NEW DELHI: At a time when parents are worried about the downside of screen addiction among adolescents, legal experts including former CJI Ranjan Gogoi appreciated the intent behind proposed move by Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh to ban social media access to children below certain age but doubted the pertinence and effectiveness of legislative or executive intervention.TOI spoke to a spectrum of other experts – former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, and senior advocates A M Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and Devadatt Kamat – on the problem, efficacy of a law enacted by a state to prevent children below certain age from accessing social media platforms when telecommunication and information technology fall squarely within the law making domain of Centre and the possible ways and means to pull the children off the social media quagmire.
Israel Iran War
Gogoi, with grandchildren of impressionable age, spoke more like a wise elderly head of a family than a legal expert: “Social media is here to stay. Instead of banning children from accessing it, it would be better to educate them about its constructive usage. Older generation must teach them its benefits because it provides instant reach to a vast knowledge base. Why should children be deprived of its tremendous benefits?”When pointed out that Australia has banned under-16s from accessing Tiktok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and Threads, Gogoi said, “We have very different social values and structures compared to Australia. We do not have to follow other countries blindly. Our strong social bonds and parental relations would be helpful in guiding the children to use social media beneficially.”Rohatgi was sceptical about the working and implementation of states enacting different laws prescribing different age limits for children to access social media: “Telecommunication and IT are central subjects. States should not enact laws individually. It will create confusion. It should be left to govt which can bring a legislation in Parliament to address the issue pan-India.”Singhvi said in principle the objective behind the proposed regulatory framework is laudable and desirable. “Across political spectrum, suffering parents, teachers and elders will endorse the deleterious impact of unlimited social media access on impressionable young minds.”What should be the mechanism to regulate it? Singhvi said, “As always both God and Devil reside in the details. The real test will depend on proper implementation without harassment and unrelated ulterior acts.” Dwivedi said, “The ban should not be absolute as children too have a fundamental right to communication and information. The ban should be on putrid content being placed on social media without adequate safeguards to prevent children from accessing such undesirable content.”Kamat, with two children of impressionable age, said mental health of the next generation should be safeguarded from the deleterious impact of unlimited access to social media. He said though communication is exclusively within the legislative competence of Centre, states can bring in regulatory mechanisms under the broad subject of health.
