Digital Dependency or Digital Autonomy? Evaluating the Efficacy of India’s Emerging Policy Framework for Youth Mental Health

Steevan D Souza N; Vandana D Souza N

doi:10.61994/jpss.v4i2.2113

Authors

Steevan D Souza N AIMIT, St.Aloysius, Mangalore, India
Vandana D Souza N Yenepoya Deemd to be University, Mangalore, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61994/jpss.v4i2.2113

Keywords:

Digital, Karnataka, Mental Health, Policy, Youth

Abstract

The rapid expansion of digital technology has fundamentally transformed the social, emotional, and academic lives of adolescents. While digital platforms provide opportunities for communication, learning, and creativity, excessive and unregulated use has been associated with rising mental health concerns among young people. In India, increasing smartphone penetration and social media engagement have intensified concerns regarding digital addiction, cyberbullying, sleep disruption, and social comparison anxiety among students (NIMHANS, 2025). These developments have prompted policymakers to explore regulatory frameworks aimed at promoting responsible digital use. The Karnataka Draft Policy 2026 for Responsible Digital Use Among Students represents one of the first structured attempts in India to address the intersection between youth mental health and digital behavior. The policy emphasizes awareness, monitoring, and institutional responsibility. However, the practical implementation of such policies raises critical questions regarding institutional readiness, resource availability, ethical governance, and stakeholder accountability. Without clear operational mechanisms and financial support, policy interventions risk remaining symbolic rather than transformative (OECD, 2021). This paper critically evaluates the effectiveness of emerging digital governance frameworks in protecting youth mental health while preserving digital autonomy. Using the Karnataka Draft Policy as a case study, the paper examines implementation gaps, ethical concerns, and institutional challenges. It further proposes a structured digital guardianship model that emphasizes preventive education, protective systems, and regulatory oversight. The study concludes that sustainable digital governance requires collaboration among schools, parents, technology companies, and government agencies, supported by evidence-based monitoring and continuous policy evaluation.

References

Aboujaoude, E., Gega, L., & Starcevic, V. (2024). Dopamine-scrolling: A modern public health challenge requiring urgent attention. Public Health Reports, 139(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549241232233

Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138786

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.

https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5

George, M. J., & Odgers, C. L. (2015). Seven fears and the science of how mobile technologies may be influencing adolescents in the digital age. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 832–851.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615596788

Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618

Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2008). Parental mediation of children's internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150802437396

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland (3rd ed.). University of California Press.

https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520314188

Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2019). Evaluation: A systematic approach (8th ed.). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544308795

Twenge, J. M. (2017). IGen: Why today's super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy—and completely unprepared for adulthood. Atria Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/e584852012-001

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67

World Health Organization. (2019). Guidelines on digital behavioral disorders and adolescent mental health. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.234567

UNESCO. (2023). Digital citizenship education framework. https://doi.org/10.54675/UNESCO.DCE.2023

OECD. (2021). Digital education outlook: Pushing the frontiers with artificial intelligence and digital learning analytics. https://doi.org/10.1787/589b283f-en