Centre to Insert Provision in IT Intermediary Rules to Ban Social Media Accounts for Children Under 18
In a significant step toward safeguarding children in the digital age, the Centre on Monday agreed with the Supreme Court to insert a provision in the Information Technology Intermediary Rules that will prevent social media intermediaries from allowing children under 18 years of age to open social media accounts. The move comes after strong observations from a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, following a petition by the NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, told the court that agreements entered into by intermediaries with minors are void contracts and must be prevented. He assured the bench that the government would soon make it a statutory obligation for social media platforms not to permit under-18 users to create accounts. “Membership of educational websites can be taken through consent of parents,” Mehta clarified, drawing a clear distinction between educational platforms and commercial social media.
The primary keyword “ban social media for under 18” sits at the heart of this developing policy. Justice Bagchi highlighted a critical legal inconsistency: many platforms are registered under US laws and have imported American-style restrictions into the Indian digital space—restrictions that are impermissible under Indian law. When Mehta acknowledged the need to “control intermediaries,” the bench urged the Centre to issue directions under the Intermediary Rules so that platforms fashion their software and registration processes in conformity with Indian laws.
Mehta responded firmly: “They will have to conform to Indian laws and there is no doubt about it. Something can be done, something should be done and something will be done.” Justice Bagchi pressed further, stating that platforms “must restrict, at least in registering membership, to a minimum threshold of 18 years.” The Solicitor General agreed that this requirement must now be inserted into law or rules to ensure compliance.
Senior advocate H S Phoolka, appearing for the petitioner NGO, pointed out that the government already has certain guidelines on the issue that need proper enforcement. Mehta countered that guidelines alone are insufficient and that the restriction must be enforced through a statute. Chief Justice Surya Kant endorsed this view, directing the Centre to consider the matter and return with a concrete response through a statutory mechanism.
The NGO’s petition painted a stark picture of the risks children face in the absence of effective age-gating. It argued that the lack of a uniform and practical mechanism to give effect to the statutory incapacity of minors in the digital environment exposes children to foreseeable harms. These include online grooming, sexual exploitation, trafficking, behavioural profiling, misuse of personal data, cyberbullying, and exposure to age-inappropriate content. The secondary keyword “IT Intermediary Rules minors” captures the precise legal route the government has now committed to pursuing.
This development marks a potential turning point in India’s approach to child safety online. While several social media platforms claim to enforce minimum age requirements—often set at 13 under US-influenced policies—the Supreme Court and the Centre have made it clear that Indian law treats contracts with minors as void. Importing foreign standards without aligning them to domestic legal capacity rules is no longer acceptable.
Once the proposed provision is inserted into the Information Technology Intermediary Rules, platforms operating in India will be required to redesign their registration systems to block users under 18 from creating accounts. Educational websites may continue to allow parental consent-based access, but mainstream social media services will face a hard age floor. Failure to comply could attract liability under the IT Act framework.
The decision also signals a broader regulatory shift. Indian authorities are increasingly unwilling to accept platform terms of service drafted primarily for other jurisdictions. By insisting that intermediaries conform to Indian law on the capacity of minors, the Centre and the Supreme Court are asserting digital sovereignty in the protection of children.
Parents and child-rights advocates have long demanded stronger age verification and parental controls. The current assurance from the Solicitor General that “something will be done” raises expectations of timely action. The court has asked the government to return with a clear roadmap, ensuring the ban on social media accounts for children under 18 moves from judicial observation to enforceable rule.
As the Centre prepares to draft the necessary amendment, the focus will remain on practical implementation—how platforms will verify age without creating new privacy risks, how educational exceptions will be defined, and how enforcement will work across large intermediaries. The combination of Supreme Court pressure and the government’s stated willingness to legislate creates a strong likelihood that India will soon join jurisdictions that have moved beyond self-regulation toward mandatory age barriers for social media.
The proposed ban social media for under 18 through the IT Intermediary Rules minors framework represents one of the most consequential child-protection measures in the digital domain in recent years. By closing the gap between legal incapacity and platform practice, India aims to reduce the exposure of minors to online harms while preserving legitimate educational access under parental oversight. The coming weeks will reveal the precise wording of the provision and the timeline for its enforcement.
