The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine a petition by an Indore-based school seeking restrictions on children’s use of social media platforms and sought responses from the concerned Union ministries.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice in the matter and listed it for further hearing on December 7.
Emerald Heights International School and its director, Siddharth Singh, have filed a public interest litigation (PIL), arguing that protecting minors from online harms is a constitutional responsibility of the State and cannot be left solely to parental supervision or voluntary safeguards adopted by technology companies.
The petition seeks a comprehensive and enforceable regulatory framework to protect children from risks associated with social media, including cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, exposure to harmful content, compulsive use and mental health problems.
The petition has been filed by Vaibhav Choudhary on behalf of the petitioners, who are represented by advocate Khushbu Jain.
The respondents in the plea include the Union government and the ministries of electronics and information technology, women and child development, and law and justice, besides the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
The petition comes amid a growing international push to restrict children’s access to social media. Australia became the first country to enforce a minimum age of 16 for accounts on designated social media platforms in December 2025, requiring companies to take reasonable steps to prevent younger children from accessing them. France, through a 2023 law, provided for parental authorisation for social media accounts of children below 15. Several other countries have also been considering age-based curbs amid concerns over the impact of social media on children’s mental health, safety and development.
In India, the Union government has been weighing similar restrictions, with the Economic Survey 2025-26 recommending age-based safeguards, including age verification and age-appropriate defaults on digital platforms. In February, Hindustan Times reported that the government was considering restricting access for children below 16 through amendments to the Information Technology Rules, while holding consultations with social media platforms. The discussions have also centred on whether certain categories of accounts should be restricted rather than imposing a blanket ban. India’s existing Digital Personal Data Protection law provides for verifiable parental consent before the personal data of children below 18 is processed, but the country does not have a general statutory minimum age for accessing social media.
Invoking Articles 14, 15(3), 21 and 21A of the Constitution, the petition contends that the State’s continuing failure to provide effective protection against foreseeable social media harms violates children’s fundamental rights. It also relies on the directive principles of state policy under Articles 39(e) and 39(f), which call for protection of children against abuse and exploitation and for opportunities to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity.
The plea comes weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to examine a related issue concerning the absence of guidelines to regulate the opening and maintenance of social media accounts by minors. On September 10, a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant sought the Centre’s response to a petition filed by a non-profit child rights body, observing that safeguards were needed to protect children online.
“There is need for some safeguards in India. Some firewall is necessary for protecting our children,” the bench said at the time while issuing notice on the plea.
In the present case, the petitioners have argued that the constitutional obligation to protect children must extend to the digital environment, where risks can cause both immediate and long-term harm, often without parents and teachers becoming aware of the damage until it becomes serious.
The concerns highlighted in the plea range from depression, anxiety, diminished self-esteem, sleep disruption and body-image pressures to grooming, cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, coercion involving intimate images and exposure to violent, sexually explicit, self-harm and suicide-related content. It also flags behavioural profiling and platform designs that encourage compulsive use.
The petitioners maintain that parental controls, voluntary safeguards and assurances from social media companies are inadequate to address the scale of the problem, making state intervention necessary.
“The Constitution does not envisage a childhood defined by exploitation, distress or abandonment. It calls for children to develop in a healthy manner, in conditions of freedom and dignity. Yet the social-media environment children inhabit today is, in our submission, nowhere near the safe environment they deserve,” Jain said.
She added that the petitioners consider restrictions on children’s social media use the only viable option in the present circumstances, arguing that an entire generation’s childhood and well-being cannot be put at risk while platforms take steps to make their services safer.
The plea asks the court to declare that the failure to provide effective protection against online harms is arbitrary and unconstitutional, and to direct the Union government to frame, notify and implement a dedicated regulatory framework for children’s safety on social media platforms.
Alternatively, it seeks a direction to the government to prohibit social media use by children below a prescribed age and regulate access for older children, or introduce enforceable age-based restrictions on the creation, maintenance and use of children’s accounts on designated platforms.
The petition also invokes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly its provisions concerning children’s best interests and protection from physical and mental violence, sexual abuse, exploitation and material harmful to their well-being.