Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
On September 19th, the Karnataka High Court suggested that the Central Government should consider bringing in an age limit for the use of social media while hearing an appeal filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter) against the decision of a single bench to dismiss its challenge to the Centre’s blocking orders.
A division bench comprising Justices G Narendar and Vijaykumar A Patil was hearing the appeal. Justice Narendar observed, “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”. He stated that even school children are addicted to social media and that the 17-18-year-old kids might not have the maturity to judge what is or is not in the interest of the nation. He opined that things that corrupts the mind should be removed from the social media and the internet – “Ban social media, I will tell you a lot of good will come.”
The High Court was hearing the appeal filed by X Corp. challenging the previous single judge bench order which 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 Bench had imposed a cost of Rs 50 lakhs on the social media platform. While admitting the appeal, the court had X Corp. to deposit an amount of 50% of the cost to show its bonafides.
Arguing in appeal, X Corp argued that imposition of such exemplary costs is unjust and excessive, and it effectively deters it and other intermediaries from challenging blocking orders that violate Section 69A or the Blocking Rules.
The social media platform appealed that if the single bench decision is upheld, the Central Government will be “emboldened” to issue more blocking orders that violate the Blocking Rules of the IT Act, and the procedures and safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523.
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 holds that the Section does not require blocking orders to contain reasons in writing, the appeal says. Also, the impugned order’s interpretation of the Section 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.
Name of the case: X CORP And Union of India & Others
Bench: Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil