France has demonstrated that governments are prepared to confront the growing influence of digital platforms on children. India need not replicate the French model in its entirety, but it can certainly learn from its willingness to act. A carefully designed digital majority age, supported by robust privacy safeguards, platform accountability, and comprehensive digital literacy, would represent a balanced response. The real question is no longer whether India should protect children online. It is whether we can afford to delay doing so while another generation grows up in a digital landscape governed more by algorithms than by law.
Zainab Jahan Ara
The smartphone has become the defining symbol of childhood in the twenty-first century. For millions of children, it is a classroom, playground, library and social space rolled into one. Yet it is also a source of anxiety, cyberbullying, misinformation, addictive design and exploitation. As governments across the world grapple with these competing realities, France has reignited a debate that India can no longer afford to postpone: should children be allowed unrestricted access to social media, or should the law establish a “digital majority age” that limits independent access until a certain level of maturity is reached?
France’s move to strengthen restrictions on children’s access to social media reflects a broader international concern over the impact of digital platforms on young minds. Australia has similarly proposed stringent age-based restrictions, while several jurisdictions in the United States and Europe are exploring stronger age-verification mechanisms and parental controls. Although the precise legal models differ, they share a common objective—to ensure that technology serves children rather than exploits them.
India’s challenge is considerably more complex. Home to one of the world’s largest populations of internet users, the country has witnessed an unprecedented digital transformation. Affordable smartphones and inexpensive mobile data have expanded educational opportunities and connected millions of first-generation internet users. At the same time, they have exposed children to cyberbullying, online grooming, misinformation, privacy violations and excessive screen dependence at an age when emotional and cognitive development is still underway.
The legal framework has struggled to keep pace. While the Information Technology Rules and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 recognise the need to safeguard children online, they stop short of creating a comprehensive framework for age verification, platform accountability or parental oversight. In practice, children can often create accounts simply by entering an incorrect date of birth. This places the burden almost entirely on parents, while platforms continue to benefit from maximising user engagement.
The constitutional debate is equally significant. Any attempt to regulate children’s access to social media must balance competing rights. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 21, as expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court, encompasses dignity, privacy and the right to live with mental well-being. Following the landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right. Consequently, any age-verification framework must satisfy the constitutional test of legality, necessity and proportionality. A system that collects excessive personal information would risk undermining the very rights it seeks to protect.
Rather than imposing an outright prohibition, India should consider adopting a calibrated “digital majority age” model. Children below a specified age should not be permitted to operate independent social media accounts, while adolescents could access platforms through guardian-linked accounts that incorporate enhanced safety settings, screen-time controls and stronger privacy protections. Such an approach would recognise children’s evolving capacities while ensuring that parents remain active participants in their online lives.
Equally important is platform accountability. Digital intermediaries have developed sophisticated algorithms capable of identifying user behaviour with remarkable precision. It is therefore difficult to accept that they cannot implement effective age-assurance mechanisms. Future legislation, whether through the proposed Digital India Act or amendments to existing laws, should impose clear obligations on platforms to undertake privacy-preserving age verification, conduct periodic compliance audits and publish transparency reports detailing measures adopted to protect minors. The objective should not be surveillance but responsible digital governance.
However, regulation alone will not solve the problem. Social media has become deeply integrated into education, entrepreneurship and communication. Countless students rely on YouTube for competitive examination preparation, while young entrepreneurs use Instagram and similar platforms to market their products and services. A blanket prohibition would therefore risk excluding children from valuable educational and economic opportunities. The challenge is not to disconnect children from the digital world but to ensure that they engage with it safely.
This is where digital literacy assumes central importance. The National Education Policy, 2020 provides an opportunity to integrate structured digital citizenship education into school curricula. Students should be taught not merely how to use technology but how algorithms influence behaviour, how misinformation spreads, why privacy matters and how to recognise cyber threats. Equally essential are programmes that equip parents and teachers with the skills needed to guide children through an increasingly complex digital ecosystem. A technologically informed society cannot be built by legislation alone.
India must also resist the temptation to equate age verification with mass data collection. Any future framework should prioritise privacy-enhancing technologies that verify age without storing unnecessary personal information. Decentralised verification methods, token-based authentication and minimal-data systems deserve serious consideration. The constitutional promise of privacy cannot become collateral damage in the pursuit of online safety.
The larger question extends beyond social media. It concerns the kind of digital society India wishes to build. Childhood should not become an endless competition for attention orchestrated by recommendation algorithms optimised for engagement rather than well-being. At the same time, regulation must avoid paternalism that restricts legitimate access to education, creativity and expression. The answer lies in evidence-based policy that places the best interests of the child at its centre.
France has demonstrated that governments are prepared to confront the growing influence of digital platforms on children. India need not replicate the French model in its entirety, but it can certainly learn from its willingness to act. A carefully designed digital majority age, supported by robust privacy safeguards, platform accountability and comprehensive digital literacy, would represent a balanced and constitutionally sound response to one of the defining challenges of our time.
The real question is no longer whether India should protect children online. It is whether we can afford to delay doing so while another generation grows up in a digital landscape governed more by algorithms than by law.
The writer is a law graduate and a legal researcher
za**************@***il.com