Pragmatism needed on age restrictions and social media access
Social media can be a double-edged sword
In September 2023, the Karnataka High Court suggested a minimum age limit of 21 for young people to access social media, citing concerns over addiction among school-going children. It was more of a recommendation to the Union Government highlighting the need for age verification. The court clearly felt that such a restriction was needed to protect minors from premature exposure to harmful material that could have a negative impact on their mental health and lead to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. The court noted that children under 21 may lack the maturity to discern the impact of social media, suggesting a higher threshold than the typical 18-year limit. It also recommended that social media platforms should verify user age using documents such as Aadhaar.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, which applies nationwide, requires platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent before processing the data of users under 18. It also restricts tracking, behavioural monitoring, and targeted advertising directed at children.
By the judgements in the Keshavananda Bharati and Golaknath cases to recent rulings about children of live-in parents, transgender persons and by stepping in to nudge the central and state governments into action in relation to environmental concerns, the judiciary has shown many welcome initiatives over the years. The suggestion made by the Karnataka High Court is another such example.
The judiciary, as an institution, and judges, as individuals, can have a very powerful influence over the functioning of the legislature as well as the executive. Courts of law can be firm, to the point of being harsh, when the issue in question calls for it. On other occasions, they may content themselves merely with issuing a gentle reprimand or making a recommendation or a suggestion, as has been done by the Karnataka High Court.
My father, as a judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the 1950s, never really cared much about the practice of judicial activism, which had begun to catch up around that time. He was a devout subscriber to the sanctity of the principle of separation of powers that governed the structure of the State under the Constitution of India. He firmly believed that each wing of the State, the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive, should confine itself to its jurisdiction and remit, as provided by the Constitution. Much water has flown under the bridge since then and the relationship between the three wings has matured. They have emerged out of their silos and learnt to live with one another in a harmonious and mutually reinforcing manner.
The country has accepted that verdicts of courts can sometimes have the same effect as law. Legislatures, on their part, have, when deemed necessary, nullified the impact of judicial verdicts. And the functionaries of the Executive, in several areas of administration, perform judicial functions as a part of their normal functions.
Coming back to the question of access to social media, I must confess to being a novice at using many of them, save email and WhatsApp. Not so, however, my grandchildren, who have mastered the art of nearly all of them from email through WhatsApp, Instagram, and X and Tik Tok, to mention just a few.
In today’s digital age, social media platforms have become all pervasive, serving as spaces for relationships, exchange of ideas, promoting relationships, and supporting mental health by helping in community building and, often for idle gossip. On the other hand, early exposure to them can lead to various undesirable consequences, such as those already mentioned earlier, in addition to the risk of exposure to cyberbullying. Thus, social media can be a double-edged sword.
The explosive growth of social media has, therefore, presented many hitherto unfamiliar challenges, particularly regarding their use by young people, raising the question whether there should not be a legal age restriction for social media usage.
To begin with, the implications of setting a legal age threshold need to be understood clearly. The imperative of protecting young people from potential harm needs to be weighed against the importance of preserving their rights to information and social interaction.
Currently, most social media platforms set the minimum age for creating an account at 13, based on the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which governs the online collection of personal information from children under this age in the United States.
Internationally, the approach to social media age restrictions varies significantly. In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) allows member states to set their own age limits between 13 and 16 years. This variability reflects different cultural attitudes toward childhood autonomy and the perceived risks and benefits of early social media use.
Those who favour age limits point out that children and young adolescents should be made familiar with the use of social media at an early age to encourage them to engage in activities that conduce to healthy physical, cognitive, and emotional development, such as playing outdoors, sports, reading, and spending face-to-face time with friends and family, to prepare them for the digital world.
Speaking of age restrictions, someone was pointing out to me the other day that in India, people can vote, get married and drive a motor vehicle at age 18. But they must wait until they are 21 to buy a bottle of beer!
(The writer was formerly Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh)
