On 29 September 2026, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued notices over Instagram videos that allegedly show children at a coaching centre in Etah, Uttar Pradesh, reciting scripted, politically charged lines against the Prime Minister. A bench headed by Member Priyank Kanoongo sent notices to the SSP and District Magistrate of Etah, to Meta India's Managing Director and Country Head, and to the MeitY Secretary. Each has two weeks to file an Action Taken Report (Business Today). These are allegations, not findings. We have not seen the videos or any response from the coaching centre.
The strongest case for the notice
The case for intervening is strong. Children cannot give meaningful consent to being made political props. A viral video can follow a child through school and adolescence, and the complaint raises dignity, privacy, psychological well-being, parental consent and possible exploitation. The NHRC has also asked whether the videos earned commercial benefit. If adults monetised children's scripted outbursts, this is closer to exploitation than to speech. The Commission's framing is also the right one: according to The Hans India, it said the children "must be treated primarily as children requiring protection," and that the inquiry should focus on the adults who scripted, produced or commercially exploited the content.
The notice is also not partisan in design. On 31 December 2024 the same NHRC member directed X to take down a campaign video featuring children that had been posted by Delhi's then Chief Minister Atishi and AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal. The NHRC cited Election Commission guidelines of 5 February 2024, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (Tribune). Children in political content is a problem whichever party's message they are made to carry.
Where the notice is on firm ground
The police directions are the most defensible part. Etah authorities are to identify the children, arrange protection and counselling, identify who controls the account, and register an FIR if cognizable offences are made out (Business Today). This goes after the people responsible, through existing criminal and child-protection law, with due process. It needs no new speech rule and no change to intermediary obligations.
Where the risk lies: turning a child-protection case into a platform duty
The Meta notice is more delicate. Meta has been asked how videos involving minors were repeatedly uploaded and circulated, and what preventive measures it took. A platform can reasonably be asked whether it acted on reports and how its child-safety policies work. It cannot reliably tell, from a clip alone, whether a child was coached, whether parents consented, or whether the content is political advocacy or family content. A duty to pre-screen for that would push platforms towards blanket removal of any video that features a minor and touches on politics. That would sweep in legitimate content: a teenager's own views, a school debate, a family discussing an election.
India already has a heavy takedown regime. The February 2026 amendments to the IT Rules, notified on 10 February and in force from 20 February, cut the window for complying with a government or authorised order from 36 hours to 3 hours and added labelling duties for synthetically generated content (Outlook Business). Those rules target deepfakes. The Etah videos, as described, feature real children speaking scripted lines, so they sit outside that framework. The worry is not that the rules apply here. It is that a high-profile notice of this kind signals that platforms should over-remove to stay safe, even where no rule requires it. MediaNama's analysis of the draft rules had already flagged the lack of clear exemptions for satire, parody and reenactments (MediaNama). Scripted political content that is hard to tell from sincere speech will test exactly that gap.
Why the political content matters to the speech analysis
The content at issue is reportedly anti-government. That is not a reason to read the NHRC's motive uncharitably. The same Commission treated a ruling-party opponent's video the same way in 2024, and the harm to children does not depend on whose message is carried. But a state body asking a platform to explain its handling of politically critical content is something to watch, however sound the child-protection basis. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, decided on 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act because vague terms like "annoyance" and "inconvenience" chilled legitimate expression and had no proximate connection to the permitted restrictions in Article 19(2) (Indian Kanoon). The lesson applies here. Enforcement should rest on clear, specific harms, here the exploitation of minors, and not on how offensive or hostile the speech is.
What proportionate enforcement looks like
- Lead with the adults. Identify the account holders, examine the commercial angle, and use the Juvenile Justice Act and the criminal law where the facts support it.
- Ask platforms for process, not prediction. Meta's report should cover report-handling, repeat-upload detection and child-safety policy, not a promise to judge consent from a video.
- Keep the record public. The NHRC should publish the outcome, so the next case is judged against a known standard and not guesswork.
- Protect the children's identities. Any follow-up by police, platforms or the press should avoid further exposing the children concerned.
The NHRC has also been working on the broader question. At an open house on 18 March 2026, its chairperson, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, convened officials, academics and civil society on children's access to social media. Participants leaned towards regulation over bans, evidence-based approaches and clearer accountability for technology companies (NHRC). The Etah case is a chance to apply that consensus. If it ends in action against the people who used the children and a proportionate process review at Meta, it will be a good model. If it turns into a standard of strict platform liability for any minor who appears in political content, it will push Indian platforms towards removing more lawful speech than they are required to.