Social Media Ban for Children? Supreme Court Declines to Intervene

The Supreme Court today declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a complete ban on social media access for children under 13 years [Zep Foundation v. Union of India].

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih refused to issue any directions, observing that the matter falls within the policy domain of the government and that courts should not interfere in such areas. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to make a representation to the Central Government regarding the concerns raised.

Petitioner’s Argument

The PIL was filed by Zep Foundation, a non-profit organisation, through advocate Mohini Priya.
The petitioner highlighted the following concerns:

• Unrestricted social media access is causing severe mental health issues among children, including depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidal tendencies.
• A study by Social Media Matters indicated that many young users spend over five hours daily on social media, trapped in algorithm-driven, addictive content cycles.
• The absence of regulatory oversight has made social media an “unmonitored psychological battleground” for minors, exposing them to predatory algorithms, unrealistic comparisons, and harmful content.

The petitioner argued that this unrestricted access violates children’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life, health, and dignity).

Reliefs Sought

The PIL had urged the Supreme Court to direct the government to:

• Impose a total ban on social media access for children under 13.
• Mandate parental controls for children aged 13–18.
• Implement real-time monitoring tools, strict age verification, and content restrictions.
• Enforce robust age verification systems, such as biometric authentication.
• Penalise non-compliant social media platforms.
• Launch a nationwide digital literacy campaign targeting parents, teachers, and students to raise awareness about the dangers of excessive social media use.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court declined intervention, reiterating that policy decisions must be left to the government.

“It is for the government to decide such matters of public policy,” the Court remarked.

The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the Central Government with its concerns in the form of a representation.

Background: Globally, concerns about children’s use of social media have escalated, with several countries considering stricter regulations. In India, debates continue on how best to protect minors online without stifling their access to technology and communication platforms.