Ban on Social Media for Under 16s: Madras High Court Flags Need for Child Safety Law

The Madras High Court has raised serious concerns about children’s exposure to social media platforms and urged the Union government to consider a statutory ban on social media use by those under the age of 16.

The observation came during an interim hearing on December 26, when the Court was dealing with issues related to online child safety and exploitation. Drawing attention to legislative developments abroad, the bench referred to Australia’s recent move to restrict social media access for minors and suggested that India examine whether a similar legal framework is required.

While the Court’s remarks are not binding directions, they signal growing judicial unease over the impact of unregulated digital platforms on children’s rights and safety.

The Court’s Interim Observations

During the hearing, the Court expressed concern over the increasing number of cases involving online exploitation of minors. It noted that children are particularly vulnerable to abuse, manipulation, and harmful content on social media platforms, many of which lack effective age verification mechanisms.

The Court suggested that the Union government consider enacting a law that would impose a ban on social media for under 16s. The bench also asked the Centre and law enforcement authorities to explore the formation of a dedicated panel to frame guidelines on children’s use of social media and digital platforms.

By raising the issue in open court, the judges underscored that online child safety is no longer a peripheral concern but one that requires urgent policy attention.

Reference to Australia’s New Law

A notable aspect of the Court’s observation was its reference to Australia’s recent legislative steps to regulate children’s access to social media. The Court noted that other countries have begun to recognise the risks posed by unrestricted access and have responded with statutory interventions.

Australia’s law, which restricts social media use for minors below a certain age, was cited as an example of how governments are beginning to treat digital safety as a matter of public policy rather than parental discretion alone.

By invoking this comparative example, the Madras High Court placed India’s debate within a global context, suggesting that concerns over children’s online safety are shared across jurisdictions.

Why the Issue Reached the Court

The issue arose in the context of cases highlighting online offences against children, including grooming, exploitation, and exposure to explicit content. Law enforcement agencies have repeatedly flagged the role of social media platforms in facilitating such offences, often due to anonymity and lack of robust safeguards.

The Court noted that children’s easy access to smartphones and social media accounts has outpaced regulatory oversight. In many instances, platforms rely on self-declared age verification, which can be easily bypassed.

The suggestion of a ban on social media for under 16s reflects judicial concern that existing regulatory mechanisms may be insufficient to protect minors in the digital environment.

Child Rights in the Digital Age

The Court’s remarks touch upon broader questions of child rights in the digital age. Children are entitled to protection from harm, including psychological and emotional harm caused by online abuse.

At the same time, access to information and digital platforms has become an integral part of education and social interaction. The challenge lies in balancing protection with participation.

By urging consideration of a ban on social media for under 16s, the Court highlighted the need for a policy debate on where this balance should lie, particularly when the risks are perceived to outweigh the benefits.

The Role of the Union Government and Police

In addition to suggesting legislative action, the Court asked the Union government and police authorities to consider forming a panel to study the issue and propose guidelines.

Such a panel, if constituted, could examine:

• The extent of online exploitation involving minors

• Existing legal provisions addressing digital child safety

• International best practices on age-based restrictions

• Feasibility of enforcement and compliance

The Court’s suggestion indicates that any future regulation should be evidence-based and informed by inputs from multiple stakeholders, including law enforcement and child protection experts.

Not a Binding Direction, But a Clear Signal

It is important to note that the Madras High Court has not issued a binding order mandating a ban. The observations were made during an interim hearing and take the form of suggestions to the executive.

However, judicial observations of this nature often serve as catalysts for policy discussion. They reflect judicial thinking and can influence legislative and executive priorities, especially when they touch upon constitutional values and public interest.

The call for a ban on social media for under 16s thus represents a clear signal of judicial concern rather than an immediate legal mandate.

Potential Impact on Digital Platforms

If the suggestion were to be acted upon, it could have significant implications for technology companies operating in India. Social media platforms would be required to implement stricter age verification systems or restrict access entirely for minors below a specified age.

Such measures would raise practical questions about enforcement, compliance costs, and data privacy. Platforms may need to collect additional personal information to verify age, which in turn could create new privacy concerns.

While these implications were not examined in detail during the hearing, they form part of the broader policy debate triggered by the Court’s observations.

Free Speech and Privacy Considerations

Any move towards a statutory ban on social media for under 16s would inevitably intersect with constitutional values such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy.

Children are also rights-bearing individuals, and restrictions on their access to communication platforms would need to be justified on grounds of necessity and proportionality.

The Madras High Court did not delve into these constitutional dimensions at this stage, focusing instead on immediate concerns of safety and exploitation. These issues are likely to come to the fore if the proposal advances towards legislation.

Growing Judicial Focus on Online Harms

The interim remarks form part of a broader pattern of judicial engagement with digital harms. Courts across India have increasingly addressed issues such as cybercrime, online abuse, and misuse of digital platforms.

Children’s vulnerability in online spaces has been a recurring theme, with courts often urging stricter enforcement and policy reform.

The suggestion of a ban on social media for under 16s marks a significant escalation in this discourse, moving from regulation and monitoring towards age-based prohibition.

What Lies Ahead

Whether the Centre will act on the Madras High Court’s suggestion remains to be seen. Any legislative move would require careful consultation, parliamentary debate, and alignment with constitutional principles.

For now, the Court’s remarks have brought the issue of children’s digital safety into sharper focus. They have also signalled that courts are willing to question existing regulatory approaches in light of evolving technological realities.

As discussions on child protection, digital rights, and platform responsibility continue, the idea of a ban on social media for under 16s is likely to remain part of the national conversation.