India weighs legal duty for platforms to restrict under-18 social media accounts

India’s government has told the Supreme Court it is prepared to make restrictions on under-18 social media accounts a legal obligation for online platforms. The proposal is not an operative ban. For now, the central questions are what rule the government will draft, which services it will cover and how platforms would establish a user’s age.

The issue arose during a hearing on September 28, 2026, in a petition brought by the Just Rights for Children Alliance. The group argues that children can independently open accounts and accept platform terms even though Indian law does not generally allow minors to enter into contracts. It has asked for safeguards governing children’s access to social media and other digital services.

What the government told the court

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking for the central government, agreed that platforms operating in India must comply with Indian law on minors. He indicated that the government would take steps to put an age restriction into an enforceable legal framework, rather than leave it as guidance that platforms may not follow. The reported route is an amendment to the Information Technology rules governing intermediaries, although the text of any amendment has not been set out.

The judges pressed the government to consider directions requiring platforms to adapt their sign-up systems to Indian requirements. Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised an 18-year threshold for independent membership, while Chief Justice Surya Kant asked the government to examine a statutory mechanism and return with a response. The court’s discussion was a call for government action, not the announcement of a final set of rules.

Mehta also distinguished social media accounts from educational websites, saying children could obtain membership of educational services with parental consent. That comment does not, by itself, settle how parental permission would work across different kinds of online service or whether any future social media rule would contain exceptions.

Why the age of 18 matters

Under India’s Majority Act, a person ordinarily reaches adulthood at 18. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act ties the capacity to make a contract to reaching the age of majority. The petitioners say there is a mismatch between that legal position and platforms that let younger users sign up independently by declaring a date of birth and accepting terms of service.

That argument is the basis for the proposed restriction; it should not be confused with an existing, comprehensive prohibition on children using the internet. Opening an account, accessing educational material and using a service through a parent- or guardian-controlled account are different questions. The petition seeks safeguards around independent accounts and age assurance, rather than a blanket bar on children viewing online content.

India’s digital personal data protection framework also contains provisions concerning children, but the petitioners told the court that the relevant protections would not address their immediate concern while implementation remains phased. The government’s answer to the court may clarify how it intends any intermediary-rule change to fit alongside that framework.

What remains undecided

No final amendment, commencement date or compliance timetable has been announced in the court discussion. It remains unclear whether a future restriction would apply only to new accounts or also to accounts that under-18 users already hold. The scope of “social media” and any treatment of messaging, gaming, educational or mixed-purpose services also require definition.

Implementation would pose another set of choices. A rule could require more than a self-declared birthday, but the government has not specified an age-verification method, what information platforms could collect, how parental consent would be checked or what would happen when a user is wrongly identified as a minor. Nor has it set out the consequences for a platform that fails to comply.

Parents and young users therefore should not treat the hearing as a change to account access today. The government has signalled an intention to pursue a binding duty, and the Supreme Court has asked it to address the issue. The practical effect will depend on the wording of a future rule and on any further directions from the court.