The Supreme Court agreed to examine a petition filed by an Indore-based school seeking restrictions on children’s use of social media platforms and directed relevant Union ministries to submit their responses. Emerald Heights International School, alongside its director Siddharth Singh, filed a public interest litigation arguing that shielding minors from online dangers is a constitutional obligation of the State and cannot depend entirely on parental supervision or voluntary corporate measures.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice regarding the matter and scheduled the next hearing for December 7. The petition requests a comprehensive and enforceable regulatory framework to safeguard children from cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, harmful content, compulsive platform use, and associated mental health struggles.
The respondents named in the petition include the Union government, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The legal filing comes amid a broader global movement toward restricting children's digital access, pointing to international measures such as Australia's minimum age requirement of 16 for designated platforms and France's parental authorization laws.
In India, the government has previously explored similar limitations, with the Economic Survey recommending age-based defaults and verification, while deliberations continue over potential amendments to Information Technology Rules. Although the Digital Personal Data Protection law mandates verifiable parental consent before processing data for minors under 18, the country currently lacks a general statutory minimum age for social media accounts.
Invoking multiple constitutional provisions including Articles 14, 15, 21, and 21A, the petition contends that failing to provide adequate protection against foreseeable online hazards infringes upon children's fundamental rights. The lawsuit emphasizes that voluntary safeguards remain insufficient against the scale of risks involved, prompting the need for definitive state intervention and dedicated regulatory oversight.