- # Meta
Advocate Sreerupa Chowdhury flags the alleged impact of Facebook and Instagram’s engagement-driven algorithms on children’s mental health, privacy and well-being
The Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the respondents in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged impact of Meta-owned social media <a href="https://bitcomme.com/inside-agency-efforts-to-navigate-the-aeo-platform-landscape/” title=”Inside agency efforts to navigate the AEO platform landscape”>platforms, particularly Facebook and Instagram, on the mental health, privacy and well-being of children in India.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by advocate and legal-technology entrepreneur Sreerupa Chowdhury, raises concerns over the use of algorithm-driven engagement mechanisms that allegedly encourage excessive screen time and prolonged social media consumption among minors.
The PIL specifically flags features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay reels, personalised recommendations, variable reward mechanisms and intrusive late-night notifications, alleging that these are designed to maximise user engagement and advertising revenue. It highlights the potential consequences for children, including behavioural addiction, cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation, body-image disorders and exposure to online grooming and Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM).
India’s Disproportionate Exposure To Meta platforms
A key argument in the petition centres on India’s significant user base across Meta’s platforms. Citing DataReportal’s Digital 2026: India report, the petitioner states that India had approximately 480.5 million Instagram users and 403 million Facebook users as of October 2025, making it Meta’s largest national market globally. India’s user base on these platforms is approximately 2 to 2.6 times that of the United States.
The petition further argues that a substantial proportion of these users are adolescents aged between 13 and 17, alongside children below 13 who allegedly circumvent age restrictions by misrepresenting their dates of birth during registration.
The petitioner has also questioned Meta’s age-verification practices in India, alleging that its sign-up process relies primarily on self-declared dates of birth, without effective independent age-assurance mechanisms or verifiable parental consent for processing children’s personal data.
Grievance Redressal And Child Protection Under Scrutiny
Beyond algorithmic design, the PIL raises concerns over the adequacy of Meta’s grievance-redressal mechanisms in India. It alleges that systems meant to address complaints involving harassment, grooming attempts, non-consensual content and self-harm-related material are inadequately resourced relative to the country’s user base, resulting in prolonged response times and unresolved complaints.
The petition also argues that the platforms’ recommendation engines and direct-messaging features expose minors to potentially harmful content, predatory conduct and online grooming. It invokes provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, including Section 67B, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, to underline the statutory obligations surrounding child protection in digital environments.
Questions India’s Regulatory Preparedness
The petitioner has challenged what she describes as inadequate enforcement of existing child-protection and data-privacy frameworks.
The petition specifically invokes the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, arguing that regulatory authorities have failed to adequately exercise their oversight and inquiry powers.
It also draws attention to Section 9 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which provides for restrictions on tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising directed at children. According to the petition, the substantive obligations under this provision are scheduled to commence on May 13, 2027. The petitioner argues that the government should consider interim directions under the existing IT framework rather than leave children without comparable safeguards until the appointed date.
The PIL invokes Articles 14, 15(3), 21 and 21A of the Constitution, arguing that the alleged practices threaten children’s fundamental rights, including equality, privacy, mental and physical health, dignity and education. It also relies on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India to establish the constitutional significance of informational privacy and autonomy.
Meta’s India-specific Disclosures
Among the principal reliefs sought is the establishment of a Court-monitored National Child Online Safety and Welfare Fund, to be administered by the Ministry of Women and Child Development in consultation with the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR).
The petitioner seeks compensation from Meta commensurate with the scale of alleged harm to Indian children, with the amount deposited into a ring-fenced corpus. The petition specifically refers to the US multi-state settlement as a benchmark, arguing that India’s substantially larger user base warrants compensation reflecting the scale of exposure and commercial benefits derived from the Indian market. It also seeks a minimum allocation from the fund for identified child-welfare non-profit organisations.
Additionally, the PIL seeks India-specific disclosures from Meta regarding minor users, age-verification practices, child-safety mechanisms and compliance with applicable legal obligations. It calls for enhanced safety defaults and algorithmic safeguards, including restrictions on behavioural profiling and personalised recommendations for minors.
The petitioner has also sought an independent inquiry by the NCPCR under Section 13 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, into the impact of the platforms’ design on Indian children. The inquiry report and recommendations are sought to be submitted to the Supreme Court and the concerned ministries.
Further reliefs include India-specific public-health research into the impact of social media on children’s mental health, periodic compliance reports before the Court or an appointed committee, and the constitution of a high-powered expert committee to recommend nationwide child-safety guidelines.
The petition has been instituted pro bono publico, with the petitioner stating that the litigation is being pursued solely in the larger public interest, without any personal, private or commercial interest.
