The Supreme Court on Monday deferred a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a nationwide ban on pornography, invoking the recent Gen Z-led protests in Nepal as a cautionary tale against abrupt digital restrictions. A bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, set to retire on November 23, stated it was "not inclined" to entertain the plea immediately, remarking, “Look what happened in Nepal over a ban.” The hearing was postponed for four weeks, allowing time for broader consultation before potentially intervening in what the court views as a policy matter.
Filed by Madhya Pradesh-based social activist BL Jain, the petition demands that the Centre formulate a national policy and action plan to curb access to pornographic content, especially for minors aged 13-18, and prohibit public viewing. It highlights post-digitalization vulnerabilities, where “everything is available in one click,” and notes the COVID-19 surge in device usage for online education without safeguards. Jain cited government data admitting “billions” of porn sites, including over 20 crore videos with child sexual abuse material available for sale in India, urging blocks under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000.
The court's reference stems from Nepal's September 2025 unrest, sparked by a ban on 26 platforms—including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, and X—for non-registration. What began as regulatory enforcement escalated into anti-corruption fury over nepotism and elite extravagance, with Gen Z protesters storming parliament, clashing violently, and causing at least 19 deaths. Curfews, army deployments, and vandalism forced Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's resignation, despite the ban's swift lift via VPN workarounds.
This judicial hesitation reflects balancing child protection with free expression risks, amid India's sporadic site blocks like Pornhub. While parental controls exist, the plea argues they're insufficient without robust laws. As global online harm debates rage, the deferral underscores youth digital empowerment—restrictions can fuel broader dissent. The case, relisted in December, may shape India's approach to content regulation in a hyper-connected era.