By Sanjay Raman Sinha
The debate over children’s access to social media has gathered fresh momentum after the Karnataka government proposed legislation to bar minors under the age of 16 from using social media platforms. Other states, including Andhra Pradesh and Goa, are also exploring similar restrictions, signalling a growing concern among policymakers about the effects of unregulated digital exposure on young users.
The proposed state-level measure goes further than the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, which requires verifiable parental consent before the personal data of children under 18 can be processed. Karnataka’s proposal instead aims at restricting access altogether, marking a shift from regulation to prohibition.
Authorities say the move is driven by the need to shield children from the darker side of the digital world. Social media platforms often provide unrestricted access to violent, sexual, or gambling-related content. Young users are also vulnerable to cyberbullying, online predators, and manipulative algorithms designed to maximize engagement.
Clinical experts say the psychological impact is already visible. Dr Manisha Singhal, clinical psychologist and psychotherapist at Apollo Hospital and Metro Hospital, warns that excessive social media exposure is affecting children’s mental health. “Indiscriminate social media use by those under 16 is giving rise to serious mental health issues,” she said. “Excessive screen time can trigger anxiety, depression, aggression, and obesity. Children struggle academically and miss out on physical activities. Fear of missing out and peer pressure also weigh heavily on young minds,” she added.
Courts have also voiced concern. During hearings in the case Suo Motu vs State of Karnataka (2023), the Karnataka High Court observed that “social media is like a drug” and suggested that the minimum age for access might even need to be raised to 21.
Evidence of online harms is mounting. India has reported rising youth suicides linked to gaming addiction and financial debts arising from in-game purchases. Challenges such as the Blue Whale Challenge exposed how vulnerable teenagers can be to digital manipulation. Meanwhile, cybercrimes involving minors—from sextortion to unauthorized image sharing—have increased, according to National Crime Records Bureau data.
Studies indicate that India also faces one of the highest rates of cyberbullying globally, with 85 percent of children reportedly exposed to it, and 42 percent experiencing harassment on Instagram alone.
The concern is not limited to India. In 2024, Australia became the first nation to enforce a minimum age requirement for social media access for children under 16. International leaders have echoed similar concerns. At the India-AI Impact Summit, President of France Emmanuel Macron urged India to consider restrictions on children’s access to social media. Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw has confirmed that the centre is already discussing age-based restrictions with major social media companies.
Yet, regulating the digital sphere is legally complex. Platforms like Meta—which owns Facebook and Instagram—are treated as intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000. This status grants them “safe harbour” protection from liability for user-generated content, provided they comply with due diligence and promptly remove unlawful material.
The boundaries of this protection are currently under scrutiny in the Supreme Court. In the case Union of India vs Kunal Kamra, a three-judge bench of the apex court is examining the centre’s challenge to a Bombay High Court ruling that struck down amendments to the 2023 IT Rules related to safe-harbour protections.
Critics argue that technology companies themselves have not done enough to safeguard young users. Whistleblower Frances Haugen revealed internal documents showing that Facebook knew Instagram could harm teenagers’ mental health, but prioritized profits over safety.
Even so, a blanket ban raises constitutional questions. India’s legal framework requires that restrictions on fundamental rights pass the proportionality test established in KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India. Any curbs must be reasonable and proportionate to the objective.
A total ban on social media for under-16 could, therefore, face challenges if it is deemed to infringe on the Right to Freedom of Speech under Article 19 or the Right to Privacy under Article 21.
Practical enforcement is another hurdle. Age-verification systems—often proposed as a solution—may rely on facial recognition or identity-linked verification, raising new privacy concerns and potential misuse of children’s data.
Advocate and IT expert Dr Pavan Duggal points out the practical paradox. Children today begin interacting with digital devices as early as two or three years old. Enforcing a ban in such circumstances would be extremely difficult. “You’re already giving children access to devices very early,” he noted. “Even if a law is passed, enforcement will be tricky. Parents will rarely complain against their own children. The proposal also needs to be reconciled with existing laws such as the IT Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act,” he said.
Critics warn that overly restrictive policies could backfire. Blocking mainstream platforms may push teenagers towards unregulated or underground websites, potentially exposing them to even greater risks.
For many experts, the solution lies not in prohibition, but in balanced regulation—including stricter age verification, default private settings for minors, digital literacy programmes in schools, and greater transparency from social media companies about how their algorithms influence young users.
The challenge for policymakers is clear: protect children from digital harms without depriving them of the opportunities and learning that the internet also offers.