Supreme Court defers hearing on porn ban, cites Nepal Gen-Z protest: 'Look what happened...'

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday said it was not inclined to consider a petition calling for a complete prohibition on pornography, remarking, “Look what happened in Nepal over a ban," according to NDTV.

The comment referred to the violent protests that broke out in Nepal earlier this year after restrictions were imposed, with young people -- mostly Gen-Z -- taking to the streets against what they called a corrupt administration.

The matter was taken up by a division bench headed by outgoing Chief Justice BR Gavai, who is set to demit office on November 23. The bench, while declining to proceed immediately, said the petition would be taken up again after four weeks, the report said.

The petitioner urged the court to direct the central government to frame a national policy and create an action plan to curb access to pornographic material, particularly for minors. The plea also sought to restrict viewing such content in public spaces.

“After digitalisation, everyone is connected digitally… who is educated or uneducated is immaterial. Everything is available in one click,” the petitioner reportedly argued, adding that even during the Covid period, when children had to use digital devices for schooling, there were no effective systems to block or monitor such content.

Citing government admissions, the petitioner claimed that “billions” of pornographic websites are accessible in India. The plea further alleged that there is “no effective law” to regulate this issue and that exposure to such material “adversely affects persons as well as society, especially growing minds aged between 13 and 18.”

The petition also included what it described as “shocking data,” claiming that more than 20 crore pornographic clips, including those involving child sexual material, are circulating in India. It reminded the court that the government has powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to block access to such content, according to the report.

The court, however, observed that individuals and families can already use existing parental control tools or tracking software to monitor and limit what children watch online. Despite acknowledging the gravity of the issue, the bench refrained from issuing any interim direction and deferred the hearing.