POKEMON GOes to court: Do litigation norms need tightening?

There were two cases before Indian courts today that raised some important question marks over the ease with which cases can be filed on percieved notions of offence being taken.The Gujarat High Court issued notices to the developers of Pokemon Go and the Central and state government after a petitioner alleged that the game is "disrespectful" to Hindus and Jains. The petitioner's rationale: Pokemon Go allows people to "capture [virtual] eggs" inside temples, something he termed "outrageous". He even argued that Pokemon Go is a secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) project by the United States to spy on the world.Meanwhile, Musician Vishal Dadlani's tweet on the Jain monk who spoke at the Haryana State Assembly has created a huge controversy. Since then, the Aam Aadmi Party, which he supports has admonished him. Dadlani has apologised for his comments many times and says he has even quit politics, but cases against him has started piling up. The Supreme Court refused to grant him any protection from arrest.Would the above cases constitute judicial over-reach in a country where small transgressions could result in cases being filed against those thought to cause them?Senior Supreme Lawyer Sanjay Hegde believes the intention behind Gujarat High Court issuing a notice was not any judicial determination, but was only to know the other side of matter. "Not many judges know about the game; it is just words like temples and religions that have hit the ears of judiciary," he told CNBC-TV18.Calling the notice to be 'frivolous', Kamini Jaiswal, Senior Adocate, Supreme Court, said the petition was just a publicity stunt to waste energy and time of the judiciary. "The case is bizarre and is increasing pending litigations; Gujarat wants to show how intolerant it is," she said.