The Lift Line
“The central question is not whether children will interact with AI; they already do. It is whether the institutions entrusted with their protection can keep pace with technologies that are transforming children’s lives and childhood itself.” (Sakshi Rewaria, The Hindu)
Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam
This op-ed in The Hindu of 8 October 2026 is by Sakshi Rewaria, a faculty member at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Rohtak. It takes up a new kind of digital harm: children forming emotional bonds with AI companion chatbots, and the risks when that relationship turns harmful. The author uses California’s Adam’s Law, signed on 10 September 2026, as context to ask whether India’s laws are ready.
The topic sits at the meeting point of GS2 (protection of vulnerable sections, children’s rights, government policies) and GS3 (emerging technology, cyber safety). It is the kind of question that turns up in an Essay or Interview on technology and society. For background, we covered India’s rules on manipulative online design in the e-commerce dark patterns amendment on 11 September.
GS Paper 2: Mechanisms, laws, institutions for the protection of vulnerable sections; issues relating to children. GS Paper 3: Awareness in IT, computers and AI; challenges to internal security through communication networks. GS Paper 4 (link): Ethics of technology design.
Background and Context
The case that started the debate
In April 2025, Adam Raine, a 16-year-old in the United States, died by suicide. His family alleged that ChatGPT had discussed suicide with him for months and even helped him draft a farewell note, and filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. The litigation is ongoing; the allegations have not been decided by a court.
Background: what Adam’s Law does
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Law | Senate Bill 1119, called “Adam’s Law”, California |
| Enacted in | 2026: signed on 10 September 2026 by Governor Gavin Newsom |
| Covers | AI companion chatbots used by children |
| Safeguards named by the author | crisis-detection protocols; parental controls; notifications when children disable safety settings; independent safety audits |
| Other reported duties | a documented crisis-response protocol with referrals to outside help when a child expresses suicidal thoughts; where the operator finds a credible threat of self-harm, notifying a linked parent or giving the child a direct route to a crisis line |
| Commencement | most duties start on 1 July 2027 |
It amends California’s existing companion-chatbot law, adding duties aimed at minors.
India’s current legal toolkit
| Law | What it covers | The gap the author identifies |
|---|---|---|
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | cybercrime, intermediary liability | aimed at conventional cybercrime |
| Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 | personal data, including children’s data | data, not psychological harm |
| Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 | sexual offences against children, including online | does not reach emotional dependence or harmful advice |
None, the author argues, “establishes a comprehensive framework governing the psychological risks of AI companions.”
The Analysis
1. A new confidant. A child in distress used to turn to a parent, a friend or a counsellor. Now, the author writes, that confidant is “increasingly becoming an AI chatbot”, because these apps are available at all hours, appear empathetic and are “endlessly responsive.” The question is who takes responsibility when the relationship turns harmful.
2. The harm is a new category. Unlike a phishing scam or a hacked account, AI-related psychological harm is insidious. It can emerge through “thousands of seemingly innocuous exchanges, shaped by product design and algorithmic responses.” The risks the author names are emotional dependence, psychological manipulation and exposure to harmful advice. India’s laws, built for conventional cybercrime, are “not equipped to investigate this emerging category of harm.”
3. Platforms, not only governments, must answer. The challenge extends to the accountability of platforms whose products are becoming embedded in children’s emotional world. Responsibility cannot rest on parents and the state alone when the design of the product shapes the conversation.
4. The Constitution already points the way. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty; Article 39(f), a Directive Principle, directs the state to ensure that children have opportunities to develop “in conditions of freedom and dignity.” The author argues these principles must now cover children’s interactions in the digital space: not only their data and physical safety, but also the risks of engaging with AI chatbots.
5. But regulate with a light, precise hand. “An excessively restrictive approach could stifle innovation, burden emerging enterprises, and impede the development of genuine AI progress.” The goal is accountability, not obstruction. The author suggests:
- age-appropriate safeguards;
- crisis-response mechanisms;
- independent safety assessments;
- effective parental oversight;
- all designed to respect children’s privacy and evolving autonomy.
6. Build for India, do not copy. California’s law is a prompt, not a template. India needs a framework suited to its institutional capacities and digital realities, and must ask whether its cybercrime investigators can examine algorithmic behaviour, use chatbot interactions as evidence and establish accountability when prolonged engagement causes harm.
Data and Institutions Vault
Prelims-grade facts:
- Adam’s Law: California SB 1119, enacted in September 2026 (signed 10 September 2026); covers AI companion chatbots used by children.
- Adam’s Law duties: crisis detection, parental controls, notice when safety settings are disabled, independent audits; most apply from 1 July 2027.
- Adam Raine: 16, died in April 2025; family’s wrongful-death suit against OpenAI is ongoing.
- Indian laws named: IT Act, 2000; DPDP Act, 2023; POCSO Act, 2012.
- Article 21: right to life and personal liberty (Fundamental Right).
- Article 39(f): children to be given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity (Directive Principle).
⚠️ Watch the trap: Article 39(f) is a Directive Principle (Part IV), not a Fundamental Right; courts read it with Article 21. Adam’s Law is a California state law, not a federal one.
The Debate
The author’s case. Children already use AI companions; harms from prolonged, emotionally charged interaction are real and hard to detect; India’s laws do not cover them. A calibrated framework, grounded in Articles 21 and 39(f), can protect children without stifling innovation.
The other side. Regulating “psychological risk” is hard to define in law, and vague duties can chill legitimate products or push compliance costs onto small Indian start-ups while large foreign firms absorb them. Age verification and parental monitoring can themselves intrude on children’s privacy. And a single case in another country, still being litigated, is a narrow base for new law; evidence on how Indian children actually use these apps is thin.
The balanced verdict. The strongest version of the author’s argument is the narrowest: require crisis protocols and referrals, independent audits for products aimed at children, and investigative capacity to examine algorithms. These address the gravest risk without regulating every conversation, and they can be tested and widened as evidence builds.
How to Think About This
Frame it as duty of care in product design. When a product is built to be engaging and empathetic, and its users include children, who carries the duty when it causes harm: the user, the parent, the state or the maker? A good answer moves through three layers: rights (Articles 21 and 39(f)), gaps (IT Act, DPDP, POCSO aimed elsewhere) and design of regulation (proportionate, risk-based, child-centred, privacy-respecting). Add the enforcement point the author raises, which most answers miss: laws are only as good as investigators who can read an algorithm and a chat log.
Diagram-in-Words
AI companions and child safety: Sakshi Rewaria’s argument
From chatbots as children’s confidants, through a California law and India’s gaps, to a calibrated framework.
Takeaway Box
- Core idea: AI companions are entering children’s emotional lives; India’s digital laws do not cover their psychological risks.
- Trigger: California’s Adam’s Law (SB 1119), signed 10 September 2026, after the death of 16-year-old Adam Raine.
- Constitutional basis: Article 21 and Article 39(f).
- Way forward: age-appropriate safeguards, crisis protocols, independent audits, parental oversight respecting privacy, investigative capacity; calibrated, not copied.
Revision Flowchart
AI companions, children and the law
Know the terms, Prelims pointers and traps, Mains pointers, and a practice question.
Sources: The Hindu, op-ed by Sakshi Rewaria, 8 October 2026; background: Office of Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, “Governor Newsom Signs Adam’s Law”, 10 September 2026; National Law Review, on SB 1119.
Source: AI Companions and Child Safety: Lessons From Adam's Law — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
