The Supreme Court of India has shown deep concern over the ease with which minors independently register accounts on social media platforms, urging the Central government to examine statutory measures to align digital platforms with the law that renders children under 18 legally incapable of entering into contracts. The call came in response to a PIL filed by the NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance.
## Background of the Case
On September 28, 2026, a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the petition filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance. The NGO argues that social media platforms allow children as young as 13 to independently create accounts and accept terms of service—even though under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, minors are legally incompetent to enter into contracts.
Senior Advocate H. S. Phoolka, representing the petitioner, emphasized that these online agreements—terms of service, privacy policies, and user contracts—are void from the outset when entered into by minors.
## Key Legal Provisions in Focus
– **Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872**: Declares that anyone under the age of 18 does not have the capacity to enter a contract.
– **Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875**: Recognizes reaching the age of majority as 18 years.
– **Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021**: They mandate that platforms do due diligence for content that harms children but do not address whether minors can independently enroll on digital platforms under contractual agreements.
– **Section 10A of the Information Technology Act, 2000**: Acknowledges electronic contracts but does not override the incapacity defined under Section 11 of the Contract Act.
## What the Court Asked the Government
During the Monday hearing, the bench asked the Centre to explore creating statutory rules or directives under the relevant IT and intermediary laws. Key directions include:
– Ensuring platforms respect the legal incapacity of minors as defined by contract law.
– Considering an age threshold of 18 years for creating accounts independently, without parental or guardian involvement.
– Embedding any age-related safeguards not merely as guidelines but as statutory requirements within intermediary rules.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, stated that the issue would be examined. CJI Surya Kant and Justice Bagchi insisted that guidelines alone aren’t sufficient—statutory force is essential. The court will revisit the matter in four weeks.
## Risks Highlighted by the Petitioners
The petition underscores several hazards that minors face when allowed to independently access social media:
– Exposure to online grooming, sexual exploitation, and cyberbullying.
– Potential for misuse of personal data and behavioural profiling.
– Risk of encountering age-inappropriate content and other harms affecting mental wellbeing and safety.
## Comparative Norms and Critical Commentary
The petition points out that the standard minimum age of 13—used by many social media platforms—is not officially grounded in Indian law but likely adopted from international norms.
Under the emerging Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) regime, draft provisions include parental consent for processing children’s data. However, the NGOs argue that the DPDP Act is not yet in force and does not expressly deal with the issue of minors entering into online contracts.
## What Comes Next
– The Union Government, through relevant ministries (Electronics & IT, Law & Justice), must respond with its plan to address these legal inconsistencies.
– Possible statutory amendments or rules under the IT Act or Intermediary Rules may be introduced, mandating parental consent or age-verification mechanisms.
– Platforms may be made legally accountable if they fail to comply with the statutory force of such rules.
## Broader Implications
This case touches upon:
– The intersection between contract law and digital rights, exposing how traditional legal incapacity extends into online spaces.
– Data protection frameworks like the DPDP Act, which protect children’s personal data but have yet to enshrine contractual safeguards.
– The responsibility of digital intermediaries to uphold constitutional rights—privacy, dignity, and safety—for minors using their platforms.
The Supreme Court’s move could set a precedent, compelling social media platforms to enforce stricter age restrictions and accountability, while pressing the government to bridge gaps between statutory law and digital practice.
—
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article.
