India’s proposed social media ban for under-18s wins parents’ backing

India is reportedly planning to restrict social media access for everyone below 18. The proposed rule would prevent minors from opening accounts, rather than merely limiting how long they use platforms. It matters because many young users currently face few online curbs, while parents and lawyers are concerned about harmful content, cyberbullying, and exploitation.

The proposal gained support after solicitor general Tushar Mehta agreed with the Supreme Court’s view that accounts opened by minors should be voided. He said the federal government should make such a ban mandatory. Digangana Mukherjee, whose son is 10, welcomed the idea because he already knows how to browse YouTube.

The policy is not yet described as fully enacted in the article. India would need to decide how to verify ages, protect personal information, and preserve access to useful digital resources. Legal experts expect challenges over privacy, enforcement, and the severity of the restrictions.

When an account is considered legally void, it is treated as invalid from a legal standpoint because the user lacked the required capacity or eligibility. In this case, the account would not receive the same legal recognition as one opened by an eligible user. The article presents this as the Supreme Court’s position on accounts created by minors.

The practical effect could be that platforms must prevent, suspend, or remove accounts belonging to underage users. India’s solicitor general, Tushar Mehta, agreed that minors’ accounts should be voided and said the federal government should make the restriction mandatory. The article does not specify the exact legal procedure or penalties.

That uncertainty is important. Regulators would still need rules for age checks, privacy, account removal, and appeals. Lawyers expect challenges over how severe the restrictions become and how platforms can enforce them without mishandling personal information.

Australia’s first-month figure shows how large an age-based social media policy can become. Its platforms deactivated 4.7 million accounts belonging to users below 16. India has one of the world’s largest online markets, so a similar restriction could affect a substantial number of accounts. However, the article does not provide an estimate for India.

The comparison also highlights a key difference. Australia’s rule covers children under 16, while India is reportedly considering a wider restriction covering everyone below 18. If enforced at that age threshold, India’s affected population could be broader than Australia’s, though the exact scale would depend on how many accounts belong to minors and how effectively platforms identify them.

The first-month Australian result does not predict India’s outcome. Enforcement methods, user behaviour, platform participation, and legal challenges could all change the number. India’s government must also address privacy and educational access while deciding how the rule would operate.

An age limit is difficult to enforce when users can misstate their age or find ways around restrictions. Indian lawyers warn that children may lie when opening accounts, while platforms must identify underage users across a huge online market. A blanket rule could also face legal challenges over privacy and the severity of the restrictions.

The mechanism creates a basic tension. Stronger age verification may require platforms to ask for more personal information, then collect and store it. Weaker checks may be easier on privacy but allow children to bypass the rule. The article says proposed rules would need to address both personal-information handling and age-verification processes.

India’s regulators therefore face more than a simple blocking task. They must decide who verifies age, how accounts are removed, and how users’ rights are protected. Ashima Chalia called enforcement an uphill battle but said it was attainable. The final rules could determine whether the policy works without creating new risks.

A complete social media ban could remove more than entertainment. Legal experts warn that children might lose valuable educational resources and beneficial digital content. This matters because online platforms can provide information that supports learning, especially when children use digital tools for schoolwork or research.

Ambareen Ali Shah described this balance clearly. She worries that Instagram and similar content can distract children from online and offline assignments. Yet she also said social media is making children smarter because it gives them access to a lot of information. Ashima Chalia likewise warned that regulation must preserve access to education and beneficial digital resources.

The policy challenge is therefore not simply whether children should be online. India must consider how to reduce risks such as harmful content, exploitation, and cyberbullying without removing useful material. A final rule could need targeted safeguards rather than restrictions that block every young person from digital learning.

Australia’s approach appears to focus on controlling access through social media accounts and platforms. Its Online Safety Amendment Act banned access for children under 16, and 4.7 million accounts were deactivated in the first month. The reported action was account deactivation, rather than a stated punishment aimed at children or their parents.

This shifts the immediate enforcement task toward platforms. They would need to identify accounts linked to underage users and prevent or remove access. The article does not explain the technical process, fines, or other duties placed on companies, so it cannot establish every part of Australia’s enforcement model.

For India, the comparison offers a possible direction but not a complete blueprint. Indian regulators still need to decide how age verification works, how privacy is protected, and how users bypassing restrictions are handled. The article presents Australia as an example of large-scale account action, while India’s final responsibilities and penalties remain uncertain.

Online age verification is the process of checking whether a user meets a platform’s minimum age. It can involve an age declaration, identity documents, third-party checks, or age-estimation tools. The article does not name a specific method for India, but it says any rules must address age-verification processes and users’ rights over personal information.

The central mechanism is a trade-off. A platform needs enough information to judge whether someone is below 18, but that information may reveal identity or other sensitive details. If the platform collects and stores those details, it must protect them and explain how they are used. If checks are too weak, children can misstate their ages.

That is why verification could become a major legal issue. Ashima Chalia said India must address personal-information collection and storage alongside age checks. Regulators must design a system that limits underage access without creating unnecessary privacy risks or new ways to misuse children’s data.