Should India Revisit Its Child-Safety Framework After Australia’s Under-16 Ban?
Australia’s under-16 social media ban has ignited a national debate on how India child online safety regulations should protect children from the growing risks of digital life. While Canberra has chosen a hard-edged prohibition that compels platforms to deny access to younger users, India continues to rely on a quieter, consent-based regulatory model rooted in data protection and intermediary liability. This divergence raises a pressing question: should India now reassess its child-safety architecture as the world moves towards more assertive interventions?
What Australia’s Approach Signals to the World
Australia’s new law requires major platforms to block users under 16 and delete existing under-age accounts. The measure applies to TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and other large apps, with significant financial penalties for non-compliance. The sweeping nature of the ban has already prompted legal challenges and sparked debate about age-verification accuracy, privacy risks and unintended consequences.
Yet Australia has sent a powerful message: governments are no longer content with voluntary safeguards. They are willing to legislate decisively. Regulators across Europe and North America are watching closely, interpreting the Australian move as a test case for more muscular online child-protection policies.
India’s Legal Position: A Consent-Based, Not Age-Gated, System
India child online safety framework rests on the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the Information Technology Act’s intermediary rules. The DPDP Act defines a child as anyone under 18 and requires platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent before processing a minor’s data. Recently published draft rules outline processes for verifying the parent’s identity and the parent–child relationship, although these mechanisms remain under consultation.
Intermediaries are also obliged to remove child-sexual-abuse material, comply with POCSO reporting and follow due-diligence norms. These requirements aim to strengthen child protection but stop short of imposing a minimum age for social-media participation.
India child online safety laws regulates how a minor’s data is handled, not whether the minor can join a platform. It distributes responsibility among parents, platforms and regulators—without drawing a clear boundary on access.
A Consent-Based Model That No Longer Matches Reality
The blunt truth is that India’s current consent-based child online safety framework is not fit for how children use the internet today. Although the law mandates parental approval for users under 18, this safeguard functions more as a procedural shield for platforms than a meaningful layer of protection for children.
In contemporary India, most households—urban and semi-urban—operate on dual-income or long working hours. Parents who leave early, return late or work irregular shifts cannot supervise their child’s digital behaviour consistently. Even where one parent stays home, emotional factors and cultural norms often undermine strict enforcement. Indian families prioritise trust, affection and academic pressures; consequently, many parents hesitate to impose hard restrictions on social-media use for fear of emotional conflict.
A child’s online life also extends beyond the home. Teenagers access the internet at school, during tuition, on public transport, at coaching centres and within friend circles—spaces where parental oversight is impossible. Expecting parents to monitor every login, every reel, every chat and every platform becomes an unworkable full-time responsibility.
In effect, the consent requirement creates the illusion of control without delivering actual safety. Many parents grant consent without fully understanding the implications, or simply because they do not wish to socially isolate their child. Others are unaware that they are expected to provide continuous digital supervision. Meanwhile, platforms benefit from a framework that shifts legal liability away from them and places it squarely on families who lack the time, training or specialised knowledge to enforce compliance.
A country with more than 200 million minors online cannot rely on parental vigilance as the primary safeguard. Without a structural rethink, India’s consent model remains a legal formality that fails to match real-world digital behaviour.
Why India Has Not Entered the Global Debate
Despite the DPDP’s ambitious scope, the public debate in India remains muted. Three factors explain this silence.
First, defining a “child” as under 18 creates a mismatch between law and reality. Teenagers commonly enter social media between ages 13 and 16, which means the baseline rule is widely ignored from the outset.
Second, India’s digital policy agenda is crowded with disputes about encryption, takedowns, misinformation regulation and platform liability. Child-specific age rules have not yet become a top-tier political priority.
Third, the Indian conversation has been framed in technical terms—data protection, fiduciary duties and compliance structures—rather than as a broader social-harm issue. Without an emotive anchor like Australia’s “ban under 16”, public engagement remains limited.
Does India Need to Rethink Its Framework Now?
Australia’s decision forces India to revisit India child online safety assumptions. Three strategic considerations stand out.
The consent-based model is failing in practice.
Because parents cannot provide continuous oversight, and teenagers evade restrictions easily, the present framework does not protect children. It merely transfers responsibility to families without giving them the tools or structural support to enforce safety.
India must explore privacy-preserving age assurance.
Age-verification systems need not replicate Australia’s intrusive approach. India can design a privacy-respecting model using telecom KYC, digital ID tokens or certified third-party age-assurance providers, without creating data honey-pots.
Platform accountability must expand beyond takedowns.
India’s rules do not yet address algorithmic amplification of harmful content, addictive design or body-image reinforcement. A modern framework requires risk assessments, algorithmic transparency and design-safety obligations.
What India Risks by Maintaining the Status Quo
If India remains passive, it may fall behind emerging global norms. Countries from the EU to the US are drafting stronger online child-safety frameworks, many of which go far beyond India’s current stance. Without a clearer direction, platforms may treat India’s rules as administratively important but politically negotiable.
More critically, parents, educators and young users remain unaware of the protections already embedded in law. A system that depends on silent compliance rarely protects.
India’s Opportunity: Build, Not Ban
India does not need to copy Australia’s ban. However, it must confront a reality that Australia has forced into the global spotlight: the existing model is outdated.
A refreshed Indian framework should build upon three pillars:
Age-appropriate access rules aligned with actual adolescent behaviour.
Privacy-respecting verification systems that do not create new risks.
Robust platform accountability for design, algorithms and content exposure.
This balanced approach can avoid the bluntness of Australia’s prohibition while ensuring that India no longer relies on a failing consent-based system. The world is moving towards stronger child-safety norms, and India must decide whether it wants to shape that conversation or merely react to it.
