The Supreme Court today declined to entertain a writ petition seeking a ban on social media access for children below 13 years of age, stating that the matter falls under the domain of policy-making and not judicial intervention.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Zep Foundation through Advocate-on-Record Mohini Priya, raised alarm over what it described as an “unprecedented mental health crisis” among children due to unregulated digital exposure.
BENCH SUGGESTS PETITIONERS APPROACH THE GOVERNMENT
A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masiah heard the matter and noted that the issue concerns legislative policy, not judicial adjudication.
“We are not inclined to entertain the present petition,” Justice Gavai said. “Since the relief sought is within the domain of policy. We therefore, grant the petitioner, permission to make a representation to the respondent authority. If such a representation is made, the same would be considered per law, within eight weeks.”
PETITION FLAGS MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS DUE TO EXCESSIVE SOCIAL MEDIA USE
The petition highlighted rising instances of depression, anxiety, self-harm, and addiction-like behavior among minors attributed to prolonged and unsupervised use of social media.
“We need some strict age verification mechanism here,” the petitioner’s Counsel submitted. “This is not an issue of some ‘parental supervision.’”
Citing a Social Media Matters study, the plea noted that a significant percentage of children spend more than five hours daily on platforms like Instagram and YouTube. A Maharashtra-based report indicated that 17% of children aged 9–17 use social media or gaming platforms for over six hours a day.
CALL FOR STATUTORY BAN AND STRONGER SAFEGUARDS
The petition sought the following key actions from the Court:
- A complete statutory prohibition on children under 13 accessing social media.
- Mandatory parental controls for users aged 13 to 18, including real-time monitoring and content filters.
- Implementation of biometric-based age verification systems.
- Penalties for non-compliance by social media platforms.
- Mandatory algorithmic safeguards to prevent targeting minors with addictive content.
- Launch of a nationwide digital literacy campaign for parents, educators, and students.
GLOBAL PRECEDENTS AND CRITICISM OF INDIA’S CURRENT FRAMEWORK
The petition cited international practices in Australia, the UK, and U.S. states like Florida, where laws impose age restrictions and parental control requirements to prevent social media addiction.
It also criticized the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, arguing that current parental consent provisions are weak and easily bypassed. The enforcement by platforms such as Meta (Facebook, Instagram) was termed reactive and inadequate.
FINAL RULING: NOT A JUDICIAL MATTER
While acknowledging the significance of the issue, the Supreme Court directed the petitioners to take their concerns to the government.
The Court’s order reads:
“Since the relief sought is within the domain of policy. We therefore, grant the petitioner, permission to make a representation to the respondent authority. If such a representation is made, the same would be considered per law, within eight weeks.”
CAUSE TITLE: ZEP FOUNDATION V. UNION OF INDIA
DIARY NO.: 8128/2025
