The Delhi High Court has declined to issue directions banning or restricting children’s access to social media, holding that such measures fall within the government’s policy-making domain.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking stronger safeguards for children against harmful social media content, including child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
Background of the Case
The PIL was filed by Kirti Dua, mother of a three-year-old child, and paediatrician Dr. Sharad Gupta. The petition raised concerns over children’s exposure to sexually explicit and age-inappropriate material, digital addiction and the possible impact of unrestricted social media access on their well-being.
The petitioners relied, among other things, on concerns noted in the Economic Survey 2025-26 and sought binding measures for child safety online.
Court's Observation
During the hearing, the Bench made it clear that deciding whether social media access should be banned or restricted for children was primarily a matter for the executive and legislature.
“These are all in the domain of policy. They will be looking into it… Your views would be taken into consideration by the respondents [government]. The stakeholders have to be consulted. Their views have to be taken.”
The Court further observed that it was not appropriate for the judiciary to direct the government to impose a particular ban or restriction.
“It’s in the realm of a policy, not for a court to give a direction that you should ban this, or you should ban that. Let them look into it, let them look into it, and then pass an order.”
The Bench also clarified that it was not prescribing any timeline for the government to take a decision.
Meta's Submissions
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, submitted that Facebook and Instagram had taken extensive measures to detect and remove CSAM. He stated that the platforms had achieved proactive detection rates of 99.5% on Facebook and 95.2% on Instagram.
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand and advocate Anshul Gupta appeared for the petitioners, while Central Government Standing Counsel Nidhi Raman represented the Centre.
Decision
The Delhi High Court disposed of the PIL, leaving the Central Government to consider the concerns and suggestions raised by the petitioners after consulting relevant stakeholders, including social media intermediaries.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Kirti Dua & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Case Number: Not available in the supplied material
- Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
- Decision Date: August 20, 2026
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
