By admin 
Furthermore, the 2016 amendment to the Indian Act allows the child to work ‘as an artist in any audiovisual entertainment industry, including advertisements, films, television series or other entertainment or sports activities other than circus, subject to such conditions and safety measures, as may be prescribed may be, “provided that such work under this clause does not affect the child’s educational education.”
In Abhinav Arora’s case, he is constantly confronted with the status of his education. He claimed that he and his sister have not been able to go to school because of YouTube trolls. In situations where parents have the incentive to make money from their children, it is a matter of concern about how much of the work children do and what costs this places on the time spent in school and on a normal childhood. We need to strengthen current mechanisms to monitor and ensure that the minimum number of working days and teaching hours in an academic year, as stated in the Right to Education Act (RTE) of 2005, is respected for all working children.
Parents who manage their children’s social media channels often avoid any responsibility by claiming so they only help their children do what they want to do. In several cases where parents monetize their child’s talents for profit, it becomes difficult to distinguish where the boundaries of responsible parenting end and where the boundaries of exploitative parenting begin.
Given the changing work platforms for children, the current provisions of domestic labor laws need to be interpreted broadly along with the universal children’s rights envisioned under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). This can help us develop a national legal framework for children and parents involved in monetizing social media content.