Back
Asks Centre if It Plans Policy to Curb Addictive Social Media Features
The on Wednesday directed the to clarify whether it is contemplating a policy to regulate addictive design features on social media platforms, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and algorithmically curated feeds. The direction came during the hearing of a filed by law professor Vikas Kathuria, which alleges that these features are deliberately engineered to maximize user engagement and pose a serious risk to the mental health of children and young adults.
A comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma adjourned the matter for three weeks, asking to obtain instructions from the government. “You take instructions whether you are contemplating framing of a policy and we will have the matter after three weeks,” the Court observed orally, as recorded by Bar and Bench.
The PIL, which was filed through advocates , , and , raises concerns over a range of design features common to major social media platforms. These include infinite scrolling, autoplay of videos, algorithmically curated personalised feeds, notification systems, and variable-reward engagement metrics such as “likes.” According to the petition, these features are not neutral tools but are deliberately designed to capture and retain users’ attention, encouraging repeated and prolonged engagement.
The petitioner argues that such design models can be particularly harmful to children and young persons because excessive social media use has been clinically linked to depression, anxiety, and even suicidal ideation among adolescents. Statistics cited in the petition indicate that Indian youths aged 18 to 24 spend more than 120 minutes on average every day on social media, highlighting the scale of potential harm.
The Court’s Query and the Centre’s Initial Response
During the hearing, ASG Chetan Sharma submitted that the issues raised in the PIL fell within the domain of government policy and urged the Court not to intervene. He suggested that the petition could be treated as a representation to the government, which could examine it within a time-bound schedule. However, the Bench questioned whether it could direct the government to frame a policy within a specified period. “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.
ASG Sharma acknowledged that he did not have specific instructions on whether the government was actively considering such a policy. He indicated that measures such as app limits could be among the options examined but maintained that regulating internal design features of individual applications was a separate issue from the existing regulatory framework.
The Centre’s counsel argued that there was no complete regulatory vacuum around social media, pointing to the and Rules as well as India’s Digital Personal Data Protection framework. However, the Court noted the distinction between content regulation and design regulation, which remains a relatively unexplored area in Indian law.
The Petitioner’s Arguments: Design Over Content
The petitioner’s counsel, advocate , emphasised that the case was not merely about the content hosted on social media platforms but about the architectural design of the platforms themselves. “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,” she submitted. The counsel argued that these features exploit psychological vulnerabilities to maximise engagement, turning users into passive consumers of endless, algorithmically tailored content.
The petitioner also drew attention to litigation against in the United States, where courts have examined allegations that features such as personalised recommendations and engagement-driven designs encourage addictive use among children and young people. “How is an American youth different from Indian youth? Every passing second damage is done,” the counsel argued, urging the Court to ensure that Indian children receive no lesser protection than their counterparts abroad.
The PIL seeks the constitution of an expert committee to study such design practices and recommend measures to address their alleged effects. It also calls for the restriction, prohibition, or regulation of these features, the creation of a mental health redressal fund for affected users, and compensation from , , , , and for alleged harm. Notably, these allegations and reliefs are yet to be adjudicated, and the Court has not issued any .
and the Scope of Judicial Intervention
The Centre and counsel for certain social media platforms raised objections to the of the petition, citing orders of the and high courts that have refused to entertain similar petitions. The Bench appeared receptive to the Centre’s argument that the relief sought 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 Court indicated that broader policy relief may ultimately require the petitioner to approach the government or the . “You have to go to the apex court, we cannot do it here,” the Bench observed. Nevertheless, it granted the Centre three weeks to clarify whether a policy addressing the concerns raised in the PIL was under consideration, effectively keeping the matter alive for further .
Legal Implications and the Road Ahead
The case raises fundamental questions about the limits of in matters of technology regulation and public health. While Indian courts have increasingly intervened in disputes—such as those involving hate speech, misinformation, and —the regulation of platform design features remains a novel frontier. The PIL invites the judiciary to consider whether the “architecture” of social media, as opposed to its content, can be subject to under the () and the .
From a policy perspective, the government faces a delicate balancing act. On one hand, there is growing public concern about the mental health impact of addictive design, particularly on minors. On the other hand, any regulatory intervention must navigate the complex landscape of free speech, innovation, and the economic interests of global tech companies. The Centre’s reference to the suggests that data protection alone may not be sufficient to address design-related harms, and a separate policy framework may be needed.
The creation of an expert committee, as sought by the petitioner, could provide a evidence-based foundation for such a policy. Similar committees have been formed in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and the European Union, where regulators have begun to scrutinise “” and addictive design under consumer protection and digital services legislation.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Tech Industry
For legal practitioners, this case signals a potential expansion of the regulatory landscape for social media platforms. Lawyers advising tech companies will need to monitor developments closely, as any future policy could impose obligations beyond —such as requiring platforms to disable autoplay, limit infinite scrolling, or provide users with tools to control algorithmic feeds. The case also underscores the growing importance of interdisciplinary expertise, as courts grapple with psychological and technological evidence alongside legal arguments.
The outcome of this PIL could set a for how Indian courts approach the regulation of platform design. If the government decides to formulate a policy, it may follow the approach of the , which mandates risk assessments and mitigation measures for systemic risks, including addiction. Alternatively, the courts may eventually be called upon to interpret existing statutes—such as the —to cover design features, a move that would have significant implications for the liability of intermediaries.
Conclusion
The ’s decision to seek the Centre’s stand on a policy for addictive social media features marks an important step in the ongoing debate about the regulation of digital platforms. While the Court has deferred the matter to allow the government to clarify its position, the very act of asking the question signals judicial willingness to engage with the issue. As the Centre prepares its response, the legal community will be watching closely for signs of a new regulatory direction—one that may reshape how social media platforms are designed, used, and held accountable for their impact on mental health.
The matter is now listed for further hearing after three weeks, by which time the government must inform the Court whether it is contemplating a policy. Until then, the debate over infinite scrolls, autoplay, and the silent architecture of addiction remains open.
