Three separate court proceedings in Pakistan are addressing proposals to restrict social media access for children under 16. The cases involve the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), Lahore High Court (LHC) and Islamabad High Court (IHC), but they are not a single proceeding and have reached different procedural stages.
The original petition filed at the FCC was dismissed by the court’s registrar, prompting the petitioners to challenge that decision. Separately, the LHC has sought legal assistance in a petition filed by Alia Saleem, while the IHC has issued notices on an application to add two public bodies to a case brought by Waqas Nasir.
As of October 28, 2026, the latest public reports located for this article do not establish that these proceedings have resulted in a nationwide under-16 social-media ban. The cases concern requests for legal and regulatory action; a petition or court notice is not itself a new law or a final judicial ruling.
## 1. Federal Constitutional Court: appeal against registrar’s objections
In early September, lawyers Sheraz Zaka and Moin Akhtar filed a constitutional petition at the FCC’s Lahore registry seeking measures to restrict social media access for children under 16. They asked the authorities to introduce an age-verification system and take additional action concerning content they considered harmful to children.
The petitioners argued that unrestricted access exposed young users to cyberbullying, potentially addictive platform design, sexualised material and other risks. They also sought action by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) over television content.
These are arguments advanced by the petitioners, not findings already accepted by the court.
The case subsequently encountered objections from the FCC registrar. The main petition was dismissed at the registry stage rather than being decided on the substantive merits of the proposed restrictions.
On September 30, *Dawn* reported that the petitioners had filed an appeal challenging the registrar’s objections. They asked the FCC to set aside the administrative decision and have their petition fixed for a hearing.
The petitioners argued that questions about maintainability, legal standing and alternative remedies should be decided judicially after a hearing rather than settled by a registrar’s administrative order.
The [September 30 report by Dawn](https://www.dawn.com/news/2033599) describes the appeal and the petitioners’ arguments.
The distinction matters: the registrar’s disposal of the original petition is not a final judicial decision rejecting the requested policy on its merits. Equally, the filing of an appeal does not establish that the FCC has accepted the petitioners’ arguments or ordered an under-16 restriction.
The latest FCC-related report located for this update was the September 30 account of the appeal. A subsequent decision on that appeal was not established in the public sources reviewed.
## 2. Lahore High Court: legal assistance sought
A separate case before the LHC was filed by Alia Saleem. It also seeks restrictions on social media use by children under 16, including a mandatory age-verification mechanism and changes to the existing legal framework.
On October 5, the court issued notices to the Attorney General for Pakistan and the Advocate General of Punjab under Section 27-A, seeking their assistance on the legal questions raised by the petition. The following day, *The Express Tribune* reported that Chief Justice Aalia Neelum had summoned the Attorney General to assist the court.
The proceedings concern whether a legal basis exists for the proposed age restriction, what changes may be necessary, and how the responsibilities of the relevant authorities should be defined.
The petition also raises objections about television content and seeks measures to restrict material its proponents consider inappropriate for children. Those requests form part of the petitioner’s case; they should not be described as requirements already imposed by the court.
The [October 5 report by 24NewsHD](https://www.24newshd.tv/05-Oct-2026/lhc-issues-notices-petition-seeking-ban-social-media-under-16s) and [October 6 report by The Express Tribune](https://tribune.com.pk/story/2633181/legal-input-sought-on-social-media-ban-for-teenagers) describe the procedural developments.
Seeking legal assistance is not a judgment in favour of or against the proposed ban. The court has not, through the reported procedural steps alone, established that the requested nationwide restriction must be enacted.
## 3. Islamabad High Court: NADRA and the new regulatory authority
The IHC case is separate from both the FCC and LHC proceedings. It was brought by Waqas Nasir and seeks a legal and regulatory framework for children’s use of social media, including an age-verification mechanism.
On August 31, the IHC sought responses from relevant ministries, PTA and PEMRA. The case raised questions about the authorities’ existing powers and whether new legislation would be required.
On October 1, PTA reportedly told the IHC that it did not currently have the statutory authority to impose mandatory age verification or prohibit social media access for children under 16 through its existing powers.
A subsequent procedural development occurred on October 14. According to [The Express Tribune](https://tribune.com.pk/story/2634703/ihc-seeks-replies-on-u-16-social-media-ban-plea), the court issued notices to the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) and the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority on a miscellaneous application requesting that they be added as respondents in the case.
That application concerned the parties to the proceeding. It was not, by itself, a ruling requiring the two institutions to introduce an age-verification system or enforce a nationwide ban.
The PTA’s reported position is also important to distinguish from a final judicial ruling. A regulator’s submission about the limits of its existing powers is evidence of the legal issue raised before the court, not a judicial determination of every question concerning potential legislation or regulation.
The latest IHC-related report located for this update was published on October 14. The public sources reviewed did not establish a later final decision in this case.
## 4. What the three cases have in common
All three proceedings concern proposals to restrict under-16s’ access to social media, introduce age verification or improve safeguards for children online. They reflect continuing debate over whether the current legal framework gives the authorities sufficient power to achieve those aims.
However, their procedural status differs:
- **FCC:** The original petition was dismissed by the registrar, and the petitioners challenged the registrar’s objections.
- **LHC:** The court sought assistance from senior government law officers on the legal questions raised by a separate petition.
- **IHC:** The court issued notices on an application to add NADRA and the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority as respondents in another case.
These steps should not be presented as one consolidated national case. Each proceeding has its own petitioners, respondents, procedural history and potential outcomes.
None of the reported procedural developments described above is, by itself, an order imposing a nationwide under-16 social-media ban.
## 5. What does Pakistan’s existing law provide?
The petitioners have argued that Pakistan lacks a specific nationwide prohibition on social-media accounts for users under 16 and a mandatory age-verification system of the kind they are seeking.
Their arguments should be understood in the context of the legal framework that currently applies, rather than treated as a substitute for legal analysis. Laws dealing with online offences, platform regulation, privacy, child protection or inappropriate content may address particular risks without necessarily establishing a general minimum age for social-media accounts.
PTA’s reported October 1 submission in the IHC case stated that the authority lacked statutory power to impose the specific restriction and age-verification requirement sought by the petitioner. That position helps explain why the litigation includes questions about new legislation and the division of responsibilities among regulatory bodies.
Parliament has previously considered an age-specific bill. The [Senate’s official legislative record](https://www.senate.gov.pk/) records that the Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill, 2025 was introduced on July 21, 2025 and withdrawn by its movers on August 18, 2025. It therefore should not be described as an enacted law.
The Punjab Assembly also passed a resolution in early September 2026 recommending measures to restrict social media access for children under 16. A resolution expressing support for action is different from an enacted law and does not, by itself, establish an enforceable nationwide ban.
Any statement about the current legal position should be verified against enacted legislation, relevant regulations and subsequent court orders, rather than inferred from the filing of a petition or passage of a resolution.
## 6. Why age verification is a central issue
Mandatory age verification raises practical and legal questions beyond whether a minimum age should exist. An effective system would need to establish a user’s age, prevent or respond to attempts to bypass verification, and define the responsibilities of platforms and relevant public authorities.
Any such system would also need to consider personal-data protection, security, accessibility and the risk of wrongly excluding legitimate adult users. The design of a verification mechanism can have implications for privacy, particularly if it requires users to provide identity documents or information linked to a government database.
The petitions have asked courts to direct public authorities to establish safeguards and legal mechanisms. The specific system eventually adopted, if any, would depend on the outcome of the legal proceedings, policy decisions and any legislation or regulations that are actually brought into force.
The existence of a proposed age-verification system should not be confused with proof that a system has already been created or made compulsory.
## 7. What happens next?
The next material developments would be a judicial order in any of the three proceedings, a formal legislative measure, or an official regulatory decision establishing new requirements.
For the FCC case, readers should look for an order addressing the petitioners’ appeal against the registrar’s objections. For the LHC case, the relevant development would be a subsequent hearing or order following the request for legal assistance. For the IHC case, the next step may concern the application to add NADRA and the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority as respondents, followed by further proceedings on the main petition.
The status of each case should be updated independently. A procedural order in one court does not automatically determine the outcome of a similar petition elsewhere.
The legal questions include whether new legislation is necessary, which authority would enforce a restriction, how platforms would verify age, and what safeguards should apply to personal information. Until a relevant law or binding order establishes a particular requirement, a proposed ban should not be described as already in force.
## Current status as of October 28, 2026
The public reports reviewed for this article establish three separate legal efforts, not a single consolidated case. The FCC petitioners have challenged the registrar’s objections; the LHC has sought assistance from the Attorney General and Advocate General; and the IHC has issued notices on an application to add NADRA and the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority as respondents.
The reported proceedings have not, through the procedural steps described above, established a nationwide under-16 social-media ban. Later court orders or legislation could alter the position and should be incorporated only when supported by reliable, current sources.
**Sources:**
- [Dawn — FCC petition appeal, September 30, 2026](https://www.dawn.com/news/2033599)
- [24NewsHD — LHC proceedings, October 5, 2026](https://www.24newshd.tv/05-Oct-2026/lhc-issues-notices-petition-seeking-ban-social-media-under-16s)
- [The Express Tribune — LHC legal assistance, October 6, 2026](https://tribune.com.pk/story/2633181/legal-input-sought-on-social-media-ban-for-teenagers)
- [The Express Tribune — IHC notices, October 14, 2026](https://tribune.com.pk/story/2634703/ihc-seeks-replies-on-u-16-social-media-ban-plea)
- [Senate of Pakistan — legislative records](https://www.senate.gov.pk/)
