INTRODUCTION
On December 10, 2025, Australia enforced a long-drawn proposal of banning Social Media for children under 16 Years of age through the enforcement of The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024.[1] This ban was implemented in response to rising incidents of various kinds of cybercrimes inflicted by & upon the Children of the under-16 age group, like online harm, cyberbullying, cyber stalking, etc. In effect, it will lead to, not instantaneously but rather gradually, the various Online Platforms like Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), etc., becoming inaccessible for such children whose existing accounts would be deleted & new accounts would not be allowed.
The ban led to an intense debate & controversy over the question of Free Speech vs Protection of Children & also what the future holds if such bans are extended to other platforms as well as age groups. Furthermore, how this ban would be properly enforced has also raised significant questions. Various political leaders in Australia, like NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick have challenged this ban on grounds of Freedom of Political Communication.[2]
The Ban can be compared to various similar measures employed in India, like Internet Shutdowns, Ordering Social Media Platforms to take down certain controversial posts, etc. There are some apprehensions within Indian Political Discourse that these sorts of bans can also be applied in Indian, but in a rather different sense.
This Blog aims at analysing the rationale behind such bans & also what Indian Democracy can learn from Australia’s Experience while formulating its own Digital Governance Framework.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Ban is not the outcome of a recent need but the result of a long-drawn shift in the perception regarding the Nature of Self-Regulation principle adopted by Social Media Platforms, which many(even in Positions of Power) felt was compromised due to the Platforms being focused on maximizing their profits while neglecting Consumer Welfare, which led to various issues like Misinformation, Cyber Crimes & Hate Speeches becoming widespread & unchecked. This alerted governments of the World to put a check on these activities by enacting Laws that aim at controlling these Platforms.
Australia’s approach towards Social Media Control was also similar. This is reflected by the changes like Laws starting from the Broadcasting Services Act, 1992 (which aimed at promoting Self-Regulation) & which became ineffective in addressing the concerns caused by various hate crimes.[3] The Christchurch Mosque Attack of 2019 led to the realisation of the highly significant role played by Social Media in causing Hate Crimes & which led to the enforcement of the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Act, 2019, which increased government control on Social Media Content & introduced stringent punishments for sharing violent content on the platforms.[4]
The Regulations were further strengthened by the Online Safety Act, 2021 which formulated a more Robust Framework of reporting & punishing these Cyber Crimes & also gave the e-Safety Commissioner (a Govt. Official) wide ranging powers including the world’s first Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme, expanding the Powers of the Govt. in addressing Cyber Crimes targeting Children.[5] The recent ban on Social Media Platforms is an extension of this Process.
In India, too, various acts like the Information Technology Act, 2000 (particularly Section 69A), which empowers the Central Government to block public access to any form of online content if it has the capacity to disrupt the Law & Order Situation of the Country.[6] Apart from this, The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 also aims at providing a framework for the regulation of content by online publishers of news and current affairs content, and curated audio-visual content.[7] Furthermore, for the protection of citizens from Digital Crimes, The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 was enacted by the Central Govt. which made Cyber Crimes stringently punishable offences.[8] Apart from all these, various instances of Internet Shutdowns show the Control of Central Govt. over Digital Content & how it aims at ensuring Law & Order Stability.
LEGAL ADVANCES
Section 63G of The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024[9] mentions the Scope of the powers of the e-Safety Commissioner & how he can order the banning of accounts for under-16 age children as well as regulate online content.
The government, by virtue of it, aims at tackling 3 main problems, which include :
- Protection of Children from various kinds of Cyber Crimes like Cyber Stalking, Cyberbullying, as well as preventing access to Self–Harm Content.
- It also aims at improving the Mental Health of Children by protecting them from various mental disorders like Stress, Depression, and Anxiety caused by excessive usage of Social Media.
- It also provides for Stricter Accountability of Social Media Platforms by imposing harsher penalties on them for non-compliance with these orders.
While this attempt has been supported by many in Australia by advocating that it aims at protecting Children from the harmful effects of Social Media, there has been a counterargument suggesting that it is violative of the Fundamental Rights of Freedom to Speech & Expression. There have been Apprehensions regarding its enforcement & the scope of Judicial Review and Intervention in these matters, which have further made the matter more controversial.
LEGAL CHALLENGES
The Ban has faced significant scrutiny with sharp divisions seen between the sides supporting & those opposing it. Its Advocates highlight its significance in ensuring the protection of children from all sorts of online crimes & also at the same time ensuring that Law & Order are properly maintained in society.
On the other hand, its detractors highlight its encroachment on the privacy, expression & political rights of citizens. They also argue that such a Ban isn’t an effective treatment because it lacks the element of proportionality & that it should have been tested on a regional basis rather than being enforced nationwide simultaneously.
Furthermore, could any other method be used to control the consumption of digital content by children have been used? Or, for that matter, is there any scope for Judicial Intervention in ensuring that these Rules & Regulations don’t just remain mentioned on paper?
In India too, the continuous, vague Internet Shutdowns have been criticised in the same sense that they curb the Freedom of Expression on grounds of National Security. In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India Case (2020), the Supreme Court allowed this practice of internet shutdowns but reiterated that they can’t be unjustified, disproportionate & everlasting without any review. Further, they should be only used rarely as a last resort & not just whenever the Government. wants.[10]
LEGAL SOLUTION
An effective legal response must balance the protection of minors with the preservation of fundamental rights in the digital environment.
Firstly, regulatory interventions should follow the principle of proportionality, ensuring that any restriction on digital platforms is reasonable, necessary and constitutionally justified. Courts in India have emphasised that limitations on online expression must be narrowly tailored and consistent with the guarantees under Article 19 of the Constitution.[11]
Secondly, stronger platform accountability mechanisms should be implemented. Social media intermediaries must adopt reliable age-verification systems, transparent content-moderation standards and accessible grievance-redressal mechanisms in compliance with statutory due-diligence obligations under Indian digital governance frameworks.[12]
Thirdly, the promotion of digital literacy and awareness programmes is essential to equip minors and parents with knowledge about cyber risks, privacy protection and responsible internet usage. Preventive education can significantly mitigate exposure to harmful online content.[13]
Finally, independent regulatory oversight and judicial scrutiny must accompany any state action to prevent arbitrary censorship. Such oversight ensures that regulatory measures remain consistent with democratic values while safeguarding children from genuine digital harms.[14]
CONCLUSION
The Social Media Ban in Australia shows that even Mature Democracies can take swift actions in response to solving an Acute Problem that is faced by their Societies. While it has its own significance, India, a hugely diverse country, both in population & opinions, should review & evaluate this policy with utmost care to ensure that control is not misinterpreted as censorship. India should learn from the Australian Experience to make a Digital Rights Framework where security, accountability and constitutional liberty reinforce rather than undermine one another.
Author(s) Name: Mohammad Yasir Bhat (University of Kashmir)
References:
[1] The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024.
[2] Josh Taylor, ‘Social media ban explained: when does it start in Australia, how will it work and what apps are being banned for under-16s?’ (The Guardian, 09 December 2025) <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/10/social-media-ban-australia-explained-banned-apps-list-guide> accessed 27 December 2025.
[3] The Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
[4] The Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Act 2019.
[5] The Online Safety Act 2021.
[6] The Information Technology Act 2000, s 69A.
[7] The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.
[8] The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023.
[9] The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, s 63G.
[10] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) AIR SC 1308.
[11] Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) AIR SCW 1989.
[12] The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.
[13] UNICEF, Policy Guidance on Children’s Rights in the Digital Environment (UNICEF 2021).
[14] Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2010) AIR SC 329.
