The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to restrict access to social media platforms for children aged 16 years and below, holding that the matter falls within the domain of policy formulation by the Central Government and not within the judicial remit to issue binding directions.
A division bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the issue of regulating children's access to social media requires stakeholder consultation and policy deliberation, which courts are not equipped to undertake. The bench emphasised that it is not for the judiciary to prescribe bans or restrictions on specific platforms or content, stating that such decisions must be made by the executive after due consideration.
The petition was filed by Kirti Dua, a mother of a three-year-old child, and Dr Sharad Gupta, a paediatrician, who contended that despite the existence of legal frameworks such as the Information Technology Act, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, harmful content remains readily accessible to minors due to weak enforcement and inadequate safeguards by social media platforms.
The petitioners argued that unrestricted access to social media has led to rising instances of digital addiction among children, adversely impacting their mental, emotional, and physical well-being. They asserted that the failure of authorities to effectively regulate these platforms infringes upon the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and contradicts the State's duty to protect minor children.
The PIL sought directions to the Union Government to formulate guidelines and regulations, consider enacting central legislation to restrict children aged 16 years and below from accessing harmful content on social media, and mandate social media platforms to implement robust age-verification mechanisms and enforce child safety policies before permitting user access.
During the hearing, counsel for the Central Government submitted that the issue of regulating or restricting social media use for children constitutes a policy decision requiring governmental consideration, stakeholder input, and evaluation of wider ramifications. It was further submitted that the plea could be treated as a representation for the Government to examine and act upon appropriately.
The court, agreeing with the Government's position, stated that it cannot bind the executive on policy matters and that the Central Government would look into the issue and take an appropriate decision in due course. However, no timeline was fixed for such a determination.
The bench reiterated that while concerns about child safety online are valid and warrant attention, the remedy lies in policy formulation and legislative action by the appropriate authorities, not judicial direction. The court declined to pass any orders on the prayers sought in the PIL, citing the principle that courts must refrain from encroaching upon policy domains reserved for the elected government.
The dismissal of the PIL underscores the judicial restraint exercised by the Delhi High Court in matters involving complex socio-technical policy issues, affirming that while courts can uphold rights and enforce existing laws, they cannot substitute their judgment for that of the executive in framing preventive regulatory measures.