Supreme Court issues notice to Centre and Meta on a PIL over children and social media harms

The plea is tagged with a pending petition and listed for 7 December 2026. Article 21, parental consent under the DPDP Act, the IT Rules and the policy question the Centre raised in the Delhi High Court.

On 4 November 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and Meta on a PIL, Sreerupa Chowdhury v. Union of India, seeking a regulatory framework against algorithmic addiction and predatory harms to children on social media. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the plea.

The plea, filed by Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, has been tagged with a pending petition and is listed for 7 December 2026. The Court has not made any findings on the allegations.

The petition concerns platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. It alleges the use of "dark patterns" such as infinite scroll, auto-play reels and push notifications. It asks for algorithm audits, effective age verification and safeguards against compulsive use. It also says deficient age verification allows unchecked access to children under 13.

It further alleges that platforms have created a permissive environment for online grooming and child sexual abuse material, in violation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Information Technology Act. It says Meta has safety-by-design safeguards in Western countries that it has not deployed in India. The account records no response from Meta.

Third notice in under two months

This is the third Supreme Court notice on children and social media in under two months, after notices on 10 September and 16 October 2026.

In September 2026, in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. Union of India, the Court issued notice to the electronics and law ministries. Senior Advocate H.S. Phoolka argued that minors cannot contract under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act but can open social media accounts.

That petition seeks IT Rules amendments or guidelines requiring parental consent with e-KYC. The Court asked the Centre to examine the rules on minors' accounts, and the Solicitor General said the Government would examine the issue.

In October 2026, the Court issued notice to three Union ministries and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights on a PIL by Emerald Heights International School and Siddharth Singh Girnar, which proposes a national framework against social media harms. That matter is also listed for 7 December 2026.

In a separate October 2026 matter, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Chandran proposed stricter rules on child sexual abuse and exploitation material. They include a national database of hashes and URLs, grievance mechanisms, mandatory reporting and financial penalties for non-compliant intermediaries. The Centre must file an affidavit before the hearing on 10 December 2026.

What the Delhi High Court did

In August 2026, a Delhi High Court bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora disposed of a petition by Kirti Dua and another. It had sought restrictions on social media access for children under 13 and overnight curfews for children aged 13 to 16.

The Centre said the issue was one of policy and might need new legislation. The Court treated the plea as a representation and asked the Centre to pass a reasoned order, with no timeline. No ban or restriction was ordered, and the Centre's decision is awaited.

In a September 2026 petition on addictive platform features, Dr Vikas Kathuria v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court asked the Centre whether it was considering a policy on addictive design. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma said regulating software design features is primarily an executive matter, and the hearing was deferred for three weeks.

Article 21 and the right to privacy

In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, a nine-judge bench held that privacy is protected as part of life and personal liberty under Article 21. It said an invasion must meet three tests: a law, a legitimate state aim, and proportionality between aim and means.

The lead opinion also said the privacy right has a positive side, which obliges the State to take measures to protect it. It noted that dangers to informational privacy come from non-State actors as well, and commended a data protection regime to the Union Government.

That reasoning cuts in more than one direction in a children's case. The bench of Justices Pardiwala and Chandran is recorded as cautioning that age-verification systems may lead to continuous monitoring and surveillance of users. The petition before the Court asks for effective age verification.

The Constitution also speaks to children directly. Article 15(3) allows special provisions for children, and Article 39(f) directs the State to protect childhood and youth against exploitation. M. Laxmikanth, in Indian Polity, notes that under Article 37 such directive principles are fundamental in governance but not enforceable in court.

Parental consent under the DPDP Act

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 defines a child as anyone under 18. Section 9(1) requires a data fiduciary to obtain verifiable consent of a parent or lawful guardian before processing a child's personal data.

Section 9 also bars processing that is likely to cause a detrimental effect on a child's well-being. It prohibits tracking, behavioural monitoring of children and targeted advertising directed at them. The Government may exempt classes of fiduciaries or purposes by rules.

The Act and its Rules, notified in November 2025, are being brought into force in stages. The Just Rights petition instead asks for parental consent through the IT Rules.

IT Rules duties and the POCSO allegation

The IT Rules, 2021 require intermediaries to tell users not to post certain kinds of content, including content harmful to children, and to run a grievance system. Significant social media intermediaries, the large platforms, must also appoint a chief compliance officer and a resident grievance officer.

These duties matter because Section 79 of the IT Act protects a platform from liability for user content only if it observes due diligence. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court upheld Section 79 but read down Section 79(3)(b) so that takedown duties follow a court order or a government notification.

The POCSO allegation rests on separate statutes. Sections 14 and 15 of POCSO deal with using a child for pornographic purposes and storing child pornographic material, and Section 67B of the IT Act punishes electronic publication of material showing children in sexually explicit acts. The petition's claims on these provisions are allegations.

Courts, policy and separation of powers

The Centre's stand in the Delhi High Court was that the matter is for policy. Justice Ruma Pal, writing on separation of powers in The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, says courts have given directions to the executive but have generally been reluctant to interfere in matters of policy.

She adds that binding directions have occasionally been issued where there is a legislative vacuum, until a law is made. Her example is Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241, whose directions on sexual harassment at work were later folded into the 2013 statute.

The petition by Sreerupa Chowdhury is listed for 7 December 2026, together with the tagged petition. In the October matter before Justices Pardiwala and Chandran, the Centre has until the hearing on 10 December 2026 to file its affidavit.