The Goa government announced on Monday that it is formally studying the possibility of banning social media use for children below the age of 16.
State IT Minister Rohan Khaunte confirmed that the Information Technology department is examining the legislative framework recently implemented in Australia, where nearly 4.7 million teen accounts were deactivated in the first month, to determine if a similar state-wide restriction is legally viable in India.
The proposal follows a significant rise in complaints from concerned parents regarding social media addiction and its impact on the mental health of the youth.
While the state seeks legal clarity on whether a state government can impose such curbs under central IT laws, a formal statement is expected before the upcoming Assembly session.
The Australian Model
The move by the coastal state follows in the footsteps of Australia, which recently enacted the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act.
This landmark law requires social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent minors from holding accounts, placing the onus of age verification on tech giants rather than parents.
Goa is not alone in its interest; Andhra Pradesh recently constituted a Group of Ministers to explore a similar age-based restriction, while the Madras High Court has also urged the central government to consider such measures.
These domestic deliberations occur against a backdrop of global shifts, as nations like France, Malaysia, and Indonesia also monitor the effectiveness of the Australian rollout.
Rising Parental Concerns
The push for a ban is largely driven by a growing consensus among educators and parents that excessive screen time is hindering child development and academic focus.
“In the world of Artificial Intelligence, we need children to be more focused so they can grow into good citizens and take care of the future of the state,” stated IT Minister Rohan Khaunte. He highlighted that children are increasingly distracted by platforms even during family time, creating complex social implications.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, has responded by supporting parental oversight laws but cautioned that broad bans might drive teenagers toward less safe or unregulated digital spaces.
Minister Khaunte clarified that while the intent is positive, the state must navigate India’s central Information Technology laws to ensure any proposed ban is enforceable and constitutional.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we believe that protecting the mental well-being and innocence of our children is a collective responsibility that transcends mere legislation.
While a ban may offer a necessary safeguard against the addictive algorithms of tech giants, it is equally vital to foster a culture of open dialogue and digital literacy within our homes.
Regulation can restrict access, but it cannot replace the empathy and guidance required to help the next generation navigate a complex digital world. We advocate for a balanced approach that combines systemic oversight with community-led initiatives to encourage healthier real-world connections.
News in Q&A
1. What is the Goa government considering? The state is studying the feasibility of a law to ban social media use for children under the age of 16, citing mental health and addiction concerns.
2. Which international law is being used as a reference? Goa is examining Australia’s Online Safety Amendment Act, which mandates that platforms prevent minors under 16 from holding accounts or face heavy fines.
3. Have other Indian states proposed similar measures? Yes, Andhra Pradesh has also set up a Group of Ministers to study a similar ban, and the Madras High Court has suggested nationwide consideration of such curbs.
4. What are the legal challenges? In India, digital governance and internet laws primarily fall under the jurisdiction of the central government. Goa is studying whether a state-wide ban would be legally sustainable under existing central IT laws.
5. How have social media companies reacted? Meta has expressed a preference for parental oversight over blanket bans, warning that strict restrictions could push young users toward unregulated or more dangerous platforms.
