We fear online predators. We warn children about digital addiction.
Yet we upload their bath-time photos and tantrum videos without hesitation.
Is Kerala’s digital literacy failing its children?
Childhood, Clicked: Do Children in India Have a Right to Digital Privacy?
Do children below the age of 18 have a Right to Privacy in India — not merely as a protective shield, but as a constitutional right that carries agency and dignity?
Or must one turn eighteen before one is entitled to constitutional personhood?
These questions are not abstract jurisprudential puzzles. They sit in our living rooms, glow on our phone screens, and accumulate quietly in cloud servers.
The 18-Year Threshold: A Convenient Myth?
In India, the Right to Privacy has been affirmed as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. The Court recognized privacy as intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
But here is the unsettling thought:
Does privacy begin at 18?
The Constitution does not say so.
Yet culturally, we operate as though children are extensions of parental will — emotionally, socially, and now, digitally.
From Parenting to “Sharenting”
The academic world now uses a telling term: sharenting — a portmanteau of sharing and parenting. It describes the now-normal practice of posting children’s photographs, videos, and life events online from the moment of birth.
Birth announcements. First bath. Potty training. First tantrum. First dance.
Every milestone archived — and applauded.
In this economy of likes and comments, children become:
- Content
- Data fields
- Algorithms’ raw material
- Objects of digital spectacle
But where is the child’s agency in this digital biography authored by parents?
Kerala’s Digital Paradox
Kerala, celebrated for its literacy and political awareness, is not immune to this paradox.
We:
- Express shock at news of online predators.
- Fear identity theft and cyber fraud.
- Conduct seminars on digital addiction among Gen Z and Gen Alpha.
Yet we upload intimate images of our children — bath-time photos, embarrassing toddler videos, vulnerable moments — into a digital ecosystem known for voyeurism, data mining, and “porning” (the non-consensual sexualization of images).
Are we safeguarding children — or staging them?
The Haunting Archive
The internet does not forget.
Even as Europe debates and enforces the Right to be Forgotten, children in India are accumulating digital footprints they never consented to create. The idea of the “Right to be Forgotten” has gained legal articulation in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regular (GPDR) framework, but in India, it remains fragile and inconsistently applied.
What if:
- The child grows into an introvert?
- The teenager resents viral baby videos?
- The adult feels violated by naked infant photos still circulating online?
Before they could articulate preference, we have already aestheticized their vulnerability.
Who bears responsibility for that embarrassment?
Digital Addiction — But Whose?
We worry about children’s “screen time.”
We lament their dependency on digital validation.
Yet consider this:
When a primary school child grabs a parent’s phone to check how many likes their dance video received, what have we normalized?
We have introduced them to:
- Performance as identity
- Validation as currency
- Visibility as value
The problem may not begin with children’s digital addiction.
It may begin with adult digital exhibitionism masquerading as parenting.
Consent and Constitutional Morality
As adults, we assert our right:
Not to be photographed.
Not to be tagged.
Not to be posted without consent.
Why, then, do we assume absolute control over our children’s digital identities?
If privacy is a constitutional right — not a privilege — then children do not merely need protection. They deserve recognition as rights-bearing subjects.
The deeper issue is not legality alone. It is constitutional morality — the ethical imagination that respects dignity even when law remains silent.
Rethinking Care in the Digital Age
Perhaps it is time to shift the critical lens:
From blaming Gen Z for digital addiction
To interrogating how parents digitally stage childhood.
- Parenting is not content creation.
- Children are not brand extensions.
- Affection does not require algorithmic validation.
If dignity is the core of our constitutional ethos, then maybe the question is not:
“Do children have a Right to Privacy?”
But rather:
Are we willing to treat them as persons — before they turn eighteen?
And if we, as adults, reserve the right to decide whether we want to be “clicked” and “posted,” how ethically defensible is it to construct and control the digital identities of those who cannot yet comprehend the architecture of harm in the digital ecosystem?
The camera is in our hands.
The archive is permanent.
The question is — will we choose care over clicks?
Comments
Post a Comment