HC was hearing a petition related to cyber crime, bullying
The Delhi high court on Friday asked the Centre to consider a representation seeking ban on social networking sites and mobile applications through which abusive and vulgar messages were being sent by hiding the sender’s identity.
The court passed these directions, while hearing a petition seeking to ban Saudi Arabia- based social networking website and mobile application, ‘ Sarahah. com and sarahah’, through which the alleged uncivilised, abusive and anonymous offensive messages were being sent, causing cyber bullying and insult to the recipient of the message .
A bench comprising acting chief justice Gita Mittal and justice C. Hari Shankar also asked Central Government Standing Counsel Monika Arora to treat the petition as a representation in a bid to inquire matter and if action taken.
“If any action is being taken, it should be done immediately and the order passed by the government,” the high court said.
The court also added that the action taken be communicated to the petitioner within a month. It also said that it was not expressing any particular views on the merit of the plea.
The bench disposed of the petition in which petitioner advocate Shadab Husain Khan claimed that despite requests made to the authorities for their intervention, no action has been taken so far in the matter.
The plea had made the Union ministries of electronics and information technology and home affairs as parties.
Besides these certain websites and and mobile apps, the petition filed in the high court has also sought banning of other such websites and mobile applications ( apps), saying that there was a threat to safety from cyber crime, mental peace, dignity and to the self- respect of people.
The plea further claimed that the petitioner has been receiving such anonymous messages and similar information has been collected by his friends and colleagues, who had also fallen victim to them.
◗ Should action be taken in this rgard, the high court said the same must be communicated to the petitioner within a month. It also said that it was not expressing any particular views on the merit of the plea.