Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre, informed: A practical reader guide

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre, informed: A practical reader guide

The Supreme Court on Monday said that social media intermediaries allowing minors to open accounts must conform to the law of the land, telling the Centre to remedy the situation within its statutory framework; otherwise, a direction from the court would follow.

Mehta said that issuing guidelines won’t be enough as it should come with a statutory backing, and he sought time from the court to get back on this issue. A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the non-profit organisation Just Rights for Children Alliance (JRCA). Otherwise, we will be compelled to pass directions against the intermediaries. The petition argued by senior advocate HS Phoolka pointed out that exposing children to such an environment has unforeseeable risks including online grooming, sexual exploitation, trafficking, behavioural profiling, misuse of personal data, cyberbullying, exposure to age-inappropriate content and other harms affecting their safety, dignity, development and well-being. Some firewalls are necessary for protecting our children.”

“How can these platforms allow 12 to 13 year olds to have accounts? Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre, informed the court that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 does provide for some safeguards. If a person is less than 18 years old, consent can be given by parents as there are educational apps that require the user’s consent. Allowing time for the Centre to consider addressing the issue within the necessary statutory framework, the court observed, “On membership, they must invoke the minimum age of 18 years. the court had observed, “There is a need for some safeguards in India While issuing notice on the petition on September 10.

It is contrary to the law of the land,” said the bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The court was referring to the Indian Contract Act, which declares a minor’s consent for an agreement to be “void” from the time such an agreement comes into existence. He said, “ Something will have to be done.