← 29 September 2026's Current Affairs · Polity GA Prelims ★★★★☆ Mains ★★★☆☆
Supreme Court Suggests Rules to Regulate Minors' Social Media Accounts
बातमीत का?
Can a child legally hold a social media account? The Article 21 link every GS-II answer needs
The Supreme Court asked the Centre to consider framing rules for minors' social media accounts, citing concerns over online safety and weak age verification.
Why it matters: asked in UPSC 2018
What you need to know
2 मिनिटे
The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to consider framing rules to regulate social media accounts held by minors.
The suggestion came amid concerns over children's exposure to harmful online content and weak age-verification mechanisms on social media platforms.
Courts have increasingly read protection from online harm into the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
स्रोत: Topper IAS editorial (PIB / The Hindu / Indian Express)
महत्त्वाची तथ्ये
Remember these
- The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to consider framing rules for minors' social media accounts
- Concerns cited: children's exposure to harmful online content and weak age-verification on platforms
- Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty
- Courts have increasingly read protection from online harm into Article 21
- The suggestion came from the Court itself, not from a pending Bill
पूर्व · मुख्य
How the exam will ask it
पूर्व
- Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, and courts have read protection from online harm into it.
- The Supreme Court can suggest that the Union Government consider framing rules; such a suggestion is not itself binding legislation.
- Weak age-verification on social media platforms is a key concern in regulating minors' access to online content.
मुख्य
GS-II Polity: the issue is children's exposure to harmful online content amid weak age-verification on platforms. Article 21, read expansively by courts to cover protection from online harm, provides the constitutional basis, and the Court has nudged the Centre to frame rules. Way forward: robust age-verification, clear platform accountability and safeguards for privacy and children's rights, balanced against access to information.
PYQ connection
A question UPSC has already asked on this
Consider the following statements:
- 'Right to Privacy' is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution
- In digital economy, privacy of an individual is subject to a reasonable restriction that can be imposed by the state
- The Parliament is empowered to make laws for implementing directive principles of state policy
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
उत्तर पहा
उत्तर: D
Why this matters: today's issue is directly connected to a concept UPSC has already tested. Read the story with this question in mind.
Practise this PYQ →Quick recall
Answer before you reveal
With reference to the Supreme Court's recent suggestion on regulating minors' social media accounts, consider the following statements:
- The suggestion for minors' social media rules came directly from a government-drafted bill pending in Parliament.
- Courts have read protection from online harm into the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
उत्तर पहा
उत्तर: B — Correct: 2 only — the suggestion came from the Supreme Court itself, not a pending Bill, making statement 1 false; statement 2 correctly identifies Article 21 as the provision under which courts have read privacy and protection from online harm. • 1 only — wrong: statement 1 is false. • Both 1 and 2 — wrong: statement 1 is false. • Neither 1 nor 2 — wrong: statement 2 is true.
Convert this topic into marks
Today's 10-MCQ test · instant analysis · Powered by AdaptIQ