Internet Regulation Is Centre's Domain: State Social Media Bans May Hit Jurisdictional Barrier
The Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology stated that the government was actively discussing age-based restrictions on social media use for children at the central level.
This followed Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh announcing state-level bans on social media for children — Karnataka for under-16 and Andhra Pradesh for under-13.
Legal and constitutional experts clarified that internet regulation is squarely within the Centre's exclusive domain under the Union List (Entry 31, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution).
The central regulatory framework — the IT Act, 2000 and IT Rules, 2021 — governs all social media platforms operating in India, and platforms respond only to central government orders.
States can use their police power to regulate behaviour or establish welfare programs for children, but cannot impose binding obligations on platforms operating across state and national boundaries.
Seventh Schedule: Union List Entry 31: Internet as Exclusively Central
The constitutional provision governing this jurisdictional dispute is clear and well-established.
The MeitY minister's statement that the Centre is examining age-based restrictions is constitutionally correct — any enforceable national framework must come from Parliament or the central executive. State bans, however well-intentioned, lack the constitutional foundation to bind platforms.
IT Act, 2000: The Governing Central Framework
The IT Act, 2000 is the comprehensive central statute governing all aspects of internet and digital platform regulation in India.
Social media platforms' legal obligations — including any future age-based restrictions — flow from the IT Act and IT Rules, both central instruments. State government notifications or executive orders cannot legally compel platforms to implement state-specific age restrictions.
Centre-State Relations: Article 254 and the Limits of State Power
While states have broad police powers, these powers have constitutional limits when they intersect with Union List subjects.
Karnataka and AP can instruct state schools to restrict social media, educate parents and children, or create state-level guidelines for government institutions — these are valid uses of state executive power. But mandating platforms to block under-age users from their services requires the Centre, not states, to act.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: The Central Solution Already in Place
The DPDP Act, 2023 provides the most directly applicable central framework, though its enforcement remains nascent.
The irony of the state ban announcements is that a stronger legal framework — the DPDP Act, covering all under-18s — already exists at the central level. The states' announcements may create political pressure on the Centre to accelerate enforcement of the DPDP Act's child protection provisions, which is their practical value even if they lack constitutional backing as independent state mandates.
- Entry 31, Union List (Seventh Schedule): Internet = "other like forms of communication" — exclusively Parliament's domain.
- Article 246(1): Parliament's exclusive power over Union List subjects.
- IT Act, 2000: Section 69A (blocking), Section 79 (safe harbour) — central framework; no state equivalent.
- IT Rules, 2021: Rule 3 defines Significant Social Media Intermediaries (50 lakh+ users); Rule 4 — additional obligations.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Supreme Court confirmed central IT Act architecture; struck down Section 66A.
- Telecommunications Act, 2023: Replaced Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; governs internet under Entry 31.
- DPDP Act, 2023: Section 9 — parental consent for under-18 data; prohibition on targeted advertising of children.
- DPDP Rules, 2025: Age verification and consent workflows mandated for platforms.
- DPBI penalties: up to ₹250 crore per violation (certain categories).
- Karnataka proposed cutoff: under-16. Andhra Pradesh primary cutoff: under-13 within 90 days.
- DPDP Act definition of "child": under 18 — broader than state proposals.
- MeitY: Confirmed Centre is examining age-based restrictions at national level (March 2026).
- Article 162: State executive power coextensive with legislative power — limited where legislative power is absent.