A proposal by an ally of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to ban social media use for children is gaining attention not just for its domestic implications, but for what it could mean globally if the world’s most populous country follows a growing international trend sparked by Australia.
The draft legislation, introduced by lawmaker L.S.K. Devarayalu of the Telugu Desam Party, would prohibit anyone under the age of 16 from holding a social media account, placing full responsibility for age verification and enforcement on the platforms themselves. While the bill is a private member’s proposal and not formal government policy, its emergence reflects a broader political and regulatory shift underway in multiple countries after Australia’s decision to impose the world’s first nationwide ban on social media access for teenagers.
Australia’s move, enacted last month, has become a reference point in global policy circles. The government framed the ban as a response to mounting evidence linking excessive social media use among teens to anxiety, depression, cyberbullying, and sleep disorders. Early indications from Australia — including strong public support from parents and educators and the absence of major social disruption — have emboldened other governments to consider similar restrictions, even in the face of fierce opposition from technology companies.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026).
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab.
France has moved quickly. Its National Assembly has backed legislation to bar children under 15 from accessing social media platforms, arguing that existing self-regulation by tech firms has failed to protect minors. In Britain, the government is examining age-based access limits as part of a broader review of online safety laws, while Denmark and Greece have launched policy studies focused on youth mental health and digital addiction. Canada, Germany, and Ireland have also reopened debates around minimum age requirements, parental consent frameworks, and stricter enforcement obligations for platforms.
Against this backdrop, India’s entry into the debate carries outsized significance. With roughly one billion internet users and about 750 million smartphones in circulation, India is the largest growth market for global platforms such as Meta’s Facebook and Instagram and Alphabet’s YouTube. Any meaningful restriction on youth access would immediately affect tens, if not hundreds, of millions of users — far more than in Australia or any European country.
Devarayalu has framed the issue as both a child-safety concern and a question of national interest. He has argued that Indian children are becoming addicted to social media at the same time the country is supplying enormous volumes of behavioral data to foreign companies. That data, he said, is then used to build advanced artificial intelligence systems, with the economic and strategic benefits accruing outside India.
His bill explicitly shifts the burden of compliance onto social media companies, requiring them to disable underage accounts and prove they have effective age-verification systems in place.
The proposal also aligns with a growing narrative within the Modi administration around data sovereignty and digital self-reliance. India has repeatedly signaled discomfort with a model in which global technology firms extract value from Indian users without commensurate local benefits. The government’s chief economic adviser reinforced this view last week by saying India should consider age-based access policies to tackle what he called “digital addiction,” a remark that suggested the issue is now being discussed at the highest levels of economic policymaking.
Technology companies have responded cautiously. Meta has said it supports parental oversight and age-appropriate experiences but has warned that outright bans could drive teenagers toward unregulated or less safe online spaces. Alphabet’s YouTube and X have declined to comment on the Indian proposal, while India’s IT ministry has so far remained silent, indicating that the government may be weighing its options rather than rushing to endorse the bill.
Enforcement remains a central challenge, particularly in a country as large and diverse as India. Critics of similar laws elsewhere argue that age verification at scale raises privacy concerns and may be difficult to implement without excluding legitimate users or creating new risks. Supporters counter that Australia’s experience shows governments can move beyond voluntary safeguards and force platforms to take responsibility for the harms linked to youth engagement.
What distinguishes India from other countries considering similar bans is sheer scale. If New Delhi were to adopt age-based restrictions on social media, it would not only reshape the daily digital habits of millions of children but also alter the growth trajectory of global platforms that increasingly depend on emerging markets. For Big Tech, an Indian ban would represent a far more serious commercial and strategic shock than Australia’s, simply because of the size of the user base involved.
Even if Devarayalu’s bill does not pass in its current form, it is likely to trigger sustained parliamentary debate and push the government closer to formal action. However, India’s deliberations suggest that age limits on social media are moving from the fringes of policy discussion into the global mainstream – following Australia’s lead.