Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on plea to ban minors from social media — ‘Need some safeguard’

Supreme Court Seeks Government Stand on Social Media Access for Minors

Theindiapostdaily.com – The Supreme Court has asked the Union government to respond to a public interest petition seeking restrictions on social media accounts operated independently by children. The case raises questions about online safety, age verification and whether minors can legally accept the digital agreements that platforms require at sign-up.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notices to the Ministries of Electronics and Information Technology, Law, and Labour. Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana were also on the bench.

The petition was filed by the NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance through Advocate Saksham Maheshwari. Senior Advocate HS Phoolka appeared for the petitioner and pressed the court to consider safeguards for children using online platforms.

“We need some safeguard in India,”

Chief Justice Kant made the observation while considering the concerns raised in the plea. Justice Bagchi similarly underlined the need for protective barriers in the digital space.

“There should be some firewalls”.

Central Question: Can a Minor Accept Platform Terms?

The petition places its main legal argument on the ability of a child to enter into a contract. It says that people under 18 are not legally competent to contract under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Yet, social media services routinely permit children to open accounts by entering a date of birth and accepting terms of service, user agreements and privacy policies.

Under Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875, a person becomes an adult only after completing 18 years. The plea argues that this creates a mismatch between established contract law and the way digital platforms admit users.

It notes that an agreement made by a person who was a minor when it was executed is void from the outset. In the petitioner’s view, a child cannot gain contractual capacity simply because acceptance happens online through a click, continued use of an application or another electronic process.

The petition also refers to Section 10A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. That provision recognises contracts made electronically, but the plea argues that it does not override the underlying rule that a person otherwise incapable of contracting remains incapable in a digital setting.

“The technological form of acceptance, including click-wrap acceptance or continued use of a platform, cannot therefore alter the substantive legal capacity of a minor.”

Request for Age Checks and Parental Controls

The NGO has asked for directions preventing minors from entering contractual relationships with digital platforms. At the same time, it does not seek to shut children out of educational material online. Its proposed approach would allow access to such content through accounts created, maintained and controlled by a parent or guardian.

The plea also calls for guidance to social media companies on workable age-assurance systems. The issue is significant because self-declared age remains a common method for account creation, leaving platforms reliant on information supplied by the person seeking access.

Phoolka told the court that children below 13 are prohibited from using social media in the United States. The submission was made to support the argument that India should consider stronger measures designed specifically for younger users.

The case is not limited to the technical act of registering an account. It concerns the wider consequences of a child independently engaging with online services whose rules may govern personal data, content visibility, communication features and platform conduct.

Concerns Over Harmful Online Exposure

The petition argues that the absence of an effective and uniform process to reflect a minor’s legal incapacity online leaves children vulnerable to serious harms. It identifies risks including grooming, sexual exploitation, trafficking, cyberbullying, inappropriate content, behavioural profiling and misuse of personal data.

Children can encounter these risks through direct messaging, public interactions, recommendations and data-driven features. The plea contends that a legal response should account for the fact that young users may not be equipped to understand the implications of broad privacy terms or online interactions with strangers.

The petitioner has described the issue as one involving children’s safety, dignity, development and well-being. Its argument is that existing rules on content moderation and child protection do not directly answer the prior question of whether an under-18 user should be allowed to independently accept the terms governing an account.

IT Rules and the Claimed Regulatory Gap

The petition examines the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Those rules set due-diligence duties for intermediaries and contain provisions concerning harmful content and child protection. However, the NGO says they do not address the contractual capacity of minors in a clear or practical manner.

It contends that neither the rules nor the legislation behind them establishes a verifiable age gate, a parental-consent framework or another uniform measure to stop a child below 18 from independently creating an account despite being unable to contract under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act.

“Neither the said Rules nor the parent enactment prescribe any verifiable age-gating mechanism, parental-consent protocol, or other safeguard to prevent a child below the age of eighteen years, who is incompetent to contract under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,”

The court’s notice does not decide the petition’s claims. It begins the process of obtaining the government’s position on whether existing laws and rules sufficiently protect minors online, and whether new safeguards are required.

The government’s response will be important for parents, schools, technology companies and young users alike. Any eventual direction could affect how platforms assess age, obtain parental involvement and offer access to educational content while attempting to reduce exposure to online harms.