Legal Experts Express Doubts Over State-Level Social Media Bans for Children
At a time when parents across India are increasingly concerned about the negative impacts of screen addiction among adolescents, legal luminaries have weighed in on proposed moves by Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh to ban social media access for children below a certain age. While appreciating the intent behind these initiatives, experts including former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi have raised significant questions about the pertinence and effectiveness of such legislative or executive interventions.
Central vs. State Jurisdiction Concerns
TOI consulted a spectrum of legal authorities - former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, and senior advocates A M Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and Devadatt Kamat - regarding the complex problem of regulating children's social media access. A primary concern emerged: telecommunication and information technology fall squarely within the law-making domain of the central government, raising constitutional questions about states enacting individual legislation on this matter.
Rohatgi expressed skepticism about implementation, stating: "Telecommunication and IT are central subjects. States should not enact laws individually. It will create confusion. It should be left to the central government which can bring legislation in Parliament to address the issue pan-India."
Education Over Prohibition: Gogoi's Perspective
Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, speaking as both a legal expert and a grandfather to impressionable grandchildren, offered a nuanced perspective: "Social media is here to stay. Instead of banning children from accessing it, it would be better to educate them about its constructive usage. Older generations must teach them its benefits because it provides instant reach to a vast knowledge base. Why should children be deprived of its tremendous benefits?"
When questioned about Australia's ban on under-16s accessing platforms like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and Threads, Gogoi emphasized India's unique social context: "We have very different social values and structures compared to Australia. We do not have to follow other countries blindly. Our strong social bonds and parental relations would be helpful in guiding children to use social media beneficially."
Balancing Regulation with Fundamental Rights
Senior advocate A M Singhvi acknowledged the laudable objective behind proposed regulatory frameworks: "Across the political spectrum, suffering parents, teachers and elders will endorse the deleterious impact of unlimited social media access on impressionable young minds." However, he cautioned that "both God and Devil reside in the details," emphasizing that proper implementation without harassment would be the real test.
Rakesh Dwivedi highlighted constitutional considerations: "The ban should not be absolute as children too have a fundamental right to communication and information. The ban should focus on putrid content being placed on social media without adequate safeguards to prevent children from accessing such undesirable content."
Mental Health and Legislative Competence
Devadatt Kamat, a father of two impressionable children, stressed the importance of safeguarding the next generation's mental health from the harmful effects of unlimited social media access. He noted an interesting legal avenue: while communication falls exclusively within the central government's legislative competence, states could potentially introduce regulatory mechanisms under the broader subject of public health.
The consensus among legal experts suggests that while protecting children from social media's potential harms is crucial, blanket state-level bans may not be the most effective or constitutionally sound approach. Instead, they advocate for a more nuanced strategy combining education, parental guidance, and carefully crafted central legislation that respects children's rights while providing necessary safeguards.
