The Karnataka High Court, in a recent hearing, made a significant observation suggesting that the central government should contemplate introducing an age restriction for social media usage in India. The court opined that individuals should be “at least 21” years old to access social media platforms.
This recommendation emerged during the court’s deliberation on X Corp’s (previously known as Twitter) appeal against the rejection of its challenge to the Centre’s directive to block specific social media accounts and posts. The court had previously dismissed X Corp’s plea against the central government’s order and imposed a penalty of Rs 50 lakh on the company for non-compliance.
The bench, during the hearing, highlighted the pervasive influence of social media on the younger generation. It remarked that the “best option” might be to entirely prohibit social media, asserting that such a move would yield significant positive outcomes. The court expressed concerns over the addiction levels among school-going children, drawing parallels with age restrictions in Excise rules.
The topic of age restrictions was broached when the central government’s counsel informed the court about the current legal requirement for users to provide Aadhaar and other identification documents to access specific online games. The court subsequently inquired why similar identification prerequisites weren’t being applied to social media platforms.
Furthermore, the bench observed that X Corp shouldn’t be tasked with determining which posts or accounts should be removed based on subjective evaluations. Citing an example, the court questioned,
“(Suppose) One content says apple a day keeps the doctor away, can you say ‘no, no, this is anti-national, against doctors?’ … Tomorrow, you say, you interpret it and say it is against the doctor fraternity, it is against the interest of nation – can they accept that?”
The primary criterion for content removal, as per the bench, should be whether it breaches Section 69A (1) and (2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. If such violations are identified, X Corp must adhere to the blocking orders.
X Corp’s counsel clarified that their appeal was specifically against the manner in which a single-judge of the High Court had previously commented on the interpretation of the law concerning blocking posts and accounts. The court acknowledged X Corp’s compliance with the blocking orders but also noted the company’s grievance regarding the request to remove over 1,000 tweets without adequate justification.
The court’s observations underscore the ongoing debate surrounding the regulation of social media platforms and the potential implications for user rights and freedom of expression.
