Supreme Court Suggests Social Media Platforms Must Comply with Indian Laws on Minor Contracts; Solicitor General Agrees
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday examined a critical legal question regarding the validity of contracts entered into by minors with social media intermediaries, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, conceding that such agreements are void and ought to be prevented. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing a plea filed by the NGO Just Rights for Children Alliance, represented by senior advocate H S Phoolka. The petition raises significant concerns about the exposure of children to risks in the digital environment and challenges the manner in which social media platforms operate with respect to minors. The Solicitor General’s statement marks a potentially significant shift in the government’s stance, as it aligns with the petitioners’ argument that contractual agreements with minors are legally invalid under Indian law, and therefore, platforms should not be enforcing such agreements against them.
The bench, while hearing the matter, made a crucial observation regarding the approach of global technology companies, particularly noting that social media platforms have been applying restrictions in India that are applicable in the United States. Justice Bagchi pointed out that these platforms are registered under the laws of the US and have imported into the Indian digital space the restrictions that are applicable in America concerning minors opening accounts on their platforms. He asserted that this practice is impermissible under Indian law, which has a distinct legal framework governing the capacity of minors to contract. The observation underscores a growing judicial concern that foreign laws and standards, particularly those from the US, should not be unilaterally applied to Indian users without due regard for domestic statutes, including the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the specific protections intended for children in the digital ecosystem.
During the course of the hearing, Solicitor General Mehta acknowledged the need for regulatory action, stating, “we will have to control intermediaries.” This statement came in response to the bench’s observation, which then prompted the court to direct the government to consider issuing directions to platforms to ensure that their technology and software are fully compliant with Indian law. The bench’s suggestion indicates a move towards compelling social media intermediaries to design their platforms, including their terms of service and user interfaces, in a manner that adheres to Indian legal standards rather than merely transplanting foreign practices. This could involve changes to age-verification mechanisms, data handling policies, and the manner in which consent is sought from users, especially minors, and their guardians.
The legal issue at the heart of this case revolves around Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, which states that all agreements are contracts if made by parties competent to contract. Section 11 of the same Act defines competency and states that a person who has not attained the age of majority is incompetent to contract. Consequently, any agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio (void from the beginning). The petitioner’s counsel, H S Phoolka, has argued that social media platforms, by requiring users to agree to their terms of service and privacy policies, are effectively entering into contracts with minors. Since such agreements are void, the platforms should not be allowed to rely on them, for instance, to impose restrictions on content or to claim immunity under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The Supreme Court’s inclination to accept the argument that minors’ contracts are void suggests a strong judicial push towards protecting children from the legal consequences of agreeing to terms they are not legally capable of agreeing to.
The case has broader implications for the regulation of social media in India, particularly in the context of child safety and online harms. The petitioner, Just Rights for Children Alliance, has raised concerns about the risks that children face online, including exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, grooming, and exploitation. The NGO has argued that social media platforms have not done enough to safeguard children and that the current practices, which include the use of standard “click-wrap” agreements, fail to provide adequate protection. The court’s observations and the Solicitor General’s agreement indicate a possible direction where the government will mandate specific technological and design changes to make platforms more child-safe. This could include default privacy settings for minors, restrictions on targeted advertising, and more robust age-verification processes, all of which would need to be aligned with Indian law, including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
The Supreme Court’s suggestion that social media platforms must comply with Indian law rather than importing US restrictions is a significant development in the ongoing discourse on digital sovereignty and data protection. It reinforces the principle that companies operating in India must adhere to the country’s legal framework, even if they are incorporated abroad. The bench’s direction to the government to consider directing platforms to ensure that their technology and software comply with Indian law is a step towards asserting India’s regulatory autonomy in the digital space. The matter will now be heard further, with the government expected to respond to the court’s suggestion. In the interim, the legal position on minors and social media contracts remains a subject of intense scrutiny, and the final judgment in this case could set a landmark precedent for how digital platforms are regulated in India, potentially impacting millions of young users and the technology companies that serve them. The outcome of this case will be closely watched by legal experts, child rights advocates, and the technology industry, as it has the potential to reshape the digital landscape for minors in India.