SC seeks Centre’s response to plea for restrictions on children’s social media access

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to respond to a plea seeking stronger protection for children online. The plea was filed by Emerald Heights International School in Indore and its director, Siddharth Singh. It seeks age-based restrictions and a comprehensive regulatory framework for children’s social-media use.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, issued notice in the matter. The respondents include the Union government and the ministries of electronics and information technology, women and child development, and law and justice. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights is also named.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on December 7. Its notice does not decide whether restrictions will be imposed. It begins the process of obtaining the Centre’s position on the proposed safeguards and the State’s responsibility to protect children in digital spaces.

A public interest litigation, or PIL, is a court case brought to protect a broader public interest. It can address rights or harms affecting a group of people, rather than resolving only a private dispute. The article describes the school’s PIL as a request for State action to protect children from online risks.

Emerald Heights International School and its director, Siddharth Singh, argue that children’s safety cannot depend only on parents or technology companies. Their plea points to risks such as cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, harmful content, compulsive use and mental-health problems. These concerns can affect minors across schools and families.

A school may therefore use a PIL to seek a nationwide, enforceable framework. The petition invokes constitutional rights and asks the government to create safeguards applying beyond the school’s own students. The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response, but has not yet ordered a particular policy.

The three countries described in the article use different approaches. Australia became the first country to enforce a minimum age of 16 for accounts on designated social-media platforms in December 2025. France’s 2023 law requires parental authorisation for social-media accounts held by children below 15.

India has no general statutory minimum age for accessing social media. However, its Digital Personal Data Protection law requires verifiable parental consent before companies process the personal data of children below 18. The Economic Survey 2025-26 also recommended age verification and age-appropriate defaults.

India is considering stronger measures, including restricting access for children below 16 through possible amendments to the Information Technology Rules. Discussions have examined whether to restrict certain account categories instead of imposing a blanket ban. The Supreme Court is now seeking the Centre’s response to the school’s plea.

The petition presents social media as a source of several connected risks for children. It links online exposure to depression, anxiety, diminished self-esteem, sleep disruption and body-image pressures. The petitioners say these harms can affect children’s safety, development and mental health.

The plea also lists grooming, cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and coercion involving intimate images. Children may encounter violent, sexually explicit, self-harm or suicide-related content. It further flags behavioural profiling, where platforms build information about users, and designs that encourage compulsive use.

The petition argues that damage may begin online but remain unnoticed by parents and teachers until it becomes serious. It asks for an enforceable regulatory framework rather than relying only on voluntary protections. The Supreme Court has not ruled on these claims, but has sought the Centre’s response to the proposed safeguards.

If India adopts enforceable age-based restrictions, children’s access to some social-media services could become limited by age. The rules might require age verification, age-appropriate defaults or restrictions on particular account categories. The exact model remains undecided because government discussions have also considered alternatives to a blanket ban.

Families could be asked to provide verifiable consent for younger users or help establish a child’s age. Technology companies could have to prevent underage access, redesign account-opening systems and apply stronger defaults. Australia’s model, cited in the article, requires companies to take reasonable steps to stop younger children from accessing designated platforms.

The effects would depend on the final Indian rules. The government is weighing restrictions below 16, while existing law covers parental consent for processing data below 18. The Supreme Court’s proceedings may add pressure for clearer safeguards, but no new restriction has yet been ordered.

The petitioners believe parental supervision has limits. Children may experience harmful content, grooming or coercion without parents and teachers knowing immediately. The plea says digital harms can produce immediate and long-term effects, while families may not have the time, tools or visibility to monitor every interaction.

They also challenge voluntary safeguards offered by technology companies. Such measures may differ across platforms and depend on company choices. The petitioners argue that platform designs themselves can encourage compulsive use and behavioural profiling. This makes voluntary promises insufficient, in their view, because the systems creating exposure and engagement remain in place.

The school therefore asks the State to create a comprehensive and enforceable framework. It wants protections based on children’s rights, not only private supervision or corporate assurances. The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response, so the adequacy of current safeguards and the form of any intervention remain under consideration.

The petition argues that constitutional protection does not stop at the edge of the physical world. Articles 14, 15(3), 21 and 21A are invoked to support the claim that children have rights to equality, special protection, life and personal liberty, and education. The petitioners say these rights apply when children use digital platforms.

The plea also relies on Articles 39(e) and 39(f), directive principles calling for protection from abuse and exploitation and opportunities to develop in freedom and dignity. It connects these duties to online risks such as grooming, sexual exploitation, harmful content and mental-health damage.

The petitioners therefore describe digital safety as a continuing State responsibility. They argue that parental controls and company assurances cannot replace effective public safeguards. The Supreme Court has issued notice and sought the Centre’s response, but it has not yet decided how constitutional duties should be implemented online.