The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has recommended that the Union Government explore enacting legislation similar to Australia's pioneering ban on social media access for children under the age of 16, amid rising concerns over children's exposure to harmful online content, including pornography and child sexual abuse material. The observation came from a division bench comprising Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan while disposing of a long-pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2018 by petitioner S. Vijayakumar.

The PIL sought directions to internet service providers (ISPs) to implement a "parental window" system to restrict access to objectionable material and urged greater awareness on child rights and safe internet practices. The court highlighted the vulnerability of young internet users and emphasized parental responsibility, noting that tools like parental control apps on devices are essential for safeguarding children. Until a comprehensive law is enacted, the bench directed concerned authorities — including the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the Tamil Nadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights — to accelerate awareness campaigns, reaching vulnerable groups through all available media channels.

The recommendation draws inspiration from Australia's world-first measure, which took effect on December 10, 2025. Under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) legislation, major platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, X, Reddit, Threads, Twitch, and Kick must take reasonable steps to prevent users under 16 from holding accounts, facing fines of up to A$49.5 million (approximately $33 million) for non-compliance.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hailed the ban as a historic step, stating: "This is indeed a proud day to be Australian... This reform will change lives for Australian kids and allowing them to just have their childhood... for Australian parents, enabling them to have greater peace of mind, but also for the global community who are looking at Australia and saying, 'Well, if Australia can do it, why can't we?'" The Madras High Court bench acknowledged existing frameworks in India, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which require parental consent for children's data processing and due diligence by intermediaries. However, it noted the absence of specific age-based restrictions or proactive measures to protect minors from cyberbullying, paedophilia, and addictive platform designs.

Experts featured in a related discussion echoed a nuanced view. A senior Supreme Court lawyer argued that a complete ban might be challenging in India, given the reliance on online education (e.g., during pollution-related school closures in Delhi), and advocated for balanced regulation over outright prohibition. He stressed that child rights commissions must actively fulfil their duties under the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.

A cybersecurity lawyer pointed out that intermediaries in India are governed by the IT Act but lack specific due diligence parameters for children under 18, allowing platforms to prioritize economic models over safety. He called for stronger government-mandated norms, enforcement, and accountability to compel platforms to implement child-protective measures, warning that children would likely find ways to circumvent bans.

Actor and mother Kasuri Shankar, speaking from personal experience, emphasized that laws alone are insufficient without effective implementation. She noted that existing age limits (e.g., 13+ on many platforms) are often bypassed, including through "baby accounts" run by adults, and warned that blanket bans could isolate vulnerable youth — such as those with special needs — from supportive online communities while fuelling curiosity through prohibition. The debate reflects broader global concerns: proponents argue such measures protect against cyberbullying, harmful algorithms, excessive screen time, anxiety, depression, and self-harm, while critics highlight risks of circumvention via VPNs, isolation from support networks, invasive age verification, and stifled free expression.

As Australia becomes a potential case study for the world, the Madras High Court's suggestion signals growing momentum in India for stronger digital safeguards for children. The bench has left the final policy decision to the Centre, urging a holistic approach involving government, platforms, parents, and awareness initiatives to preserve childhood in the digital age.