Should India Ban Social Media For Minors As Macron Recommended At AI Summit?

Alvira Rehman, a class 12th student, said that she has been able to stay in touch with many of her connections because of social media. Besides, being online helps her keep up with political affairs, saying “keeping up with the news was never this convenient.”

She has been a regular user of social media since she was 15 and considers it an integral part of her life. Now 17, she said that if the government tries to implement a social media ban, she would definitely “resist and try to bypass it.” 

During his keynote speech at the India-AI Impact Summit on Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron urged India to explore banning social media access for children. 

Macron called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to “join the club” with France, Spain and several other European nations which are considering similar measures after Australia prohibited social media use for those under 16 last year. 

India is in discussions with social media companies on introducing age-based restrictions, IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said earlier this month. "This is something which has now been accepted by many countries that age-based regulation has to be there," Vaishnaw told reporters at the AI Impact Summit.

However, for India, one of the world’s fastest-growing digital countries, the situation may prove more complex. The country, which recently hosted a comprehensive AI summit and boasts deep digital expansion, recorded a staggering 1,002 million internet subscribers between April and June 2025, underscoring the scale and sensitivity of any potential restrictions. 

In Australia, children and parents are not penalised for violating the ban. Instead, social media companies can be fined up to A$49.5 million (US$32 million, £25 million) for serious or repeated violations. In India, however, digital access is largely shaped by shared devices, with a single smartphone often used by parents and kids within the same household, making enforcement of age-based restrictions more challenging.

Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Goa are amongst the few Indian states considering a ban on social media access for children, signalling that the debate over regulating young users is gaining momentum in India.

While this move could be a setback for companies like Meta or Snapchat, India’s data protection framework mandates that technology companies offering services to users under 18 must obtain verifiable parental consent. 

It also prohibits behavioural tracking and targeted advertising directed at children. Although the framework has been officially notified, it is yet to be enforced, The Indian Express reported. The Economic Survey 2025–26 also highlighted concerns about “digital addiction” among young users.

Studies and surveys conducted between 2023 and 2026 by Oxford Academia indicate that Indian students and young people aged 9–24 spend an average between 3-7 hours per day on social media platforms. Other research has linked excessive usage to serious mental health concerns, including anxiety, depression, cyberbullying and body image issues.

Hiya Tingloo, who turned 18 earlier this month, said that when the government banned Tik Tok in 2020, she did try to circumvent the ban. In all likelihood, she said she would “definitely try accessing social media platforms by using VPNs or by entering a false birth date” in case the government banned the social media usage for people her age. 

A blanket ban in India has to overcome a highly complex digital landscape, including the world’s largest user bases for platforms like Instagram and Facebook. “A blanket ban provides only a comforting illusion of control,” Apar Gupta, founding director of the Internet Freedom Foundation said. 

He explained that effective enforcement of an age-based ban represents a profound regulatory paradox, as the available mechanisms either fail entirely or severely violate user privacy. He said that platforms currently rely on self-declaration, where users simply input a date of birth.

“To counter this evasion, the state would be forced to mandate hard identity verification, requiring every single user to upload government-issued IDs (like Aadhaar) or submit to biometric facial scanning,” he said, adding that such mandates would destroy online anonymity, creating a massive surveillance infrastructure and centralising sensitive data that is highly vulnerable to breaches; in effect sacrificing the fundamental privacy rights of all citizens while still failing to stop determined minors.

Dr. Ramanand, Director of Center of Policy Research and Governance, stated that while considering a ban for a country like India, many nuances need to be taken into consideration. 

While the Center’s own research found that adolescents are spending significant amounts of time online, Ramanand stated that it is important to also factor in whether the person is using their own device or their guardian’s to access social media; or are they using it to build connections or create content?

“It is also crucial to see if the government is proposing a digital detox or a blanket ban, because we have seen enough incidents where sudden changes like denying usage of social media or video games have led to extreme reactions by teenagers,” Ramanan said. He said the government would need to undertake thorough planning and adopt a phased approach if it decides to move ahead with a ban.

In India’s case, another factor to be considered is the prevalent digital divide, which also transcends into access to healthcare, education or financial service for marginalised and rural communities. Pursuing blunt age-based digital restrictions fundamentally contradicts goals of bridging the digital divide, Gupta said, saying that such restrictions disproportionately harm marginalised communities and exacerbate the gender digital divide.

“For many young girls and economically disadvantaged adolescents, smartphones and social media are critical lifelines for digital literacy, educational content, and social mobility,” he said. Currently, only 33.3 per cent of Indian women report having ever used the internet, compared to 57.1 per cent of men. 

Furthermore, Ramanand said a ban solely does not fall in the purview of the IT ministry, but also the health ministry. “A sudden ban can affect a person’s mental health, and the government should provide access to counsellors specialising and educated in digital cases,” he said. 

Tingloo admitted that social media platforms keep her connected with a lot of people and is a major part of her social life, adding that while a ban might not affect her mental health, “it will definitely be difficult to get used to.”

However, regulating platforms does not automatically translate to elimination of screen time or digital engagement. 

“Adolescents, who are frequently more digitally literate than the policymakers drafting these laws, simply move to unmonitored digital spaces such as encrypted messaging forums,” Gupta mentioned, explaining that these unregulated environments, severe risks such as grooming, cyberbullying, and exposure to extremist content thrive without any institutional oversight, moderation policies, or reporting mechanisms. 

Furthermore, Gupta concluded that the momentum for banning social media for minors is currently driven by state governments in India. However, under the Indian Constitution, state governments entirely lack the legislative competence to enact these bans. The architecture of internet governance is governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and is exclusively federal.