Back
Supreme Court Asks Centre to Consider Statutory Rules for Minors' Social Media Accounts
The on Monday directed the Central Government to examine the feasibility of enacting a that would compel social media intermediaries to align their platforms with Indian laws governing minors, particularly the legal prohibition on individuals under 18 entering into binding contracts. The direction came from a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, while hearing a filed by the ' ' seeking comprehensive safeguards for children accessing digital platforms.
The Court's intervention underscores a growing judicial concern over the unchecked ability of minors—some as young as 12 or 13—to independently create accounts on platforms like , , and , despite , rendering such contracts . The bench emphasised that mere guidelines are insufficient and that a legally binding is necessary to protect children from online risks including grooming, sexual exploitation, cyberbullying, and data misuse.
Background of the Petition
The ' ' (JRCA), represented by , approached the Supreme Court arguing that the current regime allows minors to accept terms of service without meaningful age assurance or parental oversight. The petition highlighted a fundamental contradiction: while Indian law treats persons below 18 as legally incapable of contracting, digital platforms routinely permit them to create accounts by simply clicking "I agree," thereby exposing them to contractual obligations and data processing without any enforceable safeguards.
The petition sought directions to the to either amend the , or frame specific guidelines ensuring that no digital platform enters into a contract with a child below 18 without the prior consent of a parent or lawful guardian, backed by robust identity verification and e-KYC. It further argued that the continued exposure of children to such digital ecosystems without adequate protections violates their under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.
The Hearing: Key Exchanges and Observations
During the hearing, initially submitted that the issue may be covered by the , which mandates for processing children's data. However, Senior Advocate Phoolka countered that the DPDP Act's relevant provisions would only come into force in , leaving a critical . He argued that there was no need to wait for the new law since existing law—namely the Indian Contract Act—already invalidates contracts entered into by minors.
Acknowledging the gap, Solicitor General Mehta stated,
"Something can be done, something should be done and will be done."
He further noted that the government is willing to explore a mechanism whereby the contractual relationship is established between the parent and the platform, thereby circumventing the minor's
.
Justice Bagchi expressed deep concern over the current situation, remarking,
"A 15-year-old child can have a
account."
He stressed that social media intermediaries must design their membership processes to ensure the minimum age threshold of 18 is not breached.
"The software has to be in conformity with Indian law,"
the judge said, and urged the Solicitor General to consider giving the requirement a "statutory format" under the intermediary rules rather than leaving it as a mere guideline.
Chief Justice Surya Kant invoked
, which provides
to intermediaries for third-party content, warning that the Court might be compelled to issue directions under that provision if the government does not act.
"We will be compelled to issue directions by invoking that provision against all these intermediaries,"
the CJI remarked. Solicitor General Mehta promptly assured the bench that the government is ready to act, saying,
"No my lords, government is ready to do that."
Legal Analysis: Contract Act vs. Digital Reality
The legal crux of the matter lies in Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, which states that every person is competent to contract who is of the according to the law to which he is subject. The in India is 18 years. Contracts entered into by minors are —they have no legal effect from the moment of creation. Yet, social media platforms routinely require users to accept terms of service that constitute binding contracts under law. When a minor accepts such terms, the contract is legally void, but the platform continues to process the minor's data and expose them to risks without the platform facing any contractual consequences.
The DPDP Act, 2023, if fully implemented, would address some of these concerns by requiring for processing children's data. However, its staggered implementation—key provisions are not expected to take effect until —leaves a regulatory lacuna that the Supreme Court is now seeking to fill through existing statutory instruments such as the and the Intermediary Rules.
The bench's reference to Section 79 of the IT Act is particularly significant. Section 79 grants intermediaries immunity from liability for third-party content uploaded on their platforms, provided they observe . The CJI's suggestion that the Court may invoke this provision to compel compliance with laws governing minors indicates a willingness to use the as a regulatory lever. If the government fails to act, the Court could potentially issue directions requiring intermediaries to implement and as a condition for retaining their immunity.
Implications for Intermediaries and the Legal Profession
The Supreme Court's observations have far-reaching implications for social media intermediaries operating in India. Many of these platforms—such as ), , and —are incorporated abroad, often in the United States, but are required to comply with Indian law while operating within the country. The bench noted this fact, underscoring that foreign incorporation does not exempt them from local statutory obligations.
For the legal community, this case highlights the intersection of contract law, data protection, and constitutional rights in the digital age. Practitioners dealing with technology law and child rights will need to closely monitor developments, as the Court has effectively put the government on notice to deliver a . If the Centre fails to act, a potential could impose specific obligations on intermediaries, including mandatory age verification, parental consent mechanisms, and a prohibition on contracting with minors.
The case also revives debates around the enforceability of online contracts entered into by minors. Legal professionals may see an uptick in litigation challenging the validity of such contracts, particularly in matters involving data breaches, privacy violations, or tort claims arising from online activity by minors.
Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Digital Child Safety
The Supreme Court's decision to demand a rather than mere guidelines represents a significant judicial push toward protecting minors in the digital ecosystem. While the government has expressed willingness to act, the timeline and substance of any new rules remain uncertain. The bench's implicit threat to use Section 79 of the IT Act as a basis for direct intervention signals that the judiciary is prepared to take the lead if the executive branch falters.
The ' ' PIL has thus brought to the fore a critical issue: how to reconcile the foundational principles of contract law with the realities of a digital world where minors are active participants. The outcome of this case could set a precedent not only for social media regulation but for the broader governance of digital platforms in India, particularly concerning vulnerable populations. As the matter awaits further hearings, all eyes will be on the Centre's response and the potential emergence of a statutory regime that treats a child's click with the same legal seriousness as a signed document.
