Delhi High Court Questions Government Over Proposed Social‑Media Design Rules

On Wednesday, a two‑judge bench of the Delhi High Court turned its gaze toward the digital world, asking the Union government whether it is mulling a policy to rein in certain design tricks on social‑media apps that many users find hard to resist.

Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma were hearing a public‑interest litigation (PIL) filed by law professor Vikas Kathuria. The petition does not target the content posted on platforms – memes, news or videos – but the very way those platforms are built to capture attention.

According to the filing, features such as infinite scroll, autoplay videos, algorithm‑driven personalised feeds, push notifications that never stop, and even the ever‑present “like” counters are engineered to keep users glued to the screen. Kathuria argues that these elements act like a digital dopamine drip, especially for young people.

The petition cites a striking statistic: Indian users aged 18‑24 spend, on average, more than 120 minutes a day scrolling through feeds. It also points to research linking prolonged exposure to social‑media use with mental‑health issues – depression, anxiety and even suicidal thoughts among adolescents.

In response, the court asked the Additional Solicitor General, Chetan Sharma, whether the Centre is contemplating a formal policy on the matter. Sharma replied that he did not have specific instructions and was told to seek them. The bench then said, “you take instructions whether you are contemplating framing of a policy and we will have the matter after three weeks.”

While the government’s legal team stressed that the matters raised in the PIL fall squarely within the domain of policymakers, they also suggested that the petitioner could make a formal representation to the Centre. Representatives of several social‑media platforms, meanwhile, challenged the maintainability of the petition, recalling earlier judgments where the Supreme Court and high courts declined to entertain similar pleas.

What the PIL explicitly seeks is two‑fold: first, for the Centre and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to issue directions that restrict, prohibit, or at least regulate the “addictive” design features; second, for the constitution of an expert committee that would study these engagement‑maximising tools and recommend safeguards.

The hearing will reconvene in three weeks, giving the government a narrow window to clarify its stance. Whether a comprehensive set of guidelines emerges remains to be seen, but the court’s intervention signals a growing awareness that technology’s allure can have real‑world consequences.