Delhi High Court asks Centre if it plans policy to curb addictive features like infinite scroll

Topic: defense & securityRegion: AsiaUpdated: i2 outletsSources: 5Spectrum: Center Only⏱ 4 min read⚠ 48h+ old

📰 Scored from 2 outletsacross 2 Center How we score bias →

Story Summary

SITUATION

The Delhi High Court asked the Centre whether it is contemplating a policy to regulate engagement-maximising, addiction-causing design features such as infinite scroll and autoplay on social media platforms (per The Hindu). The court set a hearing on a PIL seeking an expert committee in three weeks and heard that Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma had no specific instructions from the Centre on whether it is framing such a policy (per The Hindu).

Coveragetap to expand ▾

Spectrum: Center Only🌍Asia: 2

Political Spectrum

Position is inferred from coverage mix.

i2 outlets · Center

Left

Center

Right

Left: 0

Center: 2

Right: 0

Geography Coverage

Distribution of where coverage is coming from.

i2 unique outlets · Dominant: Asia

All2 Asia2 · 100%

KEY FACTS

On September 16, 2026 the Delhi High Court asked the Centre to respond on whether it was contemplating a policy to regulate addiction-causing design features like infinite scroll and autoplay (per The Hindu).
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told the court he does not have specific instructions from the Centre on whether it is framing a policy on the issue (per The Hindu).
Counsel for the Centre and certain social media platforms objected to the maintainability of the petition, citing prior orders of the Supreme Court and high courts that refused to entertain similar petitions (per The Hindu).

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The immediate backdrop is the wider international information-security and civic-stability concerns sharpened by the March 2026 US–Israel coordinated strikes on Iranian infrastructure and the subsequent cycle of Iranian military responses and regional escalations; governments and courts in many countries have cited heightened worries about how online platforms can amplify disinformation, panic and addictive content during such crises.

Domestically, this sits against an ongoing policy debate in India over whether platform design choices — autoplay, infinite scroll, algorithmic feeds — should be regulated to protect mental health and democratic discourse. Those debates rest on a legal and regulatory architecture shaped over two decades.

Brief

The Delhi High Court on September 16, 2026 asked the Centre whether it is considering a policy to regulate social media design features that the petition calls engagement-maximising and addiction-causing, naming examples such as infinite scroll and autoplay (per The Hindu).

A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Amit Sharma said it will hear a public interest litigation after three weeks that seeks constitution of an expert committee to examine those design elements (per The Hindu).

At the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told the court he did not have specific instructions from the Centre on whether it is framing any such policy, leaving open how the government will formally respond (per The Hindu).

Counsel for the Centre and lawyers for certain social media platforms objected to the maintainability of the petition, pointing to prior orders from the Supreme Court and other high courts that declined to entertain similar challenges (per The Hindu).

The petition frames the issue as a technology-design problem that an expert committee could study; the court’s question to the Centre signals judicial willingness to press the executive on whether regulatory work is under way (per The Hindu).

The government’s lack of a clear instruction on policy direction — as stated in court — contrasts with platform arguments that the petition may repeat matters already addressed by higher courts (per The Hindu).

If the court schedules further hearings after the three-week interval, the immediate procedural consequence will be a formal government response and possible constitution of an expert committee if the petition proceeds; the source reports no decision yet on either step (per The Hindu).

The hearing also raises a regulatory question that technology companies and digital-rights advocates have debated: whether platform design falls within consumer-protection or free-speech frameworks, though the cited report does not record detailed submissions on those legal theories (per The Hindu).

Why it matters

Young social-media users in India bear concrete costs if engagement-maximising features cause addictive behaviour through infinite scroll and autoplay; the petition seeks an expert committee to examine those mechanisms (per The Hindu). 2) The Centre stands to lose or gain regulatory authority depending on whether it frames a policy; Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told the court he had no specific instructions, indicating the executive has not committed to action (per The Hindu). 3) Social media platforms benefit from current design practices that maximise engagement; counsel for some platforms argued against the petition’s maintainability in court (per The Hindu).

What to watch next

Whether the Centre files a formal response to the Delhi High Court’s question on regulating addictive design features by the next hearing in three weeks (per The Hindu). 2) Whether the Delhi High Court, at the hearing scheduled after three weeks, directs constitution of the expert committee sought in the PIL (per The Hindu). 3) Whether counsel for the Centre or any social media platform provides the court with instructions or policy documents addressing regulation of infinite scroll and autoplay at the next hearing (per The Hindu).

Where sources differ

7 dimensions

Framing differences

Only The Hindu is in this source set; it frames the story around the court asking the Centre about policy and a pending PIL seeking an expert committee (per The Hindu).

Disputed or unclear

No source in this pack disputes the facts reported; maintainability objections by counsel are recorded but outcomes remain undecided (per The Hindu).

Omitted context

No source in this pack mentions any existing or draft Centre policy documents on platform regulation beyond the court exchange;
No source provides data on prevalence of addictive use, clinical harms, or quantified impacts on specific age groups;
No source references industry self-regulation efforts, platform design technical papers, or statements from named social media companies about infinite scroll or autoplay;
No source cites any legislative or regulatory body timeline (e.g., parliamentary committee, ministry deadlines) related to platform design regulation.

Conflicting figures

The sole date given is September 16, 2026, when the court asked the Centre the question (per The Hindu).

Disputed causality

The petition seeks an expert committee to examine engagement-maximising features → the court asked the Centre if it is contemplating a policy; the Centre has not provided policy instructions (per The Hindu).

Attribution disputes

The Hindu attributes the court’s question and the statement that Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma has no specific instructions to the court proceedings (per The Hindu).

Sources

5 of 5 linked articles