Social Media Ban For Children Under 13? Indore School Moves Supreme Court For Age Verification And Parental Consent Rules

The petition has been filed under Article 32 by Emerald Heights International School, a co-educational day-cum-boarding school in Indore affiliated to the CBSE, and its director of academics, Siddharth Singh Girnar. The school states it has about 4,115 students and stands "in the position of a guardian (in loco parentis)" to them.

The petition has been drawn by Advocates Khusbhu Jain, Mayank Singh Rawat and Zaid Ahmed, and filed through Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Vaibhav Choudhary.

The petitioners point out that the minimum age adopted by platforms is "at best, a self-imposed threshold of 13 years, generally based on self-declared age." They contend that this threshold "bears no correspondence to the protection accorded to children under Indian law", since the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 treats every person below 18 as a child.

According to the petition, children "including those well below 18 years are routinely exposed to social-media platforms that are not designed or operated as child-safe environments." The platforms, it says, "are structured to maximize attention, prolong engagement and monetize user behavior".

The school says its concern comes from what it has seen in its own classrooms and hostels: children below the stated age "holding and operating social-media accounts", children "being contacted by strangers", and children "coming to school sleep-deprived, distracted and unable to concentrate". It adds, "there is hardly a parent-teacher meeting in which parents do not express their anxiety over the hold which social media has come to have over their children."

The petition's Article 14 argument rests on a comparison with other regulated activities. It notes that under the IT Rules, 2021, OTT platforms must verify a viewer's age before showing adult content, and that online games are subject to age verification.

It submits, "A child cannot lawfully buy liquor, tobacco or acid, however, the same child can open a social media account without any verification and access similar or worse content, and can be contacted by any stranger. There is no rational basis for exempting social media platforms from age verification mechanism."

The petitioners also argue that the absence of a central law has produced unequal protection, as Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Goa have announced their own measures with different age limits. A child in Karnataka, the petition says, "may be subject to one rule, a child in Andhra Pradesh to another with a different age limit, and a child in Madhya Pradesh to none at all, although all of them use the same platforms." It relies on Entry 31 of List I and Article 253 to argue that the subject belongs to the Union.

The petition places primary fault on the intermediaries. Relying on a 2021 study by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), it states that "37.8% of 10-year-old children surveyed had Facebook accounts", and alleges that the intermediaries "are aware of this and have chosen not to act, because more users mean more revenue for them."

It contends that features such as endless scrolling, autoplay, "streaks", "likes" and constant notifications act "with particular force on children", and that the resulting harm "is therefore not an accident but a consequence of how the product is designed." Where an algorithm pushes harmful content to a child who never searched for it, the petition argues, the intermediary "is not a mere passive carrier of third-party content but an active participant in the harm."

On safe harbour, the petitioners submit that an intermediary "that knowingly allows underage users, makes children's profiles visible to strangers and allows unknown adults to contact them cannot be said to have observed due diligence" under Section 79 of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules. They further argue that, since an agreement with a minor is void under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, the platforms are collecting children's data "without any valid legal basis."

The petition lists several gaps in the IT Rules, 2021. It points out that neither the IT Act nor the Rules prescribe a minimum age for opening a social media account or require parental consent. The expression "harmful to child" in Rule 3(1)(b) "is nowhere defined", and the duty under Rule 4(4) to use technology to detect child sexual abuse material "is only an 'endeavour' and is not mandatory."

It adds that the Centre has amended the Rules in 2022, 2023 and 2026 to deal with online gaming, false information and AI-generated content, but "on no occasion has it made any provision for the protection of children on social media". The petitioners say that this failure to use a statutory power coupled with a duty "is arbitrary and amenable to a writ of mandamus."

The petition contends that Section 9 of the DPDP Act, which requires verifiable parental consent and bars tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising directed at children, "is yet to be brought into force, and no mechanism exists to ascertain whether a user is a child. The protection therefore remains on paper."

It points out that the Act received assent on August 11, 2023, the Rules were notified on November 13, 2025, and the child-related provisions come into force only in May 2027. The protection enacted by Parliament "will thus have remained inoperative for almost four years". Relying on Aeltemesh Rein v. Union of India, the petitioners argue that the Centre "cannot, by inaction, defeat the will of Parliament", and that Section 9 can be brought into force earlier for social media and online gaming platforms.

The petition also flags a structural flaw: the obligation under Section 9 "arises only if the user discloses that he or she is a child. A child who enters a false date of birth is treated as an adult", so the provision "depends upon the truthfulness of the very person it seeks to protect". It accept that children have a right to access the internet and say no relief is sought that would prevent a child from using it for education, health or communication with family. They argue, however, that this right "is not the same as a right to unrestricted access to every commercial service offered on the internet."

The petition also proposes a graded model as a reasonable and proportionate measure: children below 13 would not hold accounts, children between 13 and 16 would have access only with "the verifiable consent and supervision of the parent or guardian and with child-safe settings", and those between 16 and 18 would have access subject to data protection and safeguards against harmful content. This, it says, is "far less intrusive than a complete prohibition" and satisfies the proportionality test in Modern Dental College and Puttaswamy.

The petitioners rely on foreign developments, including Australia's minimum age of 16, in force from December 10, 2025, under which access to about 4.7 million accounts of children below 16 was "reported to have been restricted" within about five weeks. They also refer to measures adopted or announced in France, Denmark, Spain, the United Kingdom, Brazil and the European Union.

The petitioners anticipate the objection that the issue is one of policy. They distinguish Zep Foundation v. Union of India (2025), in which the Supreme Court declined to impose a ban itself but directed that a representation be considered within eight weeks. The petition notes that "more than seventeen months have since passed without any framework being put in place."

The present petition, it says, "does not ask this Hon'ble Court to frame the policy", but seeks enforcement of existing laws, a direction to the Government to take a decision on child protection on social media, and interim safeguards in the meantime. It submits that "the Policy of the State cannot be a policy of indefinite inaction", and relies on Vishaka, Prakash Singh and Lakshmi to argue that the Court can lay down guidelines to fill a legal vacuum.

The petitioners also cite the Union's own Economic Survey 2025–26 and a statement of the Union Minister dated February 17, 2026 that "age-based regulation has to be there", and argue that "inaction after acknowledging the danger is arbitrary". They say their representation of March 9, 2026 to the authorities has gone unanswered. The petition notes that the Supreme Court has already issued notice on a similar issue in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. Union of India.

Reliefs Sought in the Petition

The petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to:

1. declare that the Respondents' continuing failure to protect children from grooming, sexual exploitation, cyberbullying, harmful content, behavioural profiling and "compulsive-use design" is "arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 15(3), 21 and 21A";

2. direct the Centre, by a writ of mandamus, to "frame, notify and operationalize a dedicated, comprehensive and enforceable regulatory framework" for protecting children on social media; or

3. direct the Centre to "prohibit the use of social media platforms by children below such age as may be prescribed", and to regulate their use by children above that age; or

4. direct the Centre to frame and enforce age-based restrictions on the creation and use of accounts by children on designated social media platforms.