19 Sep 2023 9:43 AM GMT
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday orally suggested to the Union Government that it should bring in an age limit for the use of social media. A division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil was hearing an appeal filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter) against a single bench decision to dismiss its challenge to the Centre's blocking orders.During the hearing,...
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday orally suggested to the Union Government that it should bring in an age limit for the use of social media.
A division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil was hearing an appeal filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter) against a single bench decision to dismiss its challenge to the Centre's blocking orders.
During the hearing, Justice Narendar orally said, “Government should consider bringing in an age limit for the use of social media. When a user registers, he will have to give some material, just like in online gaming where a person not having Aadhar etc. cannot join. Why don't you extend it here also? It will be a boon".
Justice Narender pointed out, "Today, school-going children are so addicted to it. I think there should be an age limit, such as in the Excise rules". "Children may be 17 or 18, but do they have the maturity to judge what is or is not in the interest of the nation? Not only on social media, even on the internet, things should be removed, it corrupts the mind", he added.
“Ban social media, I will tell you a lot of good will come", Justice Narender siad.
The observations were made while hearing the appeal filed by the social media platform challenging the single judge bench order which had dismissed its petition questioning the blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.
The court had imposed a cost of Rs 50 lakhs on the company. While admitting the appeal, the court had the company to deposit an amount of 50% of the cost to show its bonafides.
Arguing in appeal, the company has said that imposition of such exemplary costs is plainly unjust and excessive, and it effectively deters it as well as other intermediaries from challenging blocking orders that violate Section 69A or the Blocking Rules.
The company in its appeal has said that if the single bench decision is upheld, the Union Government will be "emboldened" to issue more blocking orders that violate Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Blocking Rules, and the procedures and safeguards mandated" by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case.
It is argued that the impugned order failed to follow the plain language of Section 69A(1) that reasons must be recorded in writing in a blocking order. It erroneously holds that Section 69A(1) does not require blocking orders to contain reasons in writing, the appeal says. Moreover, the impugned order's interpretation of Section 69A(1) leads to redundancy of words, which is impermissible in law.
The division bench reserved orders on the application filed by the company seeking interim relief.
Case Title: X CORP And Union of India & Others
Case No: WA 895/2023