By Amit Kumar & Ekamdeep Kaur
There is growing concern about social media use, particularly among children. A recent UN report (2026) also noted that more than two-thirds of the children reported an increase in cyberbullying. Various instances in India have come into the media, which have brought this issue to the forefront.
The triple suicide case in Ghaziabad, where three minor sisters aged 12,14 and 16 died by suicide after severe restrictions were imposed on them on mobile usage (4th February 2026). Similarly, in 2024, a 15-year-old boy in Pune died by suicide after days of gaming, and in 2020, the suicide of a 17-year-old boy in Gurugram after being bullied on Instagram.
Moreover, cases of cyberbullying, online fraud, threats from online pornography, mental health issues like anxiety, lack of sleep, hopelessness, etc., and internet addiction were some of the pressing issues that need urgent attention. As the UN report notes, in 2024, more than 90% of children had access to smartphones and regularly used them for social media. The Economic Survey 2025-26 has also highlighted the issue of rising digital addiction. In another survey of urban parents, 49 % reported that their children spent more than three hours on social media.
Such incidents in our country and across the world have sparked debates about the use of social media among the younger generation, especially teenagers. Keeping in view the rising concerns, the governments of many countries, and more recently, a few state governments of India, have brought out measures to safeguard the privacy and mental health of children.
The Chief Minister of Karnataka, Siddaramaiah, announced a ban on social media for children below the age of 16 in his state budget speech, to reduce the time students spend on social media.
Within a few hours of his announcement, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, N Chandrababu Naidu, set a 90-day deadline to implement a ban on social media, targeting children under 13. The state is also exploring a “grading” approach that would allow monitored, restricted access for children aged 13 to 16, rather than outright prohibition. It is also believed that the Central government is considering graded restrictions.
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh are not acting in a vacuum. Their social media bans are a part of a growing global wave of digital containment policies for minors, with Australia leading the charge in December 2025. Australia in 2024 proposed one of the strictest regulations globally, legally banning social media for anyone under 16, with no parental exceptions.
Platforms like Meta (Instagram and Facebook) and TikTok may be required to verify users' age and block underage accounts, and if any platform fails to comply with the rules and regulations, it is made to pay a fine of up to 50 million dollars. France banned social media for under-15s and passed a law requiring parental consent for children under 15 to create social media accounts. Eight states in the USA have enacted laws banning social media or requiring parental consent for its use.
China has strict digital controls for minors. For example, platforms like Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok, offer a youth mode that limits screen time and restricts content. The Online Safety Act 2023 in the United Kingdom requires platforms to protect children from harmful content and to strengthen age-verification systems. In Indonesia, a ban on those under 16 is set to begin in
March 2026, specifically targeting high-risk platforms like TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and other gaming platforms.
The main arguments in favor of the banning of social media platforms are that it protects the mental health and well-being of children by improving sleep disruptions, anxiety, depression, and academic performance. The ban can also shield vulnerable children early from cyberbullying and age-inappropriate or explicit content. Platforms are designed to be addictive, and young users
lack self-regulatory capacities. Governments also argue that they are using the bans as precautionary measures to create a safe digital environment for all and thereby minimise potential harm.
Nobody can argue that the above issues are serious and pertinent and need urgent attention. However, there is no credible evidence that suggests that banning social media is a solution.
Even the countries that have prohibited it are struggling to implement it. It is much more difficult in a complex, unequal society like India's. It is argued that regulatory provisions governing the digital sphere are primarily under the purview of the Central government rather than the states. Therefore, these bans might be legally untenable and constitutionally inconsistent.
The problem is not only behavioral in nature but also structural, as platforms are designed in such a way that draws attention and makes people addicted. Therefore, the regulatory focus of the government should be on platforms that design these attention-seeking systems. The courts in US states have found the platforms liable for designing in such ways.
Banning may drive children to use less-regulated or unsafe platforms. Adolescents tend to bypass the regulations by using VPNs or using fake birth dates. Also in India, a significant proportion of children use the devices owned by their parents or use their parents' accounts, which again makes the enforcement of the ban difficult.
Further, India already has legislation that requires age verification and parental consent. For example, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 requires that digital platforms obtain parental consent for using children's data and put restrictions on them for tracking their behavior. But its enforcement has to be strengthened. Additionally, online verification of age also has ramifications on privacy.
The digital reality of India is very different from what we observe in the developed world. More than 50 per cent of the population still lives in rural or semi-urban India, where digital access enables online learning, networking, and digital literacy. Women and marginalised sections of society generally use shared devices in the households. A ban in these conditions will inevitably be exclusionary for them. Digital devices serve an important role in accessing education, networking, and finding emotional support. An outright ban might further exacerbate the existing education inequalities and prevent people from finding new opportunities.
Ban alone is neither sufficient nor desirable. There is a need to shift from a ban towards a regulation that focuses on algorithmic control and makes the platform responsible. We need to address the structural causes, which are addictive platform designs and data-driven engagement systems.
The focus should be on digital literacy, where the children and parents are equipped to deal with and manage risks associated with social media, and therefore, focus on capacity building.
Instead of having blanket bans, we should move towards calibrated regulations that balance and target issues such as promoting age-appropriate designs of the platforms, and school-level interaction towards digital literacy. Lastly, the Centre should lead the regulations, avoiding state-level fragmented regulations.
Exposure to digital tools is crucial in an era where digitization and AI have become part of the lifestyle and prepare them for the future. The real challenge lies in governing the digital ecosystem, its incentives, design, and access through a framework that balances protection with participation. In that sense, the question is not whether to ban social media for children, but how to design a safer digital environment without excluding them.
(Amit Kumar is an Assistant Professor, Department of Economics and Fellow at the Centre for Social and Policy Research, Christ University, and Ekamdeep Kaur is pursuing BSc (H) Economics from Christ University, Delhi NCR.)
The views expressed are not necessarily those of The South Asian Times
