STATEMENT OF ISSUES

(I). Whether imposing ban on the application “White whale” u/s 69A of the
IT Act is Constitutionally valid?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

(I). Whether imposing ban on the application “White whale” u/s 69A of the
IT Act is Constitutionally valid?
The state of Dignity is justified in its decision to ban they game as the game was
quite addictive and also incited the children for abetment to suicide. The ban
imposed on the game is in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
 Arguments advanced

(i). Whether imposing ban on the application “White whale” u/s 69A of
the IT Act is Constitutionally valid?

(1). The game being challenging and addictive in nature has clearly incited for
abetment to suicide Moreover the game is of such a nature that as the game
become more and more challenging, the player gets addicted to it and as a result
the user commits suicide. According to section 69A(1) of the Information
Technology Act 2000, where the central government or any of its officers
specially authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or
expedient to do so, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security
of the state, friendly relation with foreign states or public order or for preventing
incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above 1, it
may be subject to the provisions of sub section(2) for reasons to be recorded in
writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block
for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any
information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer
resource.

(2). Abetment of suicide is an offence which is a cognizable offence under

section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As the game incites for abetment to
suicide, it also falls under section 69A (1) of the IT Act 2000, which talks about
blocking for access by the public or causing to be blocked for access by the by
the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in
any computer resource, the state of dignity decision’s to ban the game is in

1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92334486/
accordance with the Constitution. In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the SC
held section 69A of the IT Act as constitutional. 2

(3). Unlike the other games like ‘WokemanGo’ the petitioner’s game imposed
lethal threat to the society. Therefore, the registration of crime under Sec 306
and Sec 120B of IPC against the company by the State of Pride is done in
accordance with the reasonable classification put forward by Art.14. The
classification is clearly done on the basis of intelligible differentia, as the former
one is safe to the users unlike the latter.

(4). The rights under Article 19(1) (g) are not absolute but qualified and the
State is authorised under 19(6) to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in
the

public interest. A citizen has no fundamental rights to trade or business in

activities which are immoral and criminal and in articles or goods which are

obnoxious and injurious to the health, safety and welfare of the general public 3.
The petitioner’s act of inciting and encouraging the users to commit suicide is
essentially criminal in nature. Therefore, the ban imposed on the game is
justifiable under Art. 19(6).

(5). Right to life is fundamental to an individual’s existence without which we

cannot live as human being and includes all those aspects of life. By making the
users to commit suicide, the right to life of an individual Art.21 is being violated
by the petitioners. Privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges
primarily from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Art.21 of the
Constitution. Right to Privacy safeguards individual autonomy, recognises the
2
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
3
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v State of Karnataka (1995) 1 SCC 574
ability of the individual to control vital aspects of life. The game “RedOx”
creates an addiction to its users and an obsession whereby the users lack the
ability to control vital aspects of their life. Thus, the concept of privacy restrains
anyone from committing an intrusion upon the life and personal liberty of a
citizen. As the game violates the Right to life which includes the Right to
Privacy of an individual, the ban imposed on the game is constitutionally valid.

(8). The company is liable to abetment for suicide as the game becomes more
and more challenging, the players get addicted to it and as a result, the last level
of the administrator demands the player to commit suicide after drawing an
image of a white whale on his hand, hence it clearly shows the abetment for
suicide, and the state of Indiana is totally justified in banning the game under
section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.