal internet access denies millions an equal opportunity to improve their lives. Recognising internet access as a fundamental right is therefore only the beginning; India must bridge connectivity and capability gaps, protect children, strengthen cybercrime redressal and subject shutdowns to strict proportionality. Affordable infrastructure, privacy-preserving safeguards and accountable platforms must underpin implementation. Ultimately, digital governance should transform connectivity into substantive freedom, equality and opportunity while safeguarding security and human dignity. This documentation is built and hosted on [Mintlify](https://mintlify.com), a developer documentation platform.