Should judicial directions substitute for legislative/executive policymaking in emerging technology regulation? Discuss with reference to recent PILs on social media addiction.

Technology outpaces legislation, so courts often become the first forum where digital harms are raised. The Delhi High Court's September 2026 query — whether the Centre plans a policy on addiction-causing design features like infinite scroll and autoplay [1] — shows that judicial directions can legitimately trigger policymaking, but should not replace it.

Why courts are drawn in

• Regulatory gap: the IT Rules, 2021 impose due-diligence duties on intermediaries over content, with no provision on engagement-maximising UX design [2].
• Rights protection: adolescent mental health engages Article 21; courts act as sentinel where the executive is silent.
• Agenda-setting, not law-making: the PIL seeks only an expert committee on addictive design [1] — the Court merely sought the Centre's instructions.
• Analogous gap in consumer law: the CCPA's Guidelines on Dark Patterns, 2023 name 13 deceptive practices aimed at purchases [3], leaving attention-capture untouched.

Why substitution is undesirable

• Separation of powers: the ASG's position that this lies with policy-makers [1] is constitutionally sound; courts lack the mandate to write technical rules.
• Definitional difficulty: infinite scroll also aids accessibility; a judicial ban risks over-breadth and infringes Article 19(1)(g).
• Capacity and phasing: workable regimes need consultation and staged compliance — the DPDP Rules, 2025 run on an 18-month phased timeline [4].
• Enforcement design: personalised feeds cannot be inspected like a checkout page; algorithmic access and standards require statutory backing.
• Coordination: MeitY, Consumer Affairs and Health must act together, as with the DPDP Act's bar on behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising directed at children [5].

The judiciary is best understood as a catalyst, not a substitute — it flags gaps that the elected branches must fill. The Centre can respond by adding design-risk duties to SSMI obligations, expanding the dark patterns list to engagement tricks, and mandating safe defaults for minors. Such executive action, judicially prompted, reconciles Article 21 with innovation and business freedom.