The Supreme Court has recognised access to and use of the internet as a fundamental right of every individual, children included, while ordering a national system to track and remove child sexual abuse material online. The Court also pressed the Centre to publicise an interim compensation scheme for road accident victims and drew a firm line between civil disputes and criminal cheating cases. From the High Courts, the Allahabad High Court set a six-month deadline for deciding maintenance execution cases across Uttar Pradesh and clarified how contract workers can claim equal pay.
Supreme Court: Internet Access Is a Fundamental Right, Including for Children
A Supreme Court Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran delivered this ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance and another v. S. Harish and others. The judgment was made public on 17 October 2026.
What the court held: The right to access and use the internet flows from Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(a), which includes the right to receive and share information, and it belongs to children as much as to adults. The Court rejected blanket internet or social media bans for children as disproportionate, and was critical of age-verification mandates that require constant collection of sensitive personal data. It held that proportionate safeguards remain valid, such as parental consent and oversight, a child mode, private accounts by default, limits on contact from unknown adults and moderated content, with the Union Government to settle the details. The government can still block children’s access to inherently harmful content such as adult websites. Summing up the balance between safety and access, the Bench said: “Our children are entitled to both.”
What it means for you: Parents, schools and platforms should expect child-safety rules built around supervision and safer default settings rather than outright bans. The ruling also gives individuals a firmer constitutional footing to challenge arbitrary or excessive internet restrictions. For guidance on online rights and data compliance, see our Cyber Law and Data Protection practice.
Supreme Court Orders National Database to Remove Child Abuse Material Online
In the same case, the Bench expressed concern that such material kept circulating despite its 2024 directions, because the system relied largely on individual complaints and there was little coordination between platforms. It said the lack of effective action by regulators and intermediaries left it with “no choice but to intervene”.
What changed: The Union Government must create a national database of hash identifiers and URLs linked to confirmed abuse material, either within the Sahyog Portal or as a separate repository, with each entry independently verified by at least three trained human analysts. Safeguards against wrongful entries and a grievance mechanism are required, and the Centre is to consider substantial penalties for non-compliant intermediaries and add digital safety education to the school curriculum. Social media intermediaries must report such material to Indian authorities (the Special Juvenile Police Unit, local police or the cybercrime portal), not only to foreign bodies, generally within 2 hours of removal, must offer a separate reporting category, and must acknowledge each complaint within 24 hours. The Centre has to file a progress affidavit by the next hearing on 10 December 2026.
What it means for you: Parents and children now have a clearer, faster route to get abusive content taken down and to know what was done about a complaint. Companies running apps, platforms or online services with user content should prepare for tighter reporting timelines, grievance handling and possible penalties, and should review their compliance processes now. Our Cyber Law and Data Protection page has more on intermediary obligations.
Supreme Court Wants Wide Publicity for Road Accident Victims’ Interim Relief Scheme
On 16 October 2026, a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan heard a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with its order of 28 April 2025, which had called for a statutory mechanism under Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act to give quick interim financial relief to accident victims. The Centre informed the Court that it had framed the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026 and had written to all State Chief Secretaries in February to circulate it, but neither the petitioner nor the amicus curiae was aware the scheme existed.
What the court held: Calling it an “unannounced law”, the Bench said people must know about beneficial legislation. It directed the Union to give the scheme wide publicity and to place a concrete plan at the next hearing on how it will be rolled out, enforced and publicised across the country. Concerns were raised that the scheme covers only insured vehicles.
What it means for you: If you or a family member has been hurt in a road accident, interim compensation may be available quickly, without waiting for the full claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to end. Ask the claims tribunal, the police or the insurer about the scheme at an early stage, and keep the FIR, medical records and vehicle insurance details ready. See our Civil Litigation practice for help with accident claims.
An Arbitration Clause Does Not Block a Criminal Case, but Contract Breach Is Not Cheating
In Indroneel Goho v. Razouvonuo Thong and another, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, by an order dated 13 October 2026, quashed a cheating case filed in Dimapur against the CEO of a tea estate company. The complainant had paid Rs 40 lakh to the company under an MoU, which the company later terminated, and then alleged that the CEO had misrepresented ownership of the estate.
What the court held: An arbitration clause in a contract does not by itself bar criminal proceedings. However, the court must first check whether the allegations actually disclose the ingredients of the offence. Cheating requires a dishonest intention at the very start of the transaction that induced the payment, and a later failure to perform the contract is not enough. Whether the termination was valid and whether a refund is due are civil questions, and the complainant remains free to pursue civil or contractual remedies.
What it means for you: Businesses and their directors facing criminal complaints over what is really a commercial dispute have a clear test to rely on when seeking quashing. Equally, a party with a genuine fraud grievance is not shut out merely because the contract has an arbitration clause. Before turning a payment dispute into an FIR, it is wise to assess whether the facts point to deception at the outset or simply to a breach. See our Arbitration and ADR and Criminal Defence pages.
Allahabad High Court: Maintenance Execution Cases Must Be Decided Within Six Months
In Data Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 others, made available on 16 October 2026, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri dismissed a husband’s revision petition against a Kasganj Family Court order directing maintenance of Rs 3,000 a month to his wife and Rs 1,000 a month to each of two minor children. The revision was filed 645 days late, and the court refused to condone the delay.
What the court held: Noting that no one could say whether the maintenance order had even been executed, the court directed all trial courts in Uttar Pradesh to follow the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Periyammal v. V. Rajamani and the High Court’s circular of 24 May 2025, and to decide execution applications in maintenance cases within six months. Non-compliance may amount to contempt of both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
What it means for you: For wives, children and parents in Uttar Pradesh who have a maintenance order but are not being paid, this is a practical boost: execution proceedings under Sections 125(3) and 128 CrPC (and their BNSS equivalents) should now move within a fixed time. For those ordered to pay, it is a reminder that challenges must be filed on time and that unpaid arrears will be pursued more quickly. See our Family Law, Divorce and Matrimonial Disputes practice.
Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Real Parity to Claim Equal Pay
In Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. State of U.P. and others, made available on 16 October 2026, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery set aside a 2005 order of the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, which had granted 265 contract workers pay equal to unskilled regular BHEL employees under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the U.P. rules.
What the court held: Contract workers can claim equal pay for equal work, but the burden is on them to prove, through oral and documentary evidence, that their work matched that of regular employees in quality and sensitivity, not merely in job title. The duty charts, gate passes and comparative chart relied on did not show what work each group actually did, and the Commissioner gave no specific reasons. The court observed that “there must be specific consideration and reasons”, and sent the matter back for a fresh decision within six months.
What it means for you: Contract workers and unions pursuing equal-pay claims should build a detailed record of actual duties, responsibilities and skills, side by side with regular staff, rather than relying on attendance or gate-pass records alone. Principal employers and contractors should keep clear job descriptions and records. See our Labour and Employment Law practice.
Need advice on any of these updates?
If any of these developments affects you or your business, you can request a consultation through our online consultation page.
This briefing is a news summary for general awareness and is not legal advice.