Authorities in India are moving toward legislation that would prohibit those under 18 from registering on social media platforms. On 28 September, the Supreme Court signalled dissatisfaction with the existing system through its ruling.
The tribunal's rationale operates within a legal framework before addressing any ethical dimension. Registering for a social media platform requires users to agree to its terms of service, which constitutes a binding legal agreement. Indian legislation prohibits those below the age of majority from entering into binding contractual agreements. The judges raised with the government the question of whether the entire arrangement depends on consent that a child lacks the legal standing to provide.
A petition lodged by the NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance prompted the court proceedings. No objections were raised by the Centre against the concerns put forward. The government informed the court of its intention to revise the IT intermediary regulations, prohibiting platforms from allowing users under the age of 18 to register accounts.
The judge's observations extended beyond the question of contractual obligation. He pointed out that the dominant platforms, incorporated under United States law, had brought American-style norms around children's accounts into the Indian market, which he argued local legislation does not allow. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta affirmed that businesses operating within the country are bound by domestic law, adding that the government views regulatory intervention as both warranted and feasible.
A single exemption remains under consideration. Children may access learning-focused platforms provided a parent or guardian grants permission.
Several nations — among them Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Gabon — have enacted or flagged age-related online restrictions, while Brazil has pursued a different path centred on parental oversight tools. Adolescent wellbeing, exposure to harmful online material, and broader digital safety are the issues at the heart of all these proposals. Australia is frequently cited as a reference point, given that its ban on social media access for those under 16 was the first nationwide policy of this kind to be implemented.
Evidence gathered following the law's introduction has shown that formal prohibition and practical enforcement do not always align. Age confirmation on digital platforms is an imprecise process, yet that same process is what enforcement against a 15-year-old would depend upon. Requirements for official identification introduce concerns about personal data protection, particularly when that information would be held by a non-governmental entity.
Facial recognition technology for estimating age tends to produce inaccurate results at the boundary ranges where adolescents typically fall. The self-declaration process, which represents the prevailing standard, can be bypassed in a matter of seconds. Minors have various methods available to circumvent age restrictions, such as accessing a guardian's login, falsifying their date of birth, or routing through a VPN. Fictitious profiles are already widespread across these platforms, and restrictions may give younger users an additional incentive to create them.
No details have been provided on how age verification would be carried out. Hundreds of millions of people use social media platforms there, with youth accounting for a notable proportion of that total. In numerous homes, a single device is passed between family members, with younger users frequently logging in through accounts belonging to parents or older siblings.
The proposed IT rules revision has not yet been released for public consultation, and the final text will determine whether the legislation proves functional or merely performative. Unresolved matters include which platforms fall under the legislation's scope, where accountability for verification lies, what penalties would be imposed, and how any exemption for educational purposes would operate.
