Indore school moves Supreme Court seeking curbs on social media use of children

Emerald Heights International School and its director, Siddharth Singh, have filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court. They want the Union government to create, notify and enforce a dedicated framework for children’s safety on social-media platforms. The petition says protection from online harm is a constitutional duty, not merely a family or company responsibility.

The proposed framework would address cyberbullying, grooming, sexual exploitation, harmful content, compulsive use and mental-health problems. The petition asks for enforceable age rules covering the creation, maintenance and use of children’s accounts. It alternatively seeks a ban below a prescribed age and regulated access for older children.

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on this petition. The case follows another proceeding in which the court sought the Centre’s response on safeguards for minors’ social-media accounts. Its outcome could influence how India regulates children’s online access.

A public interest litigation, or PIL, is a court case brought to protect a broader public interest. It can address rights violations affecting people who may not be able to approach the court individually. The focus is the alleged public harm, rather than a private dispute involving only the petitioner.

A school can use this route when it raises concerns about children as a group. Emerald Heights and Siddharth Singh argue that minors face common risks on social-media platforms, including exploitation, bullying and harmful content. Their petition invokes constitutional protections and asks for nationwide rules rather than relief for one student.

The petition names the Union government, several ministries and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights as respondents. The Supreme Court will decide whether and how to proceed. It has not yet assigned this petition a hearing date, so no regulatory order has been issued in this case.

The petition treats children’s social-media risks as a connected safety problem, not a single issue. It identifies emotional, behavioural, sexual and physical dangers. These include depression, anxiety, reduced self-esteem, sleep disruption and body-image pressure, alongside cyberbullying, grooming and sexual exploitation.

It also highlights coercion involving intimate images and exposure to violent, sexually explicit, self-harm and suicide-related material. Another concern is behavioural profiling. The petition says platform designs can encourage compulsive use, potentially making harmful exposure more frequent and harder to notice.

The claimed scale matters because children may experience several risks at once, while parents and teachers remain unaware until damage becomes serious. The petition therefore seeks a dedicated regulatory framework rather than isolated protections. Its broader argument is that children’s online environment can affect development, dignity and mental health over both the short and long term.

The petitioners argue that parental supervision cannot cover everything children encounter online. Risks may develop privately, spread quickly or remain hidden until the consequences become serious. Parents and teachers may not know about grooming, coercion, bullying or harmful content when it first appears.

They also say technology companies’ voluntary safeguards and assurances are insufficient. Platform designs may encourage compulsive use and behavioural profiling, while harmful material can still reach children. In the petitioners’ view, relying on families and companies leaves protection uneven and allows major risks to continue without enforceable standards.

Their proposed answer is state intervention. They ask the Union government to establish binding rules, including age-based limits on accounts and access. The argument does not claim that families or platforms have no role. It says those measures cannot replace a public framework designed specifically to protect children’s rights and welfare.

If adopted, age-based restrictions would change how children enter and use social-media platforms. The petition asks for a prohibition below a prescribed age. It also seeks regulated access for older children, rather than treating every minor in exactly the same way.

The proposed controls could cover the creation, maintenance and use of children’s accounts on designated platforms. In practice, that would mean platforms and users facing enforceable age-related requirements. The article does not specify the proposed age threshold or describe the precise enforcement system.

These measures could make children’s online access more limited and formally supervised by regulation. They would also shift responsibility toward the state and platforms, rather than relying mainly on parents. At present, however, these are requests in a pending petition. The Supreme Court has not assigned a hearing date or directed the government to introduce them.

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Article 15(3) allows the state to make special provisions for women and children. Together, these provisions support the idea that children may receive targeted legal protection rather than identical treatment with adults.

Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. It has been understood to include living with dignity, which the petition connects to protection from online abuse, exploitation and serious mental harm. Article 21A provides free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen, linking the Constitution to children’s development and access to schooling.

The petition says these protections must remain meaningful in digital spaces where children now face serious risks. It also invokes Articles 39(e) and 39(f), which address protection from abuse and opportunities to develop in freedom and dignity. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on these claims.

The petitioners’ argument is that state responsibility follows children into digital spaces. Social-media companies may operate the platforms, but the state remains responsible for protecting constitutional rights when foreseeable risks affect minors. The petition describes online harms as capable of damaging freedom, dignity, health and development.

The mechanism proposed is public regulation. The Union government would frame, notify and implement rules for children’s safety. Those rules could impose age-based limits, regulate children’s accounts and address risks such as exploitation, bullying, harmful content and compulsive use. This would supplement, or replace reliance on, voluntary company safeguards.

The article presents this as a constitutional claim, not an existing legal ruling. The Supreme Court has not yet heard the school’s petition. However, in a related case, a bench sought the Centre’s response and said safeguards and a firewall were needed to protect children online. That proceeding may shape the wider debate.