Restrictions on social media for under-18? SC asks Centre to examine statutory safeguards for minors

The Supreme Court wants the Centre to consider giving legal backing to protections for minors using social media. The concern is not only online safety, but also whether children can independently enter agreements with digital platforms. The petition argues that under-18 users lack contractual capacity under Indian law.

The case was brought by the Just Rights for Children Alliance. The petition asks the Centre to amend the Information Technology Intermediary Rules, 2021, or issue directions preventing platforms from contracting with children without parental or lawful-guardian consent. It also refers to identity verification or e-KYC.

The Court has not itself imposed a new restriction. The Centre has said it will examine the matter and take appropriate steps. One report said an amendment could soon prevent platforms from allowing under-18 account creation, but no such rule has formally been notified.

India is considering a statutory restriction, but the proposed rule is not currently in force. The Supreme Court asked the Centre to examine safeguards for minors, and the government indicated that it would consider appropriate action. This means the discussion has moved forward, but it has not become a completed ban.

The Times of India reported that the Centre said it would soon insert a provision in the Information Technology intermediary rules. That provision could stop social-media intermediaries from allowing under-18 users to open accounts. PTI described the government’s position more cautiously as an undertaking to examine the issue.

The distinction matters for families and platforms. Existing company protections, such as Instagram Teen Accounts, do not equal a government prohibition. Any binding restriction would need an official legal change or direction. The article says no new rule imposing such a restriction has been formally notified yet.

The proposed safeguards are broader than a simple age gate for social-media accounts. The petition asks for rules covering digital platforms that enter contracts with children under 18. Its central demand is parental or lawful-guardian consent, supported by identity verification or e-KYC where required.

The article gives educational websites as an important example. The Economic Times and The Times of India reported that the Solicitor General indicated such websites could potentially allow minors to participate with parental consent. This suggests the approach may distinguish between different kinds of online services, rather than blocking every platform equally.

The exact scope is still unsettled. The Supreme Court asked the Centre to examine statutory backing, and the government has not issued the final rule. Future safeguards could therefore cover social media and other digital services, while allowing exceptions or consent-based access for educational platforms. The article does not specify the final categories or technical process.

A statutory safeguard is a protection created or supported by law. It can require platforms to follow defined duties and may provide an enforceable standard for protecting minors. In this case, the Supreme Court asked whether safeguards should receive statutory backing through amended intermediary rules or other directions.

Voluntary protections are different. A company can design features, change them, or apply them only in selected markets. Meta’s Instagram Teen Accounts, launched in India in February 2025, use private-by-default settings, stricter messaging controls and parental supervision tools. Those measures are company policies, not a general legal prohibition.

A statutory rule could establish a common baseline across platforms. It might address account creation, parental consent, age checks or contracts with minors. However, India has not yet notified such a rule. The article therefore describes a possible legal framework, while existing technology-company safeguards remain separate and potentially narrower.

Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, sets a basic rule for contractual competence. A person can contract only after reaching the age of majority and satisfying other legal requirements. The provision therefore matters when a child clicks “agree” to a platform’s terms of service.

The petition argues that children below 18 lack contractual capacity under Indian law. If a platform treats a minor’s independent acceptance as a binding agreement, the arrangement may conflict with that legal principle. The Supreme Court questioned how children could independently enter agreements with digital platforms, making this a central issue in the case.

This does not itself create a new social-media ban. Instead, it supports the petition’s request for parental or lawful-guardian consent, possibly combined with identity verification or e-KYC. The Centre is examining whether intermediary rules should reflect this concern. The article does not state how courts would resolve every existing user agreement.

If the rules change, platforms could face duties before allowing a minor to enter a platform agreement. The petition seeks protection against contracts with children under 18 unless a parent or lawful guardian consents. This would shift responsibility from a child’s unchecked click to a verified adult’s approval.

The petition specifically refers to identity verification or e-KYC. In practice, that could mean checking information for the user and the consenting adult, then recording the consent. However, the article does not prescribe a particular document, database, technology or verification standard. It only identifies the mechanisms being requested.

The final obligations remain uncertain because no amended rule has been notified. The Centre has undertaken to examine the matter, while the Supreme Court has asked for statutory safeguards. Any final framework would need to define age checks, consent, guardian status and implementation details. Educational websites might receive consent-based access rather than an absolute exclusion.

Internet intermediaries generally provide the digital infrastructure through which users communicate, post, store or access content created by others. Social-media networks, hosting services and similar platforms can fall within this broad category. They are not necessarily the original authors of every user post, but they operate the systems that carry or display it.

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act provides conditional safe-harbour protection. In broad terms, an intermediary may avoid certain liability for third-party content when it satisfies specified legal requirements, including applicable due-diligence duties. The protection is conditional, not automatic, and can be lost when requirements are not met.

The article connects this provision to the minors’ petition. It asks the Centre to amend the IT Intermediary Rules, 2021, or issue directions governing contracts with children. Thus, platforms’ intermediary status would not remove possible duties toward minors. The proposed safeguards could become part of the conditions platforms must follow to retain legal protection.