The Supreme Court today disposed of a public interest litigation filed by B.L. Jain seeking a prohibition on minors' access to pornographic material and a restriction on the viewing of such content in public places. The bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter after Advocate Varun Thakur appeared for the petitioner.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that numerous jurisdictions have imposed bans on minors’ access to pornographic content and argued that the easy availability of such material correlates with a rise in crimes against women. The petition relied on statistical assertions, stating that every second approximately five thousand pornographic sites are accessed, that since 2005 more than two crore pornographic videos or clips are uploaded each year, and that estimates suggest over twenty crore pornographic videos or clips, including child pornography, are freely available in the Indian market.
The petitioner contended that the Union Government possesses the authority under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to issue directions for blocking public access to any information through any computer resource. It was argued that, despite this statutory power, the Central Government has not exercised any ban on pornographic content. The reliefs sought were twofold: first, a direction for the formulation of a national policy and an action plan to curb the viewing of pornography, particularly among persons who have not attained the age of majority; and second, a direction prohibiting the watching of pornographic material in any form at public places.
After considering the submissions, the Court observed that the issue raised by the petitioner is undoubtedly of paramount public importance. However, the bench clarified that the matter does not present a question of law that requires determination by this Court. Instead, it involves policy considerations that are primarily based on views of technological advancement and therefore fall within the domain of experts and the appropriate authorities, notably the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The order granted the petitioner liberty to forward a copy of the petition as a representation before the competent authority. The bench expressly impressed upon the concerned authorities to give due consideration to the issues and suggestions raised by the petitioner in his plea. The Court added that it has no reason to doubt that the authorities will duly consider the suggestions made.
The operative outcome of the proceedings is therefore limited to a direction that the petitioner may approach the relevant governmental bodies with his representation, while the Court refrains from issuing any substantive direction or declaring any rights. The decision underscores the judiciary’s restraint in matters that are deemed to be policy‑oriented and best left to the executive and specialist agencies.