Supreme Court to decide if Nigerian man's cooking was 'material support' for terrorists

A school in Madhya Pradesh's Indore has petitioned the Supreme Court to impose regulations on children's use of social media, arguing that safeguarding minors is the state's constitutional duty and cannot rely solely on parental supervision or voluntary measures by technology companies. Emerald Heights International School and its director, Siddharth Singh, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) requesting a comprehensive and enforceable regulatory framework to shield children from online hazards such as cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, exposure to harmful content, compulsive usage, and mental health issues.

The Supreme Court has yet to assign a hearing date for this petition. The petitioners, represented by advocate Khushbu Jain, are supported by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, alongside the Union government and various ministries. The petition invokes constitutional articles 14, 15(3), 21, and 21A, claiming that the state's ongoing inability to effectively prevent online harms violates children's fundamental rights.

The legal team relies on Articles 39(e) and 39(f) of the Constitution, which emphasize protection of children against abuse and exploitation and ensure opportunities for development in freedom and dignity. The plea coincides with the Supreme Court's recent decision to examine the need for guidelines on regulating the opening and maintenance of social-media accounts by minors.

On September 10, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant's bench sought the Center's response to a separate petition filed by a child rights non-profit organization, emphasizing the necessity of safeguards to protect children online. The current petition outlines risks ranging from depression and anxiety to diminished self-esteem, sleep disruption, body-image pressures, grooming, cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, and exposure to violent, sexually explicit, self-harm, and suicide-related content.

It also raises concerns about behavioral profiling and platform designs that promote excessive use. The petitioners assert that parental controls, voluntary safeguards, and assurances from social-media companies are insufficient to address the issue's scale, necessitating state intervention. They argue that the Constitution envisions a childhood free from exploitation, distress, or abandonment, calling for children to develop in a healthy manner, free from harm and with opportunities for growth.

Jain emphasized that the petitioners consider restrictions on children's social-media use the only viable option, stressing that no generation's childhood and well-being should be jeopardized while platforms attempt to enhance the safety of their services. The petition asks the court to declare the failure to provide effective protection against online harms to be arbitrary and unconstitutional, directing the Union government to create, notify, and implement a dedicated regulatory framework for children's safety on social-media platforms, or alternatively, to prohibit children below a prescribed age from using social media, regulate access for older children, or enforce age-based restrictions on account creation, maintenance, and usage on designated platforms.