From Karnataka to Andhra Pradesh, why calls for banning social media for kids are growing

What Happened

Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah announced a ban on social media use for children below 16 years during the state's 2026 budget speech, making Karnataka the first Indian state to move toward such a ban.
Andhra Pradesh announced it would ban social media for children below 13 within 90 days, and is considering extending restrictions to ages 13–16.
Both announcements were prompted by growing concerns about digital addiction, mental health impacts, and online safety for minors.
Legal experts and constitutional analysts have flagged that internet regulation falls under the Union List (Entry 31 of the Seventh Schedule), raising questions about whether state-level bans can be legally enforced against platforms that operate under central regulation.
Australia passed a law in 2025 banning social media for children under 16, cited as international precedent by both state governments.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) already mandates verifiable parental consent before platforms can process personal data of children (defined as those under 18).

Static Topic Bridges

Union List Entry 31 — Telecommunications and Internet: Exclusive Parliamentary Domain

The foundational constitutional issue with state social media bans is the division of legislative powers in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

Article 246(1): Parliament has exclusive power to legislate on matters in List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule.
Entry 31 of the Union List covers: "Posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication." — Courts and governments have consistently interpreted "other like forms of communication" to include internet and digital communications.
States have no competence under List II (State List) to regulate internet platforms or telecommunications services.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 is a central legislation enacted under Parliament's power over the Union List — it governs all internet-related regulation in India, including intermediary liability, platform accountability, and content regulation.
Article 254: Even on Concurrent List subjects, if a state law repugnant to a central law exists, the central law prevails (unless Presidential assent is given to the state law under Article 254(2)).
Internet regulation is not in the Concurrent List — it is exclusively central, making repugnancy irrelevant; state laws would be void ab initio.

Connection to this news: Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh's proposed bans on social media for children — if framed as binding obligations on platforms — would constitute regulation of internet services. Such regulation is constitutionally impermissible for states under Entry 31, Union List. States may adopt policy declarations or awareness campaigns, but binding platform-facing mandates would be constitutionally ultra vires.

The DPDP Act, 2023 is the central framework that already addresses children's online safety through data protection requirements.

Section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023: Data fiduciaries (including social media platforms) must obtain verifiable parental consent before processing personal data of children (defined as persons under 18 years of age).
Section 9(3): Data fiduciaries must not undertake targeted advertising directed at children, and must not track or monitor children's behaviour.
DPDP Rules, 2025 (notified under the Act): Require platforms to implement age verification mechanisms and parental consent workflows.
The Act expressly prohibits data processing of children without parental consent — effectively mandating age-gating at the platform level.
Enforcement is through the Data Protection Board of India (DPBI), a central body.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has stated it is examining age-based restrictions on social media — indicating the Centre, not states, will be the regulatory actor.

Connection to this news: The DPDP Act already creates a nationwide legal framework for children's digital protection. A state ban duplicating or contradicting this framework would face both constitutional invalidity (Union List) and practical implementation barriers (platforms respond to central, not state, mandates).

IT Act 2000 and IT Rules 2021 — Existing Platform Regulation Architecture

India's existing central legislative framework for social media platform regulation operates through the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

IT Act, 2000: Enacted under Entry 31 of the Union List. Section 69A authorises the central government to issue blocking orders to internet platforms — no equivalent state power exists.
IT Rules, 2021 (Rule 3): "Significant Social Media Intermediaries" (SSMIs) with over 50 lakh registered users must appoint a Grievance Officer, Nodal Contact Person, and Chief Compliance Officer — all answerable to central authorities.
Rule 4(4) of IT Rules, 2021: SSMIs should endeavour to deploy technology-based measures for age verification of users.
States cannot issue independent regulatory orders binding on SSMIs — this authority vests only with the central government under the IT Act.
Section 69 of the IT Act: Central government can intercept, monitor, or decrypt information for specified grounds — no parallel state power.

Connection to this news: The practical enforcement pathway for any children's social media ban runs entirely through central legislation and central enforcement. State governments can make policy announcements, but binding enforcement against platforms like Instagram, YouTube, or X requires central government action under the IT Act — a jurisdictional reality that makes state-level bans largely symbolic absent central backing.

International Comparative Framework — Australia's Children's Online Safety Act and Global Trends

The state governments cited Australia's 2025 ban on social media for children under 16 as justification — understanding the Australian model helps assess what is being proposed and how it differs in the Indian context.

Australia enacted the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act, 2024, effective January 2025 — banning children under 16 from social media platforms.
The Australian law places the onus on platforms (not parents or children) to prevent under-age access; non-compliance attracts fines up to AUD 49.5 million.
Age assurance technology (not necessarily ID-based) is used; the law does not mandate identity verification to protect privacy.
In India, by contrast, the DPDP Act places age verification obligations on platforms but does not ban under-18 access entirely — only mandates parental consent for data processing.
Australia's law is national legislation; in India, only Parliament can enact equivalent national legislation, not individual states.

Connection to this news: Karnataka and AP are inspired by Australia's model but lack the legislative competence to replicate it at the state level. The appropriate Indian equivalent would be a central amendment to the IT Act or DPDP Act — which is within the purview of Parliament, not state assemblies.

Key Facts & Data

Karnataka: ban announced for under-16, during state budget 2026 by CM Siddaramaiah.
Andhra Pradesh: ban for under-13 within 90 days; considering 13–16 restriction.
Entry 31 of Union List (Seventh Schedule): telecommunications and "other like forms of communication" — exclusive Parliamentary domain.
IT Act, 2000: central legislation under Entry 31; Section 69A — blocking orders.
IT Rules, 2021: govern Significant Social Media Intermediaries (50 lakh+ users).
DPDP Act, 2023: Section 9 — parental consent mandatory for children's data processing; child = under 18 years.
DPDP Rules, 2025: age verification and parental consent workflows mandated.
Australia's Online Safety Amendment Act: bans under-16 from social media (national legislation, 2025).
MeitY (Ministry of Electronics and IT): stated it is examining age-based restrictions at central level.
Data Protection Board of India (DPBI): enforcement body under DPDP Act.
Article 246(1): Parliament's exclusive power over Union List subjects.