The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response to a petition seeking age-based restrictions on children’s social media use, citing online safety, mental health and privacy concerns.
The Supreme Court of India has sought a response from the Central government on a petition seeking stronger legal safeguards to restrict children’s access to social media platforms. According to Bar and Bench, the petition was filed by Emerald Heights International School in Indore.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has scheduled the next hearing for December 7. The school and its Director, Siddharth Singh, have approached the court seeking a comprehensive regulatory framework to protect children from potential harm associated with social media use.
The petition names the Centre, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights as respondents.
The petition calls for a legal prohibition on social media access for children below a specified age. It also seeks clear age-based regulations governing how minors create, maintain and use social media accounts.
The petitioners argue that a structured legal framework is needed to establish consistent standards for protecting children online. Their proposed approach aims to address the limitations of existing safeguards and ensure that social media platforms take greater responsibility for the safety of younger users.
The court’s decision to seek the Centre’s response brings the issue of children’s digital access and online protection before the judiciary. The final outcome will depend on the arguments presented and any directions issued during the proceedings.
A major concern raised in the petition is children's vulnerability to online grooming, sexual exploitation and cyberbullying. The petitioners have also highlighted the risk of minors encountering content that is inappropriate or harmful to their age group.
The plea reportedly identifies several other concerns, including exposure to violent material, sexually explicit content and content related to self-harm or suicide. It also raises the issue of intimate images being circulated or used to threaten and coerce young people.
According to the petitioners, these risks can have serious consequences for children's safety, dignity and emotional development. They argue that stronger safeguards are necessary to prevent harm rather than relying solely on responses after an incident occurs.
The petition also draws attention to potential mental health effects associated with social media use among children and adolescents.
The concerns include anxiety, depression, body-image dissatisfaction, disordered eating, sleep disruption and the pressure created by comparing oneself with others online.
The petitioners argue that frequent exposure to curated images, online interactions and harmful content may affect children's emotional well-being. They have called for measures that take these risks into account while developing rules for minors' access to digital platforms.
The plea further suggests that the effects of harmful online experiences may remain unnoticed until significant damage has occurred, making preventive measures particularly important.
The school and its Director have argued that voluntary safety policies, assurances from technology companies and parental controls are not sufficient to address the full range of risks faced by children online.
The petition also raises concerns about behavioural profiling, through which platforms analyse users' activity and preferences, as well as design features that may encourage prolonged or compulsive engagement.
The petitioners contend that these systems can make it difficult for children to regulate their time online independently. They are seeking a broader regulatory approach that places greater responsibility on social media companies and establishes clearer protections for minors.
The petitioners have also sought a declaration that the government's alleged failure to provide adequate protection against social media-related risks is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights.
The rights referred to in the plea include equality, life and personal liberty, and education.
The case raises questions about how children's access to digital platforms should be balanced against their rights, personal development and need for protection. The Supreme Court's consideration of the matter could contribute to the wider debate over government responsibility and technology companies' obligations towards young users.
However, the court has so far sought the government's response; the petition's demands should not be interpreted as restrictions already approved by the Supreme Court.
The Indian case comes amid broader legal scrutiny of social media companies over their impact on children and teenagers.
In a separate development cited in the report, a New Mexico court ordered Meta to pay a total of $942 million in August 2026 over claims involving risks to young users of Facebook and Instagram. The amount included a reported $567 million award related to youth mental health harms and $375 million in civil penalties imposed earlier by a jury.
The case highlights the growing international focus on the responsibilities of social media companies and the potential consequences of platform design and safety practices.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider the matter further at its next scheduled hearing on December 7, after seeking the Centre's response.
The proceedings could bring greater attention to proposals for minimum-age restrictions, age-based account regulations and stronger safeguards against harmful online experiences.
For now, the petition represents a request for legal intervention rather than an established nationwide ban on children's social media use. The government's response and the court's subsequent directions will be important in determining how the case progresses.