Delhi HC asks Centre: Any policy planned on 'addiction-causing' social media design?
Synopsis
The Delhi High Court has put the Central government on the spot — not over harmful content, but over the engineering beneath it. A PIL targeting social media's infinite scroll, autoplay and 'like' mechanics as addiction-by-design has forced the court to ask a question India's regulators have so far avoided: Is there a policy in the works, or isn't there?
Key Takeaways
The Delhi High Court on 16 September 2026 asked the Centre whether it is contemplating a policy on 'addiction-causing' social media design architecture .
A Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma deferred the hearing by three weeks , directing ASG Chetan Sharma to seek instructions.
The PIL was filed by Dr Vikas Kathuria of BML Munjal University , targeting features like infinite scroll , autoplay , and variable-reward engagement mechanics .
Respondents include Meta , Alphabet/Google , Snap , X Corp , Telegram , and five Union ministries including MeitY .
The petition argues existing laws address harmful content but not the design architecture of platforms — a regulatory gap it seeks to close.
The Economic Survey 2025-26 is cited as evidence of digital addiction's impact on academic performance and workplace productivity.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 16 September 2026, asked the Central government whether it is actively considering a policy to examine the 'addiction-causing' design architecture of social media platforms — features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmically curated feeds that are alleged to maximise user engagement at the cost of mental wellbeing. The court deferred the matter by three weeks, directing the government's law officer to seek formal instructions.
What the Court Asked
A Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma posed a pointed question to Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma: Is the Centre itself contemplating framing such a policy, or not? The court clarified it would not direct the government to legislate within a fixed timeline but wanted to know whether any internal deliberation was already underway.
'How can we say, 'you frame policies in a time-bound manner'? If you are saying so, then it is fine. Are you contemplating framing a policy?' the Bench asked. When ASG Sharma sought time to obtain instructions, the court replied: '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.'
The PIL and Its Arguments
The public interest litigation was filed by Dr Vikas Kathuria, Professor of Law and Head of the Centre on Law, Regulation and Technology at BML Munjal University. The petition argues that the problem with social media is not merely the nature of its content — already addressed in part by existing frameworks — but the underlying architecture deliberately engineered to capture, retain, and repeatedly re-stimulate user attention.
Specific features flagged in the plea include infinite scrolling, autoplay, algorithmically curated recommendation feeds, notification systems, and variable-reward engagement mechanisms such as 'likes'. The petition contends that while children and young people constitute a particularly vulnerable group, engagement-maximising design affects adult users as well.
Dr Kathuria, who has a six-year-old child, has approached the court citing a matter of 'grave public importance'. The plea leans on the Economic Survey 2025-26, which reportedly flagged digital addiction as a concern affecting academic performance and workplace productivity through distractions, sleep debt, and reduced focus.
Government's Preliminary Stand
ASG Sharma urged the court not to intervene, submitting that the relief sought fell squarely within the domain of government policy. He suggested the petition could instead be treated as a representation before the Union government, to be examined on a time-bound schedule. 'The petition can be treated as a representation. There can be a time-bound schedule for the government to examine such a representation,' he submitted. The Bench, however, did not accept that framing and pressed for a direct answer on policy intent.
Respondents and Legal Framework
The petition has arrayed five Union ministries and regulatory bodies as respondents — including the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR). On the industry side, Meta Platforms, Alphabet/Google, Snap, X Corp, and Telegram have been made respondents.
The plea argues that existing laws — including the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — primarily address unlawful or harmful content and do not specifically target design architecture as a regulatory concern. It also cites the Supreme Court's judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish. The petition has been filed through the chambers of advocate Kartika Sharma.
What Happens Next
The matter will be heard again in approximately three weeks, by which time the Centre must inform the court whether it is actively deliberating on a policy to regulate engagement-maximising social media design. The court's question puts the government on notice without yet issuing a formal directive — and the answer, when it comes, could shape India's regulatory approach toward Big Tech's algorithmic architecture.
Point of View
Or silence, will say as much as any judgment.
NationPress
16 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Delhi High Court case on social media addiction about?
The Delhi High Court is hearing a PIL that challenges the design architecture of social media platforms — not their content, but features like infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic feeds and 'like' mechanics — arguing these are engineered to cause addiction. The court has asked the Central government whether it plans to frame a specific policy on this issue.
Who filed the PIL and what are the key demands?
The PIL was filed by Dr Vikas Kathuria, a Professor of Law at BML Munjal University, through advocate Kartika Sharma. He has sought an examination of engagement-maximising design features by an expert body and the creation of a dedicated regulatory framework, arguing existing laws address harmful content but not platform architecture.
Which companies and ministries have been named as respondents?
Five Union ministries — MeitY, Women and Child Development, Education, Health and Family Welfare — along with NCPCR have been named, as have Meta Platforms, Alphabet/Google, Snap, X Corp, and Telegram.
What was the government's stance in court?
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma urged the court not to intervene, arguing the relief sought falls within government policy. He suggested the petition be treated as a representation with a time-bound review schedule, but the Bench pressed directly for an answer on whether the Centre was already contemplating such a policy.
What happens next in this case?
The Delhi High Court has deferred the hearing by three weeks and directed ASG Chetan Sharma to obtain formal instructions from the Centre on whether it is actively deliberating on a policy to regulate addiction-causing social media design. The government's answer at the next hearing could set the tone for India's regulatory posture toward Big Tech's algorithmic features.
