Emerald Heights International School and its Director, Siddharth Singh, have filed a petition before the Supreme Court of India seeking restrictions on children’s use of social media and an enforceable regulatory framework to protect them from online harms. The petition invokes the State’s constitutional duty to protect children from online harms.
The petition, titled Emerald Heights International School v. Union of India, WP PIL (C) No. 1316 of 2026, has been filed by Vaibhav Choudhary on behalf of the petitioners, who are represented by Khushbu Jain, advocate for the petitioners. The respondents include the Union of India, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
At the heart of the petition is the contention that protecting children from environments detrimental to their health, dignity, and development is a constitutional responsibility of the State, and not a matter that can be left solely to parental supervision or corporate goodwill. The petitioners submit that the social-media environment children inhabit today falls far short of the safe and nurturing conditions necessary for healthy development.
The petition invokes Article 39(f) of the Constitution, which directs the State to secure opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, and to protect childhood and youth against exploitation and moral and material abandonment.
It also relies on Article 39(e), concerning protection against abuse of children’s tender age, alongside Article 21 and the State’s public-health responsibilities under Article 47. The petition seeks a declaration that the continuing failure to provide effective protection against foreseeable social-media harms violates Articles 14, 15(3), 21 and 21A. The petitioners further refer to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, including its provisions concerning children’s best interests and protection from physical or mental violence, sexual abuse, exploitation, and information or material injurious to their well-being.
The petition identifies a range of concerns associated with children’s access to and use of social media, including: Depression, anxiety, emotional distress and diminished self-esteem; Compulsive or addiction-like use and difficulty disengaging from platforms; Fear of missing out, persistent social comparison and feelings of exclusion; Body-image dissatisfaction and disordered eating behaviours; Sleep disruption, attention difficulties and displacement of healthy offline activities; Cyberbullying, harassment, humiliation and exposure to hate-based content; Grooming, unwanted sexual contact, sexual exploitation and coercion involving intimate images; Exposure to violent, sexually explicit, self-harm and suicide-related content; and Behavioural profiling and compulsive-use design.
The petitioners contend that these harms may be immediately visible or may develop unnoticed, leaving parents and teachers unaware until serious damage has occurred. They maintain that the magnitude of harm already suffered, and children’s continuing exposure to these risks, cannot be adequately addressed through reassuring statements, voluntary platform measures or parental controls alone.
Khushbu Jain, advocate for the petitioners, said, ‘The Constitution does not envisage a childhood defined by exploitation, distress or abandonment. It calls for children to develop in a healthy manner, in conditions of freedom and dignity. Yet the social-media environment children inhabit today is, in our submission, nowhere near the safe environment they deserve.’
‘The harms are both visible and invisible—from grooming, bullying and harmful content to compulsive use, anxiety, body-image pressures and emotional distress that may remain unnoticed until serious damage has occurred. The harm already caused, and continuing to be caused, is unimaginable’, she added.
‘The petitioners submit that restricting children’s use of social media is the only viable option in the present circumstances. We cannot let an entire generation’s childhood and well-being become the price of waiting for platforms to make their services safe. We are seeking a remedy that gives meaningful effect to the State’s constitutional responsibility to protect children’, it was further stated.
The petition filed further asks the court to declare that the respondents’ continuing failure to provide effective protection to children against foreseeable risks including grooming, sexual exploitation, cyberbullying, harmful and age-inappropriate content, behavioural profiling, and compulsive-use design is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 15(3), 21 and 21A of the Constitution; to direct the Union of India to frame, notify, and operationalise a dedicated, comprehensive and enforceable regulatory framework to protect children from harms arising from their access to and use of social-media platforms.
Moreover, to alternatively, direct the Union of India to prohibit social-media use by children below a prescribed age and regulate its use by children above that age in an appropriate manner; or require enforceable age-based restrictions on the creation, maintenance and use of children’s accounts on designated social-media platforms; and to pass any further orders or directions considered appropriate in the interests of justice.
The petitioners urge that children’s health, safety, dignity and development take precedence over unrestricted access to social-media platforms and that the State provide an effective and enforceable protective response.
