Discuss the tension between children's online safety and their digital rights. Critically evaluate verifiable parental consent as a regulatory tool.

The Supreme Court recently asked how children aged 12–15 can hold social media accounts when a contract with a minor is void ab initio (void from the start) [1]. This exposes a real tension. Children must be shielded from online harm without losing their rights to information, expression and learning. India's DPDP framework uses verifiable parental consent to manage this tension. The tool is useful but incomplete.

Tension: Safety vs Digital Rights

• Safety imperative: tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising exploit children. The DPDP Rules, 2025 prohibit these practices [2].
• Rights imperative: Article 19(1)(a) and the privacy right recognised in Puttaswamy extend to children. UNICEF warns that bans may push isolated or marginalised children towards less-regulated platforms [4].
• Privacy paradox: a platform can only check children's ages by checking every user's age. This means collecting more data, which works against data minimisation.
• Built-in balance: the Rules exempt healthcare, education and real-time safety from the consent requirement [2].

Verifiable Parental Consent: Strengths

• Middle path between unrestricted access and an outright ban. It respects family autonomy.
• Operational mechanisms exist: identity and age verification, and virtual tokens [2].
• Consent is not a licence to exploit: even with a parent's consent, the ban on tracking and targeted advertising still applies [2].
• The duty to comply falls on data fiduciaries, not on children.

Limitations

• Timing gap: the Rules allow an 18-month phased compliance period [3], so child-data duties bind only from 2027 [1]. Until then, children have neither a ban nor enforceable consent.
• Burden on families: parents with low digital literacy, or who share a phone with the child, may approve accounts without understanding the risks. UNICEF notes that parents face "impossible demands" [4].
• Easy to get around: children can lie about their age, and the Rules do not prescribe one standard verification method.
• Regulatory confusion: the Court floated an 18-year floor through the Intermediary Rules [1]. This sits uneasily with Parliament's choice of a consent model.
• Contrast with Australia: its under-16 minimum age, in force since 10 December 2025, puts the whole burden on platforms, not parents [5].

Verifiable parental consent should be the minimum safeguard, not the whole solution. The way forward:

• bring forward child-data duties for large platforms;
• adopt a standard, privacy-preserving virtual token;
• regulate harmful design features such as autoplay and endless scroll;
• invest in digital literacy for parents.

Together, these would meet the UNCRC's twin promise of protection and participation for every child.