Social media ban for Under-16s: Is Australia-style law feasible in India?
Educationists, psychologists and digital rights experts caution that focusing narrowly on children’s access risks missing the larger problem of how social media platforms themselves operate
After Australia enacted a landmark law banning social media access for children under 16, ministers in Andhra Pradesh and Goa have said their governments are considering similar restrictions. But is such a ban feasible in India, a vastly different social and technological context, and will it address the deeper harms associated with children’s digital lives?
Australia’s law places the onus on social media platforms to prevent children under the age of 16 from accessing their services, making it the first country to introduce a nationwide age-based restriction of this kind. Framed as a child safety measure, the law requires major platforms to take responsibility for age verification and compliance, rather than relying on parents or children themselves, and empowers regulators to impose heavy penalties for failures. While the move has been welcomed by some child welfare advocates, it has also prompted debate over enforcement, privacy, and whether platform regulation, rather than age bans, offers a more effective response to online harms.
What experts said
In India, educationists, psychologists and digital rights experts caution that focusing narrowly on children’s access risks missing the larger problem of how social media platforms themselves operate. They argue that without stronger regulation of platforms, credible enforcement mechanisms, and evidence-based policymaking, simply blocking children’s access to social media will offer little real protection.
Also read: Australia’s social media ban leads to drop in followers, sparks mixed public response
“My first concern is: why are we only talking about banning children’s use of social media without seriously regulating social media itself? Does this mean we are giving these platforms total freedom to put up whatever they want, and then only trying to control children’s access?” said Educationist Anita Rampal.
She pointed to international evidence on the harms of excessive digital exposure. “It’s not just social media; excessive screen time and even digital education have been shown to be harmful for children. This is not an opinion; studies from Denmark and Sweden show this clearly, and after nearly 15 years, they are now moving back to paper textbooks and reducing digital use in classrooms. What is important is that countries conduct rigorous studies and then take action based on evidence, not just opinion,” she said.
Rampal argued that without stricter oversight of platforms, bans on children would have limited impact. “Until social media itself is made less toxic, simply banning children’s access will not solve the problem. We know that social media creates toxicity, not just for individuals, but especially for adolescents, who become unsociable and grow up in unnatural ways, believing they have friends online when research clearly shows this can be very damaging. Regulation must be much stricter and different for young people than for adults. This also includes regulating generative AI, because we already know of cases where AI systems have encouraged children to commit suicide,” she said.
“At the same time, we must talk about data extraction – children are being used as captive audiences, their digital footprints, emotions and interactions with other users on digital platforms are recorded in detail, and their data is sold to third parties. Banning one platform is not enough; we need a far more careful, rigorous, and independently researched comprehensive approach,” she added.
Student’s views
Questions of feasibility loom large in India, particularly given patterns of device access. Zoya Vickers, a Class 10 student of Modern School, Barakhamba Road in Delhi, said the Australian model does not translate easily. In Australia, she noted, children typically have personal phones and devices, whereas in India many children, especially in lower-income households, share phones with parents or siblings. This means “the Australian model cannot be effectively implemented in India without substantial changes.”
Also read: When less becomes more: Why India's Gen Z is redefining consumption, opting for 'minimalism'
Vickers argued that engagement rather than prohibition may work better. “Instead, working with guardians and educators through educational campaigns to help children navigate social media in a safe and meaningful manner could yield better results,” she said.
She also highlighted the opportunities social media provides. “Social media, like Instagram, provides children with the platform to discover and avail of extracurricular opportunities. For example, the MUN (Model United Nations) community heavily relies on social media to promote and publicise events. I registered for my first MUN and my first essay writing competition through Instagram,” she said.
While acknowledging that the push for restrictions may be well-intentioned, she warned of misplaced priorities. “While this effort may be coming from a good place, it could lead to the misdirection of government resources. It is important to ensure that these decisions are made in the interest of the people, not purely imitating the actions of vastly different nations,” she said.
‘Decisions not easy’
Digital rights expert Nikhil Pahwa also said he was a “bit unsure” about a ban, pointing to competing concerns.
“At one level, I recognise that we're in the midst of a global dopamine epidemic that is resulting in people being constantly distracted, attention spans lowering, focus shrinking, and also that younger people are likely to be influenced by what they see influencers doing on these platforms at a point in time where their critical thinking skills are still developing and they're susceptible to influence,” he said.
Also read: Act on obscene content or face action, govt warns social media firms
“On the other hand, I recognise that people go through a journey of growing up after the age of 13: they discover themselves, learn how to react to their environment, and process of personality and agency developing takes place from the age of 13-14 onwards, and we have to allow them to take charge of, and responsibility for, their own decisions, albeit gradually. These decisions are not easy, and I don't envy any government here,” Pahwa added.
On enforcement, he pointed to gaps in India’s data protection framework. “Age verification is already a part of the DPDPA (Digital Personal Data Protection Act), and it is mandatory for those below the age of 18. Technically, if the DPDPA is enforced, then a social media ban should be possible to enforce,” he said.
“However, the Ministry of Electronics and IT has created a workaround by allowing children to self-declare, and that means they don't need to use VPNs. They just need to lie and not declare that they're under 18. I'm not sure if these rules will hold up in the court of law because these rules appear to be in violation of the parent data protection law. How age verification will actually happen is in the DPDPA rules. Whether that is sufficient, only time will tell,” he said.
Depressive and anxiety symptoms
From a mental health perspective, psychologists stress that the effects of social media are complex and uneven.
“Research links heavier social media engagement with higher rates of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Online harassment is frequent and can prolong distress outside school hours; it often appears as sleep disturbance, school avoidance, or psychosomatic complaints,” said Dr. Roma Kumar, a psychologist.
She added that “repeated exposure to appearance-focused content can trigger appearance dissatisfaction and eating concerns in vulnerable youths”, and that “night-time use and rapid content switching undermine sleep and executive functioning; parents often report mood swings, daytime tiredness, reduced homework persistence.”
At the same time, Kumar cautioned against a one-sided view. “However, it’s not purely harmful. Social connection, identity exploration, access to support are crucial during this period,” she said.
Consequences due to ban
Kumar warned that abrupt bans could have unintended consequences. “Adolescence is a developmental window where peer feedback and shared culture matter for identity. Removing widely used communication channels can make kids feel socially excluded or ‘out of the loop,’ which increases loneliness and can worsen self-esteem,” she said.
“Young people learn how to present, self-monitor, and navigate boundaries online, skills that are increasingly necessary. I’ve seen adolescents who were abruptly shielded struggle later with online boundaries or with the shame/fear of catching up when eventually (or secretly) exposed,” she added.
Kumar argued that “blanket bans are blunt instruments”, which can “reduce exposure to harmful content but also cut off connection, education, and support”.
“Many professional bodies and recent policy reviews recommend harm-reduction through regulation plus guided use rather than simple prohibition,” Kumar said.
“Instead of positioning social media as the ‘enemy’, it is more helpful to treat it as a developmental challenge that requires guidance, much like learning to drive or manage money. Ultimately, connection, regulation, and trust protect mental health more than restriction alone,” she added.
