Delhi HC seeks Centre’s stand on PIL for checks on addictive features of social media platforms

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Central government’s stand on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition raising concerns over allegedly addictive design features of social media platforms and their impact on the mental health of young users [Dr. Vikas Kathuria v. Union of India & Ors].

A Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma asked the Centre's counsel to take instructions on whether it was considering the framing of a policy to address the issue.

This was after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma told the Court urged the Court not to delve into the matter since it fell within the domain of government policy.

"The petition can be treated as a representation. There can be a time bound schedule for the government (to examine such a representation)," he suggested.

"How can we say, 'you frame policies in a time-bound manner'? If you are saying, then it is fine. Are you contemplating framing of a policy?" the Court asked in turn.

ASG Sharma said he would have to get instructions on whether such a policy is being actively considered by the Central government. In view of this, the Court proceeded to adjourn the matter by three weeks.

“We will defer it by three weeks. You take instructions and tell us whether you are contemplating or not. We will not say anything in the matter. Renotify,” said the Court.

The PIL was filed by one Vikas Kathuria, a law professor at BML Munjal University. It raises concerns over features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, algorithmically curated personalised feeds, notifications and engagement indicators such as “likes."

According to the plea, these features are designed to capture and retain users' attention and encourage repeated engagement with platforms. It argues that this model can be particularly harmful to children and young persons because prolonged and excessive social media use can affect their mental health and well-being.

The PIL sought the constitution of an expert committee to examine such design features and recommend measures to address their impact.

The plea also sought directions to the Centre and other authorities to restrict, prohibit or regulate such features, besides the creation of a mental health redressal fund for users affected by them.

It also calls for compensation to be paid by Meta, Google, Telegram, X and Snapchat over the alleged harms caused by these features.

ASG Sharma, representing the Central government, today maintained that it cannot be said that there is a regulatory vacuum in such matters. In this regard, he referred to existing laws governing social media and data protection, including the Information Technology Act and Rules and the Digital Personal Data Protection framework.

ASG Sharma further contended that regulating the internal features of an individual social media applications was a separate issue.

"App limit can be put in place to keep it out of bounds. It is one area that can be explored," he said.

The Court observed that there was some merit to ASG Sharma's submission that such issues fell within the government's policy domain. Addressing the petitioner, the Court asked,

“Under which provision can this relief be granted? Mr Sharma has rightly raised objection. The relief you are asking is covered under which statute, which provision?”

The petitioner's counsel argued that the case concerned not merely the content available on social media but the way platforms are designed to keep users engaged.

“Personalised curated feed is a deliberately engineered aspect chosen by social media so that I, every person in this room, the entire country gets hooked,” submitted the petitioner's counsel.

The counsel also referred to litigation against Meta in the United States of America. Courts have examined allegations that features such as personalised recommendations and other engagement-driven designs can encourage addictive use among children and young people, said the petitioner's counsel.

It was further argued that Indian children should not receive lesser protection simply because similar concerns were being addressed in another country.

“How is an American youth different from Indian youth? Every passing second damage is done,” said the counsel.

The Court, however, indicated that the petitioner may have to approach the government or the Supreme Court if the relief sought requires a broader policy intervention.

“You have to go to the apex court, we cannot do it here,” said the Court.

It eventually adjourned the matter so that the Central government can respond on whether it is contemplating the introduction of a policy to address the issues flagged by the petitioner.

The PIL was filed through advocates Kartika Sharma, Harsha Sadhwani and Subhika Joshi.

[Read Live Coverage]