Authored By: Sarvesha Tawale
ILS Law College
Introduction
Long before children create their first social media accounts, many already possess an online identity. Parents routinely share photographs, videos and personal milestones on social media as expressions of love and pride, a practice commonly known as ‘sharenting’.[1] While seemingly harmless, such disclosures raise an increasingly significant legal question: who truly controls a child’s digital identity?
Unlike family albums, online disclosures are permanent and capable of shaping a child’s digital footprint without consent. The consequences extend beyond embarrassment, raising concerns about privacy, dignity, reputation and informational autonomy.[2]
Indian constitutional jurisprudence recognises privacy as a fundamental right, while the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) strengthens the protection of children’s personal data.[3] Yet the existing legal framework primarily regulates State authorities and Data Fiduciaries, remaining largely silent where personal information is voluntarily disclosed by parents themselves. This article argues that the legal challenge posed by sharenting is not the absence of children’s privacy rights, but the absence of a coherent framework capable of balancing parental authority with a child’s independent right to privacy in the digital age.[4]
Beyond Family Albums: Why Sharenting Raises a Distinct Legal Challenge
Sharenting differs from traditional family albums because digital platforms make parental disclosures permanent, searchable and widely accessible. Information shared online may be copied, indexed by search engines and redistributed beyond the parents’ intended audience, allowing a child’s digital footprint to develop without the child’s knowledge or consent.[5]
The concerns associated with sharenting extend beyond posting photographs. Excessive sharing may expose children to identity misuse, unauthorised profiling, reputational harm and the creation of a permanent digital footprint that may influence future educational, professional and social opportunities. Such disclosures may also facilitate online exploitation by revealing sensitive personal information.[6]
Although Indian law presumes that parents ordinarily act in their children’s best interests, the digital environment presents a challenge that earlier generations never encountered. Decisions made today may continue to affect a child’s privacy long after the child becomes capable of making independent choices. The question is therefore not whether parents should be prohibited from sharing family memories, but whether every parental disclosure should automatically be presumed to advance the child’s best interests. This tension between parental authority and children’s evolving autonomy transforms sharenting from a social practice into a constitutional and legal issue.
III. Privacy Belongs to Children Too: The Constitutional Foundation
The constitutional basis for protecting children’s digital privacy already exists within Indian law. In Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy under Article 21 as encompassing dignity, autonomy and informational self-determination. Although delivered in the context of Aadhaar, the judgment established that individuals have a legitimate interest in controlling their personal information in the digital age.[7]
Applied to sharenting, these principles reveal an important legal dilemma. Children rarely exercise meaningful control over the creation of their online identities. Parents determine what information is shared, who may access it and how long it remains available. Consequently, a child’s digital footprint may be established long before the child possesses the maturity to make informed decisions regarding personal information. The issue, therefore, is not whether parents act with good intentions, but whether constitutional privacy remains meaningful when another person permanently shapes a child’s digital identity.
This interpretation is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s child rights jurisprudence. In Sampurna Behura v. Union of India and ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reaffirmed that the welfare and best interests of the child remain paramount in matters affecting children.[8] Read together with Puttaswamy, these decisions recognise children as independent rights-holders whose constitutional protections continue to operate in the digital environment.
When Existing Law Falls Silent
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) represents a significant step towards protecting children’s personal data. It defines a child as a person below eighteen years of age, requires verifiable parental consent before processing a child’s personal data and prohibits processing that is likely to have a detrimental effect on children’s well-being.[9] These safeguards demonstrate Parliament’s intention to provide enhanced protection for minors in the digital environment.
The limitation, however, lies in the Act’s scope. It principally regulates Data Fiduciaries rather than parents who voluntarily disclose their children’s personal information online. Consequently, a social media platform may comply with the DPDP Act while a child’s digital identity continues to expand through repeated parental disclosures. The digital environment therefore challenges the traditional assumption that parental consent invariably reflects the child’s best interests. The law has long asked whether parents may consent on behalf of children; the digital age demands an additional question—whether parents may permanently define a child’s digital identity on their behalf.
Repeated disclosures may gradually create a permanent digital profile capable of future misuse. Although no immediate harm may occur, such information can remain accessible indefinitely and be copied, analysed or repurposed beyond the parent’s original intention. The issue is therefore not merely one of parental expression but whether existing law adequately protects children’s informational privacy within the family. This concern also finds indirect support in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which reflects Parliament’s continuing commitment to safeguarding children’s privacy and identity during legal proceedings.[10]
India’s international obligations reinforce this position. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) recognises the best interests of the child under Article 3 and protects children against arbitrary interference with their privacy under Article 16.[11] Building upon these principles, General Comment No. 25 (2021) extends these protections to the digital environment and recognises children’s evolving capacities in decisions affecting their personal information. France has likewise introduced legislation protecting children’s image rights, illustrating an emerging international recognition of children’s digital privacy.[12]
From Protection to Participation: A Way Forward
The objective of regulating sharenting should not be to discourage parents from sharing family memories but to ensure that such sharing remains consistent with children’s constitutional rights. Rather than creating an entirely new statutory framework, India can strengthen its existing legal regime through targeted reforms.
A practical first step would be for the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), in collaboration with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), to issue advisory guidelines promoting responsible digital parenting and discouraging the disclosure of sensitive information such as school details, medical records and live locations.[13] Future implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 should also clarify how the best interests of the child apply where parents voluntarily disclose their children’s personal information online. Digital platforms can complement these efforts by adopting stronger default privacy settings, contextual prompts before uploading children’s photographs and educational resources highlighting the long-term implications of digital footprints.
Conclusion
Sharenting demonstrates that one of the greatest contemporary challenges to children’s privacy may arise not from malicious actors but from well-intentioned parental conduct. Although Indian constitutional jurisprudence and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provide a strong foundation for protecting children’s personal data, they do not adequately address the legal implications of voluntary parental disclosures.
The law must therefore evolve to ensure that parental expression remains consistent with children’s independent rights. Protecting children in the digital age requires more than safeguarding them from external threats; it also requires preserving their ability to shape their own digital identities when they are capable of making that choice. Ultimately, the question is not whether parents should share childhood memories, but whether the law should ensure that those memories do not permanently define a child’s digital future.[14]
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Cases
ABC v State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 10 SCC 1.
Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
Sampurna Behura v Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 433.
Legislation
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023.
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.
International Instruments
Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3.
Secondary Sources
Joseph JA, ‘Sharenting Problem’ in the Backdrop of Indian Legislation (2024) 8(3–4) NUJS Journal of Regulatory Studies.
OECD, Companion Document to the OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment (OECD Publishing 2022).
OECD, How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age? (OECD Publishing 2025).
PIIR Foundation, Sharenting and Its Implications on Children’s Digital Rights in India (2024).
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No 25 (2021) on Children’s Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment UN Doc CRC/C/GC/25 (2 March 2021).
[1] PIIR Foundation, Sharenting and Its Implications on Children’s Digital Rights in India (2024).
[2] OECD, How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age? (OECD Publishing 2025).
[3] Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1; Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, ss 2(i), 9.
[4] UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No 25 (2021) on Children’s Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment UN Doc CRC/C/GC/25 (2 March 2021).
[5] OECD, How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age? (OECD Publishing 2025).
[6] PIIR Foundation, Sharenting and Its Implications on Children’s Digital Rights in India (2024); UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No 25 (2021) on Children’s Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment UN Doc CRC/C/GC/25 (2 March 2021).
[7] Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[8] Sampurna Behura v Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 433; ABC v State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 10 SCC 1.
[9] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, ss 2(i), 9.
[10] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, ss 23, 24, 33(7).
[11] Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3, arts 3, 16.
[12] UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No 25 (2021) on Children’s Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment UN Doc CRC/C/GC/25 (2 March 2021); Law No 2024-120 of 19 February 2024 aimed at guaranteeing respect for the image rights of children (France).
[13] UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 25 (2021) on Children’s Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment UN Doc CRC/C/GC/25 (2 March 2021).
[14] Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1; Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), arts 3, 16.
