By : Vishal Gupta
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has in the case of E. Martin Jayakumar v. Government of India & Ors. declined to entertain the Public Interest Litigation seeking a ban on all online and offline video games that children and young adults are currently addicted to.
The Bench expressed that,
“even constitutional courts should be slow in entering into such areas and dealing with such matters on the personal sense of morality of the individual complainant or of the Judge or Judges concerned.”
Factual Background
The petitioner complains of online business enterprises preying on children and young adults by offering diverse online games that are addictive. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to Ban all the Online and Off-line Video games and to bring appropriate mechanism to check track the PC / Laptop Mobile phones, etc the device which is used for Online classes playing Games.
Court Reasoning & Judgment
The Court showed agreement with the petitioner’s concern and expressed that particularly during the lockdown when schools and educational institutions are closed; many children and young adults are hooked to the online games.
"There is no doubt that children and young adults these days are addicted to their phones and their worlds appear to revolve around their mobile phones. Oftentimes, a family could be together and sitting at a table but each member using the phone, even if to describe the dish that he may be having or the quality of food at the moment, the bench further asserted."
Perusing all the circumstances, the Court held that,
“there is no doubt that when there is some illegal action or something which is detrimental to larger public interest, constitutional courts intervene; but in the matters of the present kind, especially when elected governments are in place, such matters of policy should be left to the wisdom of those representing the people and having their mandate instead of the Court issuing a diktat”.
The Court also apprised the petitioner that it is only upon the failure of the executive to act and, thereupon, the Court perceiving the matter to be a danger to society that the Court ought to step in. At least at the initial stage, the duty of the Court is to direct the complainants to the executive for a more wholesome and studied policy decision to be taken by the executive than what may be possible before any Court.
The Court dismissed the petition and permitted the petitioner to make representations to the Union of India through its Ministry of Women and Child Development and to the State through the Department perceived to be the most appropriate by the petitioner. Nothing in this order will prevent further complaints in such regard from being carried even to this Court if appropriate executive action thereon is not forthcoming.
Case Details
Case:- W.P.No.13600 of 2021
Petitioner:- E.Martin Jayakumar
Respondent:- The Government of India & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner - Ms.Selvi George
Counsel for Respondent:- Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy
Judge: Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
SOURCE ; www.latestlaws.com/
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments