The country’s chief economic adviser has suggested that the government examine policies that restrict access to social media platforms based on age, arguing that younger users are more vulnerable to compulsive usage patterns and harmful content. The recommendation reflects a wider debate about whether existing safeguards are sufficient in an era where online engagement is driven by algorithms designed to maximise time spent on apps.

India’s rapid digital expansion has made it one of the world’s largest markets for social media companies. Affordable smartphones and some of the cheapest mobile data plans globally have enabled hundreds of millions of people to come online, with young users forming a substantial share of daily active audiences across platforms.

According to the adviser, digital addiction is increasingly affecting academic performance, sleep quality, attention spans, and workplace productivity. He highlighted how constant notifications, infinite scrolling, and recommendation algorithms encourage prolonged usage, particularly among teenagers and young adults who may lack the tools to self-regulate their screen time.

The proposal aligns India with a growing international trend. Several countries have either implemented or are actively considering age-based social media restrictions, citing child welfare, mental health, and online safety. These developments have intensified pressure on governments to balance digital innovation with social responsibility.

In India, the recommendations are not legally binding but often influence policy debates within the government. Previous economic survey suggestions have shaped reforms in taxation, investment rules, and digital infrastructure, making the latest proposal significant despite its advisory nature.

India currently does not enforce a nationwide minimum age requirement for accessing social media platforms. This regulatory gap has allowed widespread use among minors, often without effective parental controls or reliable age verification mechanisms. The adviser has argued that platforms themselves should be held responsible for enforcing age checks and setting age-appropriate default features.

Social media companies have long maintained that parental oversight and digital literacy are more effective than outright bans. Some firms warn that strict age-based restrictions could push teenagers toward unregulated or less safe online spaces, complicating enforcement and safety efforts.

The issue has also drawn attention at the state level. Several Indian states have begun studying international regulatory models, exploring whether similar measures could be adopted locally to protect children from excessive screen exposure and online harm.

Officials in these states have publicly expressed concern that young people are spending increasing amounts of time on social media at the expense of education, physical activity, and real-world social interaction. They argue that unchecked usage may have long-term consequences for cognitive development and emotional well-being.

Activists and technology experts, however, are divided on the effectiveness of age-based bans. Critics point out that children can often bypass age restrictions using fake credentials, making enforcement difficult without robust digital identity systems and strong platform accountability.

Supporters counter that even imperfect regulations can help set social norms, encourage parental involvement, and push companies to redesign platforms with child safety in mind. They argue that policy intervention is necessary to address what they see as exploitative engagement-driven business models.

India’s government has previously clashed with social media companies over issues such as content moderation, data storage, and compliance with takedown orders. The current discussion adds another layer to an already complex relationship between regulators and global technology firms.

As policymakers weigh the costs and benefits of age-based restrictions, the debate is likely to intensify. With India’s massive youth population and deepening digital penetration, any regulatory shift could have global implications for how social media companies operate and design their platforms.

The adviser has emphasized that restrictions should be part of a broader strategy that includes family-level interventions such as screen-time limits, device-free hours, and encouragement of offline activities. The goal, he said, is not to demonize technology but to ensure healthier and more balanced digital habits.

Whether India ultimately adopts age-based curbs or opts for alternative safeguards, the conversation reflects a growing recognition that the social impact of digital platforms can no longer be ignored. As trust in social media continues to erode, governments may feel compelled to act more decisively to protect younger generations.

X-owner Elon Musk, a self-described free-speech absolutist, has clashed with authorities in several countries over compliance and content takedown demands, but X’s Indian lawsuit had targeted the entire basis for tightened internet regulation in the world’s most populous nation.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has since 2023 ramped up efforts to police the internet by allowing many more officials to file takedown orders and submit them directly to tech firms through a government website launched in October.

X had said the measures were unconstitutional and amounted to censorship.

Judge rejects X’s censorship claims

“Every platform that seeks to operate within the jurisdiction of our nation, which they do, must accept that liberty is yoked with responsibility,” Judge M Nagaprasanna said in dismissing X’s case.

A representative for X in India did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the ruling.

The ruling by the high court in the southern state of Karnataka comes after months of legal wrangling between lawyers from both sides, including a remark by X that every “Tom, Dick, and Harry” government official had been authorised to issue content takedown orders.

In response, Modi’s government had argued the new system tackled a proliferation of unlawful content and ensured accountability online.

The government also says many tech companies, including Meta (META.O), and Alphabet’s (GOOGL.O), Google, support its actions.

It argued that the platform serves as a vehicle for “spreading hate and division” that threatens social harmony, while “fake news” on the platform has sparked unspecified law-and-order issues.

X could appeal Wednesday’s ruling, including at the Supreme Court of India.