Introduction:

The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to consider a representation seeking a regulatory framework to protect children from potential harms associated with social media platforms, including restrictions on access for children below 13 years and greater safeguards for those between 13 and 16 years of age. The Court’s order places the issue within the broader policy debate concerning children’s digital safety, exposure to inappropriate online material, privacy and the responsibilities of social media intermediaries.

The directions were issued by a Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh in Ms Kirti Dua and Another v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) 10485/2026, along with CM APPL. 48582/2026.

The petition raised concerns regarding the increasing exposure of children to social media platforms and online content that may adversely affect their psychological well-being. The petitioners sought formulation and implementation of guidelines aimed specifically at protecting children in different age groups from inappropriate, exploitative and potentially harmful digital content.

Among the principal reliefs sought was the introduction of restrictions on social media access for children below the age of 13 years. In respect of children between 13 and 16 years, the petition contemplated additional safeguards, including restrictions on access during overnight hours. The petitioners referred to these proposed restrictions as “Overnight Curfews” on access to social media platforms.

The plea also sought measures to prevent the circulation of inappropriate and exploitative material that could adversely affect the psychological health of children. In addition, it called for stricter implementation of existing statutory protections, including the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Another aspect of the petition concerned privacy. The petitioners sought directions for supervision of the functioning of social media intermediaries to ensure proper implementation of privacy policies specifically formulated for children.

The petition therefore involved issues extending beyond an individual grievance. It raised questions about the adequacy of the existing legal and regulatory framework governing children’s interaction with social media and whether additional policy interventions were required to address the changing nature of digital risks.

During the proceedings, the Central Government took the position that the reliefs sought were essentially within the domain of policy. The Centre stated that if the petitioners made an appropriate representation, the Government would consider and decide it in accordance with law.

The Government’s submission was significant because the Court was being asked to formulate or direct implementation of broad regulatory measures concerning social media access by children. Such measures can involve technological, regulatory, administrative and legislative considerations, as well as consultation with multiple stakeholders.

The petitioners had also placed on record a note containing suggestions dated August 20, 2026. The suggestions apparently elaborated upon the measures that the petitioners believed were necessary to strengthen protection of children in the digital environment.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, one of the social media intermediaries, also addressed the Court. He submitted that when the Central Government considers such a representation, it ordinarily takes into account the views of relevant stakeholders, including intermediaries operating social media platforms.

Against this background, the Division Bench considered it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Central Government to examine the representation together with the petitioners’ note of suggestions and pass a reasoned order.

The Court did not itself prescribe an age-based social media ban, impose an overnight curfew or formulate binding regulations for social media platforms. Instead, it adopted a judicially restrained approach by requiring the competent policy-making authority to consider the concerns raised by the petitioners.

The Court also left it open to the Central Government to hear the petitioners’ representatives if it considered such a hearing appropriate while deciding the representation.

The order consequently represents a balance between judicial intervention and institutional competence. While recognising the seriousness of concerns relating to children’s online safety, the Court did not assume the role of the executive or legislature in designing a comprehensive regulatory policy.

The matter is particularly relevant in an era where children increasingly interact with digital platforms for education, communication, entertainment and social engagement. At the same time, such access can expose minors to harmful content, privacy risks, online exploitation, cyberbullying and other forms of digital harm.

The petitioners’ demand for differentiated protections based on age reflects the understanding that children below 13 years and adolescents between 13 and 16 years may require different levels of protection and supervision.

The legal framework referred to in the petition already contains provisions relevant to information technology, personal data protection and protection of children from sexual offences. The petitioners, however, sought stronger and more effective implementation of these existing laws alongside additional safeguards tailored specifically to social media usage.

The High Court’s order does not determine whether such measures should ultimately be introduced. That question has been left for consideration by the Central Government in accordance with law.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners, Ms Kirti Dua and Another, approached the Delhi High Court seeking comprehensive safeguards for children using social media platforms. Their case was founded on concerns that unrestricted or inadequately regulated access to digital platforms could expose children to material and interactions capable of causing serious psychological, emotional and developmental harm.

The petitioners sought a framework under which children below 13 years would face restrictions on access to social media platforms. For children between 13 and 16 years, they proposed a separate set of safeguards, including restrictions on access during overnight hours.

The proposed “Overnight Curfews” were aimed at limiting children’s access to social media during late-night hours. The petitioners sought such measures as part of a broader protective framework rather than as an isolated restriction.

The petitioners also expressed concern over the circulation of inappropriate and exploitative content. They sought guidelines designed to prevent children from being exposed to material that could adversely affect their psychological health.

The plea further called for stricter implementation of existing laws. The petitioners referred to the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides the broader statutory framework governing electronic activity and intermediaries; the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which contains provisions concerning processing and protection of digital personal data; and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which establishes legal protections against sexual offences involving children.

According to the petitioners’ case, the existence of statutory provisions alone was insufficient unless they were effectively implemented in the context of social media platforms and the particular vulnerabilities of children.

The petitioners also sought oversight concerning the operation of social media intermediaries. Their objective was to ensure that privacy policies specifically applicable to children were not merely formulated but properly implemented.

The underlying submission was that children constitute a particularly vulnerable class of users and therefore require safeguards beyond those ordinarily available to adult users. The petitioners sought a regulatory mechanism that would take into account the age of the user and the specific risks associated with children’s online activity.

They also placed before the Court a detailed note of suggestions dated August 20, 2026. The note was intended to assist the Government in considering possible policy measures and in addressing the concerns raised in the petition.

The Central Government, however, submitted that the reliefs sought involved matters falling substantially within the domain of policy. According to the Centre, decisions concerning age restrictions, social media access, overnight limitations and regulation of digital platforms involve complex policy considerations that are appropriately addressed by the executive and other competent authorities.

The Government nevertheless informed the Court that if the petitioners submitted a representation, it would be considered and decided in accordance with law.

This position effectively provided a mechanism through which the petitioners’ concerns could be examined by the competent authority without requiring the High Court to itself formulate a comprehensive social media policy.

The intervention of Meta, represented by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, added another dimension to the proceedings. Appearing on behalf of one of the social media intermediaries, Datar submitted that when the Central Government considers a representation of this nature, it generally takes into account the views of stakeholders, including the intermediaries themselves.

The submission recognised that any regulatory framework concerning children’s access to social media would have practical implications for platforms that are required to implement age-related restrictions, content safeguards, privacy measures and other regulatory requirements.

The involvement of intermediaries is particularly relevant because many proposed safeguards require technological implementation. Age verification, restrictions based on age categories, content moderation, parental controls, privacy settings and limitations on access may require coordination between government authorities, technology companies and other stakeholders.

The respondents therefore maintained, directly or indirectly, that the issue should be examined through the appropriate policy process rather than being determined exclusively through judicial directions.

The Court considered these submissions in deciding the appropriate course of action.

The petitioners had raised concerns that required consideration, but the Court was not presented with a situation in which it was necessary for the judiciary to immediately create an entirely new regulatory framework. The Central Government had expressed willingness to consider a representation, creating an available administrative route for examining the requested measures.

The Court therefore chose not to adjudicate the broader policy question at this stage. Instead, it directed the Central Government to consider the writ petition along with the note of suggestions already filed by the petitioners.

This approach also ensured that the concerns of all relevant stakeholders could potentially be considered. The Court specifically observed that the Government could, if it considered appropriate, give a hearing to representatives of the petitioners while considering the representation.

The respondents’ position thus prevailed to the extent that the formulation of the requested guidelines was left to the competent authority. However, the petitioners succeeded in securing a direction requiring the Government to consider their concerns and pass a reasoned order.

The Court’s direction therefore did not amount to an outright rejection of the concerns raised by the petitioners. Instead, it required the executive authority to formally examine those concerns within the framework of law and policy.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, disposed of the writ petition by directing the Central Government to consider the petitioners’ representation together with their note of suggestions dated August 20, 2026.

The Court’s approach was substantially influenced by the Central Government’s submission that the reliefs sought involved matters falling within the policy domain. The Centre informed the Court that if a representation was made, it would consider the same and take a decision in accordance with law.

The Court accepted this course as an appropriate means of addressing the issues raised before it.

The Bench observed that, since the Government would consider representations of this nature after taking into account relevant stakeholder views, it was appropriate to direct respondent No. 1 to consider the writ petition along with the petitioners’ note of suggestions and pass a reasoned order.

This direction is significant because the Court did not simply dispose of the petition without requiring any administrative consideration. Instead, it imposed an obligation upon the competent authority to examine the issues raised and issue a reasoned decision.

The requirement of a reasoned order is an important element of administrative decision-making. It ensures that the concerns placed before the authority are considered meaningfully and that the eventual decision reflects the reasons for accepting, rejecting or modifying the proposed measures.

The Court also granted liberty to the Central Government to hear representatives of the petitioners if it considered such a hearing appropriate. This preserves flexibility in the decision-making process while recognising that the petitioners had raised a range of policy suggestions concerning children’s online safety.

Importantly, the Court did not itself direct the implementation of the requested age restrictions. There was no judicial direction imposing an immediate prohibition on social media access for children below 13 years, nor was an overnight social media curfew imposed upon children aged 13 to 16 years.

Similarly, the Court did not itself prescribe a new mechanism for regulating social media content or supervising intermediaries.

Instead, the Court left these questions to the competent authority.

This restraint is legally significant. Courts can examine the legality of governmental action and issue appropriate directions where rights or legal obligations are implicated. However, when a petition seeks the creation of an extensive regulatory framework involving technological standards, enforcement mechanisms, age verification systems and stakeholder consultation, the formulation of policy may require specialised institutional assessment.

The present order reflects that distinction.

The petition raised concerns regarding children’s psychological well-being and exposure to inappropriate or exploitative online material. The Court’s direction ensures that those concerns are formally placed before the Central Government for consideration.

The proposed safeguards cover several interconnected areas. The first concerns age-based access to social media. The petitioners proposed stronger restrictions for children below 13 years and additional safeguards for those between 13 and 16 years.

The second concerns timing of access. The proposed overnight curfew would restrict social media use during specified late-night hours for children in the 13-to-16 age bracket.

The third concerns content. The petitioners sought measures against circulation of inappropriate and exploitative material affecting children’s psychological health.

The fourth concerns implementation of existing laws. The petitioners sought stricter enforcement of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The fifth concerns privacy and intermediary accountability. The petition sought oversight mechanisms to ensure that children’s privacy policies adopted by social media intermediaries are actually implemented.

By directing the Central Government to consider the representation and suggestions, the Court ensured that these issues would receive consideration within the appropriate policy framework.

The Court’s direction also takes into account the practical role of social media intermediaries. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, pointed out that the Government generally considers the views of stakeholders, including intermediaries, when dealing with such representations.

This observation is relevant because effective regulation of children’s social media use cannot necessarily be achieved through legal commands alone. Implementation may involve technology, platform architecture, data processing, content moderation, age assurance, privacy protections and mechanisms for parental or guardian involvement.

Any policy in this area may also have to balance children’s safety with other considerations such as privacy, access to information, freedom of expression and the practical realities of age verification.

The Court’s decision to refer the matter to the Central Government therefore allows those competing considerations to be evaluated by the authority responsible for policy formulation.

The judgment also illustrates the principle of institutional restraint. The Court recognised the seriousness of the petitioners’ concerns but did not itself assume responsibility for drafting an extensive regulatory regime.

Instead, it required the executive to consider the proposals and take a reasoned decision.

The order is particularly relevant because social media regulation involving children presents a rapidly evolving legal and technological challenge. The nature of online platforms changes quickly, and regulatory measures may need to adapt to new forms of content, algorithms, communication tools and privacy risks.

A policy framework may therefore require consultation with government agencies, technology companies, child protection experts, educators, parents and other stakeholders.

The Court’s direction provides an avenue for such consideration.

The requirement to pass a reasoned order also ensures that the petitioners’ concerns cannot simply be ignored. The Central Government must consider the writ petition along with the note of suggestions placed on record and decide the matter in accordance with law.

The Court further left open the possibility of hearing the petitioners’ representatives, thereby ensuring that their proposals can be explained or clarified during the decision-making process if the Government considers such a hearing necessary.

The ultimate outcome is therefore neither a judicial endorsement nor a rejection of the proposed restrictions. The Court has not held that children below 13 years must be barred from social media, nor that children between 13 and 16 years must be subjected to overnight restrictions.

Instead, it has required the Government to consider whether such measures, or other appropriate safeguards, should be adopted.

This distinction is important when understanding the scope of the order. The High Court has facilitated consideration of a policy demand rather than itself creating the policy.

The decision also demonstrates how constitutional courts can address emerging social and technological concerns without exceeding the boundaries of judicial function. Where an issue involves broad questions of policy and regulation, the Court may direct the competent authority to consider a representation rather than prescribe detailed rules itself.

At the same time, the Court’s intrvention ensures that the concerns raised by citizens are not left without cons