LI Network
Published on: 20 September 2023 at 11:46 IST
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the Union Government that it should consider implementing an age limit for the use of social media platforms.
The suggestion arose during the hearing of an appeal filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter), challenging the Centre’s blocking orders, in front of a division bench comprising Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil.
Justice Narendar proposed, “The government should contemplate imposing an age limit for social media use. When a user registers, they should be required to provide certain information, similar to the requirements for online gaming, where individuals without Aadhar verification cannot join. Why not extend this concept here? It could be a beneficial step.”
He further emphasized, “Today, school-going children are so addicted to it. I believe there should be an age limit, akin to the Excise rules. Children may be 17 or 18, but do they possess the maturity to discern what is in the best interest of the nation? This applies not only to social media but also to the broader internet; content that is harmful to the mind should be removed.”
Justice Narendar even suggested, “Ban social media, and you will witness a lot of positive outcomes.”
These remarks came within the context of an appeal filed by the social media platform against a single judge bench decision that dismissed its petition challenging blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. The single judge bench had also imposed a cost of Rs 50 lakhs on the company.
While admitting the appeal, the division bench directed the company to deposit 50% of the cost to demonstrate its commitment.
In its appeal, the company contended that the imposition of such high costs was unjust and discouraging, discouraging not only it but also other intermediaries from challenging blocking orders that contravene Section 69A or the Blocking Rules.
The company further argued that if the single judge’s decision was upheld, the Union Government would be encouraged to issue more blocking orders that violated Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Blocking Rules, and the procedures and safeguards established by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case.
Additionally, the appeal asserted that the impugned order failed to adhere to the plain language of Section 69A(1), which mandates that reasons must be recorded in writing in a blocking order. The order incorrectly held that Section 69A(1) does not require blocking orders to contain written reasons. Furthermore, the interpretation of Section 69A(1) in the impugned order resulted in redundancy of words, a legal imperfection.
The division bench has reserved its decision on the company’s application seeking interim relief.
Case Title: X CORP And Union of India & Others
