Back
Declares Social Media Ban for Children a Policy Matter for Centre to Decide
The on Thursday declined to entertain a seeking a or stringent restrictions on children’s access to social media, ruling that such decisions lie squarely within the policy-making domain of the . A Division Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora disposed of the PIL, directing the Centre to treat the petition as a representation and to decide on the appropriate course of action after consulting all relevant stakeholders, including social media intermediaries. The court expressly declined to set any timeline for the government’s decision, underscoring that it would not dictate policy from the bench.
The PIL, filed by Kirti Dua, mother of a three-year-old, and paediatrician Dr. Sharad Gupta, sought binding guidelines or legislation to prohibit social media access for children below 13 years of age and to create a regulatory framework for content accessible to those aged 13 to 16. The petitioners argued that unrestricted exposure to sexually explicit material, cyberbullying, and addictive platform features violates children’s under (right to life and personal liberty) and (protection from exploitation) of the Constitution. They also cited the Economic Survey , which flagged rising concerns over social media addiction and mental health issues among young people.
Court’s Reasoning: Policy, Not Judicial Directive
During the hearing, the Bench made clear that it would not usurp the executive’s role. “Your views would be taken into consideration by the respondents. The stakeholders have to be consulted. Their views have to be taken… then it is in the realm of a policy. It is not for a court to give a direction that you should ban this, or that you should ban that. Let them look into it, and then pass an order,” the court observed.
echoed this position, submitting that regulating or restricting social media use is a complex policy issue with wide ramifications, potentially requiring fresh legislation. She noted that the , already includes provisions aimed at safeguarding children’s privacy online, but acknowledged that more specific measures might be needed. The court accepted this view, emphasizing that a ban would be the “ultimate relief” and that intermediaries are already taking steps against child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
Meta’s Efforts to Combat CSAM
, appearing for , informed the court of the company’s proactive measures to detect and remove CSAM from its platforms. He stated that removed over six lakh posts containing such material last year, while removed more than two lakh. Datar added that the proactive detection rate for CSAM stands at 99.5% on and 95.2% on . He acknowledged, however, that despite advanced technology, some harmful content can evade detection and resurface elsewhere.
The petitioners had sought directions requiring Meta to implement stronger technological measures or independent audit mechanisms, but the court declined to issue any such directives, leaving the matter for the government to consider as part of its policy deliberation.
Legal and Policy Implications
The High Court’s decision reflects a classic application of the . By declining to intervene, the court has avoided the risk of overstepping into executive discretion, particularly in a rapidly evolving area like digital regulation. While the petitioners’ concerns—ranging from exposure to CSAM to the psychological impact of addictive algorithms—are well-documented and supported by global studies, the court has effectively placed the onus on the government to balance competing interests: child safety, freedom of speech, platform autonomy, and the technological feasibility of .
This approach also aligns with the ’s own cautious stance in earlier cases involving online content regulation. For instance, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (), the struck down for being vague and disproportionately restrictive. More recently, in , Inc. v. Union of India (), the Court refrained from mandating specific traceability mechanisms for encrypted messages, leaving the matter to parliamentary deliberation.
The current case also raises important questions about India’s existing legal framework. While the criminalises CSAM, and the , impose on intermediaries, experts argue that enforcement remains patchy. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act introduces the concept of “” for minors, but the petitioners contended that existing consent mechanisms are weak and easily bypassed.
What Lies Ahead
By refusing to set a deadline, the court has given the government breathing room to conduct thorough consultations. However, this also leaves children without immediate protective measures—a point the petitioners’ counsel forcefully raised. The Bench’s response was unambiguous: “We don’t want to bind them. These are all policy matters.”
The government must now navigate a complex landscape. On one hand, there is growing public demand for child-safe digital spaces, as evidenced by similar regulatory moves in the United Kingdom (), the European Union (), and several U.S. states introducing age-verification laws. On the other hand, any or overly restrictive regulation could face constitutional challenges on grounds of and , as well as practical obstacles in implementation.
The ball is now firmly in the Centre’s court. The has effectively asked the executive to step up and craft a policy that is both effective and legally sound. Whether that means enacting a new law, tightening existing rules, or adopting a co-regulatory model with platform accountability, the decision will have far-reaching implications for millions of children in India’s digital ecosystem.
For now, the petitioners’ representation awaits action. The court’s message, however, is clear: when it comes to regulating children’s social media use, the judiciary will not lead—it will wait for the policy to follow.
