The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to address the legal gap around minors opening and operating social media accounts, questioning how children as young as 12 or 13 can accept platform terms when Indian contract law does not recognise minors as competent to enter contracts. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing a public interest litigation filed by the Just Rights for Children Alliance (JRCA), which sought stronger safeguards for children using social media and other digital platforms.
The Court asked the Centre to consider directions under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the issue requires statutory backing and sought time to examine it. The Court indicated that if the Centre does not address the matter, it may consider issuing directions to intermediaries.
A Legal Gap Between Children And Digital Platforms
The Court’s concern centres on the terms and conditions users accept when creating accounts on platforms such as Instagram and X. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, states that a person is competent to contract only if they have attained the age of majority according to the law applicable to them. The petition argued that children accessing social media independently are effectively accepting user agreements, privacy policies and other contractual terms despite this legal position.
The petition also highlighted risks including online grooming, sexual exploitation, sextortion, trafficking, cyberbullying, behavioural profiling, misuse of personal data and exposure to age-inappropriate material. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed to safeguards under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, including parental consent for processing children’s personal data, but said a broader solution would require statutory backing.
What Existing Rules Say
India’s existing digital framework already contains certain protections for children, but the petition argues that it does not specifically resolve whether minors can independently create and maintain social media accounts. The DPDP framework treats children as requiring special protection in relation to their personal data and provides for verifiable parental consent before processing such data. Meanwhile, the 2021 IT Rules contain age-related safeguards for certain categories of online curated content, including parental controls and age-verification requirements for adult content, but do not create a general minimum age rule for opening social media accounts.
The Supreme Court had first issued notice on the PIL on September 10, observing that safeguards or “firewalls” were needed to protect children online. The latest hearing therefore shifts the focus towards whether existing laws can be used, or new statutory provisions are required, to make platforms enforce meaningful age and parental-consent safeguards.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Children’s safety online cannot be treated as the responsibility of families alone. Parents, schools, governments and technology companies all have a role in creating digital spaces where children can learn, communicate and explore without being exposed unnecessarily to exploitation, manipulation or harmful content. At the same time, any regulatory framework should be clear, proportionate and mindful of children’s legitimate access to education, information and communication.
The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the need for lawmakers and platforms to close legal gaps while ensuring that child protection keeps pace with rapidly changing technology. What safeguards do you think can best protect children online without unnecessarily limiting their access to the digital world?
Also Read: Supreme Court Asks CBSE To Consider Three-Language Policy Exemption For Class 6 Students
