[Online games] No doubt children are addicted to phones, but courts cannot intervene based on personal sense of morality: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on Thursday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition raising concern over the addiction of children and young adults to online games (E Martin Jayakumar v. The Government of India and ors)..The plea sought directions toban all the online and offline video games and to bring appropriate mechanisms to check track the computers, mobile phones or other devices used to play such games. .A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of the PIL, opining that the petitioner should first approach the government on the issue, since it is a matter of policy on which the Court may not have appropriate expertise..The Court has highlighted it should be slow to interfere in such matters, stating in its order,“… courts should be slow in entering into such areas on the personal sense of morality of the individual complainant or the judge or judges concerned. There is no doubt that when there is some illegal action or something which is detrimental to larger public interest, courts intervene; but in matters of the present kind, especially when elected governments are in place, such matters of policy should be left to wisdom of those representing the people … instead of court issuing a diktat,” stated the order..It added that it is only upon the failure of the executive to act and the court perceiving the issue to be a danger to society, that the courts ought to step in..“At least at the initial stage, the duty of court should be to direct complainants to the executive for a more wholesome and studied policy decision to the taken by the executive than may be possible at any Court,” the Bench opined..The Court, however, agreed with some of the concerns raised by the petitioner over addiction to technology..“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 they may be having or the quality of the food at the moment,” the Court observed..The Bench proceeded to dispose of the matter by permitting the petitioner to make a representation on the issue to both the Union government and the State within four weeks. The authorities have been asked to give their considered response within eight weeks of receipt of the petitioner’s representation..Before parting with the matter, the Court also clarified that this order would not prevent any further complaints from being made, including to the Court, if appropriate executive action is not forthcoming..As per the order, the petitioner’s concerns included the addiction of children and young adults to online games, more so during the pandemic when schools remained shut. The petitioner had contended that such addiction could have devastating effects, in the sense that it destroys the career building phase of young adults and may even lead to suicidal tendencies and extreme anger against parents and elders seeking to check on the habit..Advocate Selvi George appeared for the petitioner. Advocates K Srinivasamurthy and P Muthukumar appeared for the respondents..On a related note, a Bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and N Pugalendhi last year repeatedly voice concern over the unregulated conduct of online games, particularly "online gambling” games such as online rummy and poker. PILs against such games and against celebrities endorsing the same were also heard at length by the Bench..Why is there no law to regulate Online Games such as Online Rummy, Spartan Poker, Ace2Three? asks Madras High Court [Read Order].As these cases unfolded, the State last year introduced an a ban on online games such as online rummy and poker through an ordinance, which was later introduced as a Bill..The Bill is presently under challenge by online rummy and online poker companies before the Madras High Court. This challenge is also being heard by the Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, and is presently listed for further hearing at 2:15 pm on Monday, July 5..[Read Order]