The Supreme Court of India has been approached by Emerald Heights International School, Indore, and its Director of Academics, Siddharth Singh Girnar, seeking enforceable safeguards for children using social media. The petition asks the Centre to introduce a comprehensive regulatory framework addressing online risks, including cyberbullying, grooming, harmful content and excessive platform use.
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition argues that protecting children from online harm is a constitutional responsibility that cannot depend entirely on parental supervision or voluntary measures adopted by technology companies.
The petitioners contend that many platforms rely on users declaring their own age, allowing children to create accounts without effective verification.
They state,
"Children in India are signing up for social media platforms that verify nothing beyond a self-declared date of birth, while the same children cannot buy liquor, tobacco or acid and cannot watch adult content on an OTT platform without an age check."
The plea relies on Articles 14 and 21, along with Article 39(e) and (f), which concern children's protection and development. It also refers to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, arguing that the absence of operational child-specific safeguards leaves significant gaps in online protection.
The school claims that children face risks including anxiety, sleep disruption, exposure to inappropriate material, contact from strangers and exploitation. It further alleges that features such as endless scrolling, autoplay and constant notifications can encourage prolonged use.
The petition states,
"The Policy of the State cannot be a policy of indefinite inaction."
The petitioners argue that existing information technology rules do not establish a comprehensive minimum-age and age-verification system for social media accounts.
The petition asks the Supreme Court to direct the Centre to frame and implement binding safeguards. Alternatively, it seeks age-based restrictions, including a possible prohibition on accounts below a prescribed age and additional protections for older children. It also seeks a declaration that the alleged regulatory failure violates constitutional protections.
The matter concerns relief sought by the petitioners; the claims have not been established as judicial findings.
