A smartphone gives a child instant access to educational videos, online study groups, and games. At the same time, it can expose them to online predators, cyberbullying, and algorithmic addiction. As screen time grows, a crucial legal question has emerged across India: Can the government or platforms ban or restrict children from using social media?
The Supreme Court on Children and Internet Access
The conversation gained fresh legal momentum following observations by the Supreme Court of India in Just Rights for Children Alliance v S. Harish (October 2026). A two-judge bench observed that children have a fundamental right to access the internet under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution of India.
However, the bench made it clear that this right is not unchecked. The court recognized that children need safeguards, including mandatory parental consent and child-friendly operating modes. This builds upon the principles laid down in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020), where the Supreme Court held that the medium of the internet is protected for speech and trade, but internet access itself is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
In simple terms, no child has an absolute, unrestricted constitutional right to create an account on every social platform without boundaries.
What the DPDP Act 2023 Says About Minors
India currently does not have a federal statute that completely bans children from opening social media accounts. Instead, India relies on data protection rules to govern online spaces. The primary legislation governing this area is the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.
Under the DPDP Act, anyone under the age of 18 is legally defined as a child. The law introduces strict compliance standards for tech companies handling children’s data:
- Verifiable Parental Consent: Before processing any personal data of a minor, platforms must obtain verifiable consent from the child’s parent or lawful guardian.
- Ban on Behavioural Tracking: Platforms cannot undertake tracking, behavioural monitoring, or profiling of children.
- Prohibition on Targeted Ads: Social media companies cannot serve targeted advertisements directed at users who are minors.
- No Harmful Processing: Companies are barred from processing personal data in any way that causes a detrimental effect on the well-being of a child.
It is vital to note that the DPDP Act regulates how companies use personal data. It does not by itself impose an outright ban on children logging onto the internet.
State Governments Proposing Direct Age Restrictions
While central data law focuses on consent, several state governments have explored direct age limits for online access.
For instance, Karnataka proposed restricting social media access for children under the age of 16 in its March 2026 Budget announcements. Similarly, Andhra Pradesh moved forward with proposals to restrict access for children below 13 while implementing structured, graded rules for teenagers aged 13 to 16.
Legal scholars point out that age-banded regulations—such as full restrictions for very young children and privacy-first, parent-monitored accounts for adolescents—are legally viable under Article 19(2), provided they meet the test of proportionality and fairness.
Platform Accountability Under Section 79 of the IT Act
Parents cannot bear the sole burden of digital policing. Online platforms have clear statutory obligations under Indian law.
Under Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, intermediaries (like social media platforms) enjoy “safe harbor” protection. This protection shields them from legal liability for user-posted content, but only if they strictly comply with due diligence requirements under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules.
These rules require platforms to:
- Deploy automated detection tools to flag Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) and report it to law enforcement authorities under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
- Acknowledge user complaints within 24 hours.
- Resolve grievances within 7 days, with expedited action required for non-consensual intimate or morphed imagery.
- Comply with Supreme Court directives on monitoring content against national safety databases and submitting regular compliance audits.
Legal Remedies When a Child Faces Online Harm
If a child experiences cyber harassment, extortion, or unauthorized data usage, parents have specific legal avenues:
- Platform Grievance Officers: Parents can submit a formal complaint to the intermediary’s grievance redressal officer.
- Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC): If the company fails to act or rejects the complaint, parents can appeal to the government-appointed GAC within 30 days.
- Cybercrime Reporting: For offences like online stalking or sexual threats, parents can lodge complaints via the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal or approach the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) under the POCSO framework.
Why This Matters For You
Under the legal doctrine of parens patriae (the State as the legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves), the government has a constitutional duty to shield minors from digital harm. However, completely severing young people from the internet can harm their digital education and freedom of expression.
The law is moving toward a middle path: holding platforms legally liable for predatory design features like auto-play, night notifications, and unauthorized data tracking, while giving parents verifiable legal control before a minor’s data enters an algorithm.
Story reported by Times of India. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
