A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking the constitution of an expert committee to examine the engagement-maximising and addiction-causing design architecture employed by social media platforms. The petition, filed by Dr. Vikas Kathuria, a Law Professor, identifies specific features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmically curated feeds, persistent notifications, short-duration videos like reels, and variable-reward metrics including likes as being engineered to capture, retain, and repeatedly re-stimulate users’ attention.
The PIL names the Union Ministries of Electronics and Information Technology, Women and Child Development, Education and Health and Family Welfare, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), as well as Meta Platforms, Google LLC, Snap, X (formerly Twitter), and Telegram as respondents. The petitioner contends that while Indian law regulates harmful or unlawful content disseminated through social media, it does not currently address the underlying platform design that facilitates compulsive usage.
The plea highlights a mental health crisis among individuals in the 15–24 age group, linking compulsive scrolling and engagement-driven platform use to anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, cyberbullying-related stress, and other psychological harms. It argues that these outcomes are not merely incidental but stem from deliberate design choices aimed at maximising user engagement.
Dr. Kathuria clarifies that the PIL does not seek a blanket prohibition on social media platforms but instead calls for regulation of specific engagement-maximising features through calibrated, evidence-based measures. The petition seeks a direction to the Union Government to constitute an expert panel tasked with examining these design features and recommending appropriate safeguards and design standards.
Additionally, the PIL seeks directions to restrict, prohibit, or regulate such addictive design elements and claims compensation from the named social media companies for alleged harm caused by their platform architectures to young users.
The matter was listed for hearing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. However, Justice Karia recused himself from hearing the plea due to his prior professional association with Meta (formerly Facebook), having represented the company in several high-profile matters during his legal practice. Consequently, the case has been relisted for hearing before another bench on the following Wednesday.
The PIL also references international developments in the regulation of addictive social media design, suggesting that India may benefit from adopting similar calibrated regulatory approaches. The petitioner maintains that regulatory intervention should focus on design architecture rather than content, to avoid impinging on freedom of expression while addressing systemic harms arising from platform mechanics.