New Delhi, 17 October: The Supreme Court has ordered a sweeping overhaul of how Indian schools protect children from sexual abuse and online exploitation, directing that children be taught from the primary stage about their bodies, the difference between safe and unsafe touch, and the meaning of consent, as part of age-appropriate sex education and digital safety in the core school curriculum.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran issued the directions in an order passed on 15 October, while hearing a case on the continued circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) on the internet. The case, Just Rights for Children Alliance and Another v.
S. Harish and Others, is a follow-up to the Court's September 2024 judgment in the same matter, which had laid down the law on the illegality of possessing and viewing material depicting the sexual abuse of children.
Expressing concern that intermediaries and enforcement agencies had shown little progress in two years, the Court said reports indicated that such material continued to be promoted online, in some instances through paid links and websites.
Against that backdrop, the bench issued extensive directions covering detection and removal of abusive content, the responsibilities of online platforms, and — in a significant part of the order — the education, training and awareness measures needed to protect children in schools, homes and online spaces.
At the heart of the order is a simple proposition: safeguards that make the internet safer will be of limited use unless children themselves know what the dangers are and where to turn for help. The bench observed that children often begin using the internet long before they understand its risks — that strangers may pose as friends, that inappropriate requests may be presented as innocent interactions, and that online activity can be used to entrap them.
The Court directed that children, from the primary stage, must be taught in an age-appropriate manner about their bodies, safe and unsafe touch, and the significance of consent. Digital safety and sex education, the Court said, are not two separate subjects but two sides of the same coin, and must be addressed together.
Alongside awareness of inappropriate conduct, children must learn about healthy relationships and respect for others — including respect for the dignity of their peers.
The Court noted that on some occasions it is children themselves who capture, upload or circulate intimate or non-consensual images of their own peers, often without realising the gravity of what they do. Children must therefore be cautioned against all forms of inappropriate conduct and taught to respect the privacy and dignity of those around them, the bench observed.
The directions also require children to be educated on the safe use of the internet: protecting personal data and privacy, recognising signs of enticement, sexual extortion and other exploitative or abusive practices, and knowing whom to approach when faced with inappropriate conduct. This includes a trusted adult at home or school and the appropriate channels for reporting incidents, whether they occur online or offline.
The Court stressed that children must be encouraged to report incidents without fear and assured that speaking up would never invite reproach, and that they would receive help and support with complete confidentiality.
The Court further directed that children be made aware of the significance of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Information Technology Act — particularly the provisions that criminalise viewing, possessing or circulating CSEAM — along with the rights available to them under these laws.
To give these directions shape, the Court ordered that digital safety and age-appropriate sex education form part of the core school curriculum. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the State Councils of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs) have been tasked with developing the curriculum in consultation with child psychologists, educators and parenting experts.
The material must account for varying levels of literacy across the country and use text-based lessons, pictorial representations, illustrations and audio-visual content so that the message reaches children in different contexts.
Schools and educational institutions carry a set of concrete obligations under the order. The Court directed that the Child Helpline number 1098, the Cyber Crime Helpline number 1930, the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and the details of State-wise nodal officers must be displayed in every classroom, hostel, library and computer laboratory — and that this information must also appear on the website of every school and educational institution.
Devices and networks within schools must be equipped with filters to prevent access to harmful content, in a manner the Court described as reasonable and proportionate. These measures must extend, with even greater rigour, to hostels, childcare institutions, tuition centres and coaching centres, the Court ordered — recognising that children spend long hours in such spaces beyond the regular school.
Teachers and other school staff must receive adequate training on digital safety and age-appropriate positive sex education, the Court directed. That training must cover the signs of grooming, abuse and online harassment; how teaching and non-teaching staff should respond when a child discloses an incident; the reporting obligations under the POCSO Act; and the need to maintain confidentiality concerning the child.
Under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, any person who apprehends or knows of the commission — or the likely commission — of an offence under the Act must report it to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police, and Section 21 prescribes punishment of up to one year's imprisonment and a fine for failure to report or record a case.
Parents and guardians were described by the Court as the first line of defence in protecting children — but the bench observed that many of them are themselves unfamiliar with the technology their children use. Schools and educational institutions have therefore been directed to organise awareness programmes for parents and guardians at regular intervals.
These programmes must cover the risks children face online, the parental controls and safety settings available on devices and platforms, the signs that a child may be in distress, and the appropriate way to respond. The Court directed that parents also be sensitised on how to monitor their children's online activity without creating mistrust or miscommunication.
The Union and State Governments, in conjunction with the respective Commissions for Protection of Child Rights, have been directed to run sustained public awareness campaigns on the POCSO Act and the various forms of child abuse and exploitation, particularly those involving digital means such as CSEAM.
The Court made clear the campaigns must be sustained rather than sporadic, and must be disseminated through television, social media, telecommunications channels and SMS, over-the-top platforms, print media and public signage. Governments and child rights commissions must also raise awareness among all stakeholders about digital safety measures and the helplines and support portals available.
Victims of abuse or exploitation — whether online or otherwise — must have access to free counselling, psychological support and therapy by trained professionals, for as long as necessary, the Court directed. The Union and State Governments must also put in place follow-up mechanisms to oversee the continued wellbeing of victims.
The order also places obligations on online intermediaries. Platforms must periodically remind children about the safe use of their services and the safety centres, privacy settings and help options available to them. They must display cautionary prompts when a child attempts to connect, message or interact with an unknown adult, and warnings when a user enters a search term associated with CSEAM.
In the wider part of the order, the Court directed the Centre to create a National Hash and URL List Database to identify and remove verified CSEAM, asked the government to consider exemplary fines for platforms that fail in their duties, and said revenue derived from prohibited material offered through paywalls or subscriptions should be forfeited.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Central government. The Court directed the Union government to file an affidavit setting out the progress made in implementing the measures and safeguards discussed in the order before the next hearing, scheduled for 10 December 2026.
The directions lay out an ambitious legislative and administrative agenda: from rewriting parts of the school curriculum and training lakhs of teachers to running sustained national campaigns and providing long-term therapy to victims.
Child rights advocates have long argued that awareness is the weakest link in India's child protection framework; with this order, the Supreme Court has made education — of children, teachers and parents alike — a matter of judicial mandate, enforceable through the continuing oversight of the Court itself.
(Reporting based on Live Law and Bar and Bench.)