Phones in Indian schools: what the court and the evidence say

The case is YV v. Kendriya Vidyalaya, W.P.(C) 15191/2023, decided by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani. Considering guidelines that assumed smartphones in school should be banned, the court observed that “much has changed in the past years as regards the use of technology, including for educational and other related purposes”, and concluded:

“In the opinion of this court therefore, a complete ban on use of smartphones by students attending school is both an undesirable and unworkable approach.”

It then drew up nine guiding principles“which would serve to balance the beneficial and deleterious effects of permitting the use of smartphones in the hands of students while attending school”. The wording matters: the petition was disposed of for the authorities to review their own policies, expressly “without however interfering with those polices at this stage”. These are principles for schools to apply, not an order striking down anybody’s rules.

When UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report put the question on the agenda in July 2023, its own framing was that “smartphones in schools have also proven to be a distraction to learning, yet fewer than a quarter of countries ban their use in schools”.

The count has moved since, and the three figures are easy to confuse, so each carries its date: by the end of 2023, 60 education systems (30%) had bans in law or policy; by the end of 2024, 79 (40%) did. Those are UNESCO’s updates to the same count, not three different measurements.

UNESCO’s recommendation is narrower than the headlines suggested. Its position is that the 2023 report “argued for technology to be used in class only when it supports learning outcomes. This message includes the use of smartphones.” The same update adds that “students need to learn the risks and opportunities that come with technology and not be shielded from them entirely” — which is recognisably the position the Delhi High Court reached two years later.

The Economic Survey presented in January 2026 gives digital addiction a section of its own in chapter 11. Its framing is that “while obesity and inadequate nutrition threaten the physical health of youth, digital addiction undermines their cognitive and social development”, and that it “negatively affects academic performance and workplace productivity due to distractions, ‘sleep debt’, and reduced focus”.

Three of its recommendations bear directly on schools and families:

• A curriculum.“Schools play a critical role in shaping digital habits and should introduce a Digital Wellness Curriculum covering screen-time literacy, cyber safety, and mental health awareness.” (para 11.74)
• Age checks on platforms.“Policies on age-based access limits may be considered, as younger users are more vulnerable to compulsive use and harmful content. Platforms should be made responsible for enforcing age verification and age-appropriate defaults…” (para 11.75)
• Simpler devices.“Promoting simpler devices for children, such as basic phones or education-only tablets, along with enforced usage limits and content filters, can further reduce exposure to harmful material…” (para 11.76)

These are recommendations in a survey, not law. The Survey is tabled in Parliament and carries weight, but nothing here obliges a school or a platform to do anything.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 treats anyone under eighteen as a child, and section 9 sets two rules that shape what apps may do with them. On consent:

“The Data Fiduciary shall, before processing any personal data of a child or a person with disability who has a lawful guardian obtain verifiable consent of the parent of such child or the lawful guardian, as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed.”

And on what may never be done to them:

“A Data Fiduciary shall not undertake tracking or behavioural monitoring of children or targeted advertising directed at children.”

The mechanics are left to rules made under the Act — the section itself says “in such manner as may be prescribed”. Those rules were notified in November 2025. We have deliberately not quoted them here: we could not obtain a copy from an official source, only from a third-party mirror, and this site does not quote a legal instrument it has not read in the original.

Worth noting for parents comparing tools: an app that watches what a child does in order to report it is exactly the behaviour section 9(3) names. It is one of the reasons Spark has no dashboard and no activity reports.

Every document above governs the school day. The homework evening, the hostel room and the two hours before sleep are not covered by any of them, and that is where most of the hours are: ASER found that of rural 14–16-year-olds who can use a smartphone, 76% had used one for social media in the reference week.

What works at home is not a stricter rule but a different arrangement — putting the unlock somewhere that costs a walk, agreed with the teenager rather than imposed on them. The parents’ page is the honest version of what a key can and cannot do, and the India numbers are the wider picture.