Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah announced on Friday that social media will be banned for children under the age of 16 in the 2026-27 State Budget, positioning the southern state as India's first to signal intent toward age-based digital restrictions. The announcement comes amidgrowing debate at the national level in India, with officials in states Goa and Andhra Pradesh recently saying they are studying similar restrictions.
The move is fiscally motivated by legitimate concerns.The ban aims to curb mobile addiction and protect academics and fitness, reflecting real anxieties that resonate far beyond India's borders. These are problems governments should take seriously. Excessive screen time among teenagers is documented; the question is whether prohibition works better than regulation.
Yet implementation remains murky.Siddaramaiah did not share details on how the restrictions would be enforced.The Karnataka government has not yet decided how it will enforce the restriction, and labour minister Santosh Lad acknowledged that implementing it is always a challenge. This is not mere bureaucratic hand-wringing. Australia, which moved faster, is already discovering the hard limits of enforcement.
As of 10 December 2025, age-restricted social media platforms in Australia need to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from creating or keeping an account. Platforms facecourt-imposed fines of up to 150,000 penalty units for corporations, currently equivalent to a total of $49.5 million AUD. Yet within weeks, problems emerged.A 15-year-old from Melbourne used facial recognition to recover her suspended Instagram account, and many teens have used Face ID successfully because they look old enough.
Legal experts question whether Karnataka even has the power to act alone.Legal experts questioned whether an Indian state has the authority to enforce such restrictions, with policy consultant Aparajita Bharti saying the announcement appears more a statement of intent than a concrete policy proposal.It is unclear whether the Karnataka state government has the legislative authority to undertake such measures, and broad regulations concerning internet policies fall largely under India's federal jurisdiction, potentially limiting the ability of individual states to impose such bans.
The tech sector's position reflects a legitimate alternative.Platforms may advocate for alternatives such as parental consent models, supervised teen accounts, or strengthened parental controls instead of a blanket ban. This is not mere corporate resistance; critics note thatchildren are often more tech-savvy than regulators and easily bypass bans using VPNs, and millions of Indian minors currently use VPNs to access restricted content or apps previously banned.
From Perth, the picture looks rather different from how it does in New Delhi or Bengaluru. Australia's experiment, less than three months old, suggests that fiscal responsibility demands we ask hard questions before legislating. The concern about child mental health is genuine; so is the need to recognise what works. A ban that drives teenagers toward less visible platforms and unregulated spaces may protect against one harm whilst creating others.
Reasonable people disagree on this.Mental health organisations like Headspace and Orygen welcome stronger protections for vulnerable young people, whilstcritics say the ban could harm the very children it aims to protect, as access to social media can be life-saving for some, including those using platforms for legitimate support networks, education, or creative expression. The truth is both observations have merit. Any sustainable approach must balance child protection with access to information and community.
Karnataka's announcement is a starting point, not a finish line. Before implementation, the state should learn from Australia's early stumbles with age verification technology. It should also demand clarity from the Union on constitutional authority. And it should invest not just in restrictions but in digital literacy programmes that give teenagers tools to navigate social media safely rather than simply locking them out entirely. The right policy is neither a naive embrace of platforms nor a blanket prohibition, but evidence-based protections that acknowledge the genuine complexity involved.