Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Top legal experts split on social media ban for kids

March 07, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance Social Issues GS Paper 2 (Polity Governance)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • Legal experts are divided on whether state governments have the constitutional authority to impose social media bans on children, with many arguing that internet regulation falls exclusively within Parliament's domain.
  • Karnataka became the first Indian state to formally propose banning social media for users under 16, announced in its State Budget 2026, while Andhra Pradesh announced a ban for those under 13.
  • Neither state has enacted implementing legislation, and both announcements lack clarity on enforcement mechanisms, age-verification procedures, or penalties.
  • Constitutional law experts have warned that a binding, platform-facing ban would be "much harder for a state to sustain on its own without running into Centre-State and constitutional questions."
  • The central government is separately considering a pan-India framework, which legal experts broadly regard as the constitutionally appropriate route.

Static Topic Bridges

Centre-State Legislative Relations — Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule

Article 246 of the Constitution distributes legislative power between Parliament and state legislatures through the Seventh Schedule, which contains three lists: List I (Union List — exclusive parliamentary domain), List II (State List — exclusive state domain), and List III (Concurrent List — both may legislate, Parliament's law prevails in case of conflict under Article 254).

  • Entry 31 of the Union List (List I): "Posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication." — Courts have interpreted this to include the internet as a form of electronic communication.
  • Entry 97 (Union List): Residuary powers — Parliament legislates on matters not enumerated in any list; internet regulation also falls here to the extent not captured by Entry 31.
  • List II (State List) covers subjects like law and order, public health, and local government — none of which directly confer authority to regulate the operations of national or global social media platforms.
  • State laws that "trench upon" subjects in the Union List are void under Article 246(1) read with the doctrine of repugnancy.
  • Even under List III (Concurrent List), where both Parliament and states may legislate, a state law is repugnant to a central law on the same subject if they are irreconcilable — the central law prevails.

Connection to this news: Social media platforms operate as communication intermediaries under the IT Act, 2000 — a central law enacted under List I. A state law purporting to ban such platforms for certain users would risk being struck down as encroaching on Parliament's exclusive domain.

Information Technology Act, 2000 and Intermediary Liability

The IT Act, 2000 is the comprehensive central legislation governing cybercrime, electronic records, digital signatures, and intermediary (platform) liability. Its scope explicitly includes social media companies operating in India. The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, made under Section 87 of the IT Act, are the primary regulatory instrument for social media intermediaries.

  • "Intermediary" under Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act covers any entity that stores, receives, or transmits electronic messages on behalf of another — explicitly including social media platforms.
  • Section 79: Safe harbour for intermediaries — platforms are not liable for user-generated content if they comply with the IT Rules.
  • IT Rules, 2021: Impose obligations including appointment of a Grievance Redressal Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, and Nodal Contact Person in India; monthly compliance reports; content takedown within 36 hours of government orders.
  • "Significant Social Media Intermediaries" (SSMIs) — platforms with over 50 lakh registered users — face enhanced obligations under the Rules.
  • Any age-specific access restriction placed on platforms as a binding legal obligation would need to operate through the IT Act framework — requiring either an amendment to the Act or new rules under Section 87.

Connection to this news: The state-level bans, even if sincere in intent, lack a workable legal mechanism: they cannot compel global social media platforms through state law, since platform-facing obligations can only be created under central law (IT Act/DPDP Act).

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — Existing Age Safeguards

The DPDP Act, 2023 already establishes the baseline national framework for protecting children's data online. Section 9 requires data fiduciaries to obtain verifiable parental or guardian consent before processing personal data of anyone under 18. This is enforceable against platforms across India — a national-level standard that state laws cannot supersede.

  • Penalty for violation of Section 9 obligations: Up to Rs 200 crore under the DPDP Act's Schedule of Penalties.
  • The Data Protection Board of India — the adjudicating authority — is a central body; state governments have no role in its functioning.
  • DPDP Act provides the framework; rules provide operational detail — including how platforms verify parental consent.
  • A state-level ban that conflicts with or goes beyond the DPDP Act's age-based consent model could face a repugnancy challenge under Article 254.

Connection to this news: The existing DPDP Act framework illustrates why legal experts argue the appropriate level for age-based social media regulation is the central government, not individual states.

Key Facts & Data

  • Article 246: Distributes legislative power — List I (Union, exclusive to Parliament), List II (State), List III (Concurrent).
  • Entry 31, Union List: Posts, telegraphs, telephones, wireless, broadcasting — interpreted to include the internet.
  • IT Act, 2000: Central law; Section 2(1)(w) defines "intermediary" to include social media platforms.
  • IT Rules, 2021: Platforms with 50+ lakh users classified as Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), subject to enhanced compliance obligations.
  • DPDP Act, 2023: Section 9 — verifiable parental consent required before processing data of anyone under 18.
  • Karnataka: Proposed ban for under-16s (State Budget 2026) — no implementing legislation enacted.
  • Andhra Pradesh: Proposed ban for under-13s — no implementing legislation enacted.
  • Australia: National law banning under-16 social media access enacted November 2024 — platform-facing obligations with fines up to AUD 50 million.
  • Article 254: In case of repugnancy between state and central law on a Concurrent List subject, central law prevails (with Presidential assent exception for state laws).