दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय (Delhi High Court) ने सोशल मीडिया मंचों के व्यसनकारी डिज़ाइन (addictive design features) को चुनौती देने वाली जनहित याचिका (Public Interest Litigation) पर केंद्र सरकार से अपना रुख स्पष्ट करने को कहा है, जिसमें युवाओं के मानसिक स्वास्थ्य पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव का हवाला देकर नियामक दिशा-निर्देश बनाने की मांग की गई है।
The legal landscape surrounding digital platforms in India faces a critical turning point as judicial authorities evaluate the psychological boundaries of modern software design. In a pivotal proceeding on Wednesday, a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma, issued a directive seeking the Union Government's explicit stance on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the deployment of addictive user engagement features by major technology entities (Dr. Vikas Kathuria v. Union of India & Ors.).
The PIL, instituted by Dr. Vikas Kathuria, a professor of law at BML Munjal University, targets the core architectural components of contemporary social media interfaces. The petition focuses on engagement-driven mechanisms, including continuous scrolling streams, automatic video playbacks, algorithmically determined content recommendation feeds, persistent notification alerts, and public interaction indicators such as "likes" and shares.
According to the petition, filed through advocates Kartika Sharma, Harsha Sadhwani, and Subhika Joshi, these features are deliberately engineered to exploit natural cognitive vulnerabilities and capture human attention for prolonged periods. The petitioner asserts that such aggressive engagement models create behavioral dependencies, leading to measurable adverse impacts on the mental health, sleep cycles, and overall well-being of adolescent and young users.
Drawing comparisons to ongoing legal actions in foreign jurisdictions, particularly multi-district litigation against tech platforms in the United States, the petitioner's legal team argued before the Bench that Indian youth deserve comparable safeguards against predatory digital designs. The plea requests several comprehensive remedies, including:
- Regulatory Guidelines: The formulation of binding standards to restrict, modify, or prohibit design patterns that encourage compulsive digital consumption.
- Expert Examination: The establishment of an independent expert committee comprising mental health professionals, child psychologists, and technology ethicists to audit interactive software features.
- Redressal Fund & Damages: The creation of a dedicated mental health redressal fund, alongside financial compensation from major technology operators—including Meta, Google, X (formerly Twitter), Telegram, and Snapchat—to mitigate damages suffered by impacted users.
In response, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Central Government, submitted that the regulation of software design features falls primarily within the executive's policy domain rather than judicial mandate. He pointed out that digital spaces are already governed by existing statutory frameworks, including the Information Technology Act, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, and the Digital Personal Data Protection framework.
The ASG argued against judicial creation of platform rules, emphasizing that users and guardians already possess technical measures, such as device-level application timers and screen-time limits, to manage platform exposure. The Government suggested that the Court allow the petition to be treated as a formal administrative representation, allowing the executive branch adequate space to examine the technical and policy implications.
While acknowledging the validity of the Government's jurisdictional objections, the High Court noted that formulating sweeping digital policies generally remains an executive function. Consequently, the Bench questioned the petitioner regarding the precise statutory provisions under which judicial directives could be issued.
To determine whether formal policy intervention is actively underway, the High Court deferred proceedings by three weeks. The Bench directed the law officers representing the Central Government to obtain definitive instructions on whether the administration is currently contemplating a specialized policy framework to address addictive software designs. The upcoming hearing is expected to define the boundary between judicial oversight and executive policymaking in safeguarding user health within India's expanding digital ecosystem.
Description: The Delhi High Court has sought the Central Government's stance on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging addictive design features on social media platforms (Dr. Vikas Kathuria v. Union of India & Ors.).
A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma heard the plea, which highlights mechanisms like infinite scrolling, autoplay, personalized feeds, and notifications. The petitioner argues these features cause behavioral dependencies and harm youth mental health, seeking regulatory guidelines, an expert committee, and a mental health fund funded by tech giants.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma argued that regulation falls under executive policy and existing digital laws. Deferring the matter for three weeks, the Court directed the Centre to clarify whether it contemplates framing a specific policy.