Should India prescribe a statutory minimum age for social media use? Discuss with reference to recent judicial observations and the IT/Intermediary Rules.

On 28 September 2026, a Supreme Court Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant heard the Just Rights for Children Alliance plea. It said a child's social media account is a contract with the platform, and such a contract is void ab initio [1]. This raises a question: does India need an age limit set by law, or is the consent-based data protection model enough?

Judicial observations and the Intermediary Rules

• The Bench noted that children aged 12–15 hold accounts and asked what platforms are doing about it [1].
• It suggested the Union issue directions under the Intermediary Rules (IT Act, 2000) to enforce an 18-year threshold [1].
• The Solicitor-General relied on the DPDP Act, 2023. The petitioner replied that its relevant provisions apply only from 2027 [1].

Case for a statutory minimum age

• Legal consistency: Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 already treats minors as unable to contract. A law would bring platform practice in line with it.
• Protection gap: the DPDP Rules, 2025 allow 18-month phased compliance [2], so children stay unprotected until then.
• Platform accountability: Australia's under-16 limit took effect on 10 December 2025. It punishes only platforms, with fines up to A$49.5 million [4].
• Burden on parents: a consent model shifts risk to parents, many of whom have limited digital literacy.

Concerns

• Legislative choice: the DPDP framework chose verifiable parental consent, not a ban. It exempts healthcare, education and real-time safety [2]. Imposing an 18-year floor through delegated rules could be struck down as ultra vires (beyond the parent Act).
• Displacement: UNICEF warns that bans "may even backfire" by pushing children into less safe spaces [5].
• Privacy: checking age means checking every user. This conflicts with data minimisation and with Puttaswamy (2017) privacy.
• Participation: older teenagers lose access to learning and self-expression.

Way forward

• Any age floor should be legislated by Parliament, not set by executive direction.
• Bring forward child-data duties for large platforms, ahead of 2027.
• Notify a privacy-safe virtual-token age check [3].
• Regulate harmful design. The DPDP Rules already ban tracking and targeted ads for children [3]; extend this to features like autoplay and infinite scroll.

A statutory minimum age is useful only as a backstop. It should be set by Parliament, calibrated to age, and backed by safe design and parental consent. Combining the Court's urgency with the DPDP framework would serve children's best interests under Articles 21 and 39(f), and SDG 16.2.