NEW DELHI, Sept. 29
The Indian government plans to amend its information technology rules to prevent people under 18 from independently opening social media accounts, telling the Supreme Court that platforms would be placed under a statutory obligation to comply with Indian laws governing minors.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that the government would act after the court questioned whether voluntary safeguards were sufficient to protect children online. The bench also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
The proposal would involve changes to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules and could require social media companies to modify their platforms to prevent minors from creating accounts independently.
The government has not yet published the proposed amendment, meaning its precise scope, implementation timetable and age-verification requirements remain unclear.
“Membership of educational websites can be taken through consent of parents,” Mehta was quoted as telling the court. He said the government would make it a statutory obligation for intermediaries not to allow minors to open social media accounts.
The case arose from a petition filed by the NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance, which questioned how minors can independently enter agreements with social media companies by accepting their terms of service when Indian contract law does not recognise them as competent to enter contracts.
The petition relies on Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, which deals with competency to contract. It argues that the legal position raises a fundamental issue for social media accounts because users ordinarily agree to a platform’s contractual terms when registering.
The petition does not seek a complete prohibition on children’s access to the internet. Instead, it has called for age-verification systems, parental consent and other safeguards governing minors’ access to digital platforms.
That distinction could become important when the government drafts the amendments.
The Centre’s statement before the court referred specifically to preventing minors from opening social media accounts. It did not establish that all online services would become inaccessible to people under 18. Educational websites, for example, could continue to allow minors to obtain membership with parental consent under the approach outlined by Mehta.
Justice Bagchi asked the government to ensure that social media intermediaries comply with Indian law rather than importing standards developed for other jurisdictions into their Indian operations.
“They have registered under the laws of US and imported into Indian digital space the restrictions which are applicable in US (on minors’ opening accounts on social media platforms), which is impermissible under Indian law,” he said.
The bench also raised the possibility of requiring technology companies to make changes to the software underlying their platforms.
It asked whether the Centre could issue directions under the intermediary rules requiring social media companies to “fashion their software or platform” in conformity with Indian law. Such an approach would shift responsibility for compliance towards the platforms themselves rather than relying solely on declarations made by users when they register.
Mehta told the court that intermediaries would have to follow Indian law.
“Something can be done, something should be done and something will be done,” he said.
How platforms would reliably establish a user’s age remains one of the central practical questions.
The material before the court refers to age verification and parental consent but does not specify what verification technology would be required or what documents, credentials or other mechanisms platforms might have to use.
Those details could determine how extensively the proposed rules affect both minors and adult users. The government’s eventual framework would have to translate the principle announced in court into a system that platforms can enforce.
The case is part of a broader debate over children’s exposure to social media and the responsibilities of technology companies whose services are used by minors.
The petition has raised concerns about online grooming, sexual exploitation, cyberbullying, misuse of children’s personal information, behavioural profiling and exposure to age-inappropriate material. These are concerns advanced in the petition and should not be interpreted as findings by the Supreme Court about individual platforms.
The court had previously sought the Centre’s response to the petition.
The NGO has also argued that the government does not need to wait for full implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act before introducing safeguards because the legal incapacity of minors to enter contracts already exists under Indian law.
The proposed change could have wide implications for global social media companies operating in India if the final rules require them to verify whether users are adults before permitting them to create accounts.
For platforms, the crucial questions will include what constitutes adequate age verification, how parental consent would operate where permitted, what obligations would apply to existing accounts held by minors and what liability companies could face for non-compliance. None of those details has yet been set out in the material reported from the proceedings.
The proposal is therefore not yet an operative nationwide ban on social media use by everyone under 18.
What the government has committed to before the Supreme Court is narrower but potentially far-reaching: amending India’s intermediary rules so that social media companies have an enforceable legal obligation not to allow minors to independently open accounts.
The details will become clearer once the Centre drafts and publishes the amendments. Until then, existing social media accounts and platform rules remain subject to the current legal framework rather than the proposed restrictions.
