Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice Anant S Dave and Justice Biren Vaishnav were of the view that the PUBG ban does not fall within the ambit of PIL. The Gujarat HC dismisses the PIL filed by Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) challenging the ban imposed on PUBG by Gujarat police.
Police while exercising their power under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ban PUBG in the state and as a result, all the people fond of playing PUBG video game were arrested under Section 188 of IPC.
As a consequence, IFF filed a petition challenging the ban. The petition stated that the ban was arbitrary and violated Part III of Constitution of India specifically Article 14, 19 and 21. Moreover, the petition stated that the police have misused their power under Section 144 of Cr. PC by banning PUBG.
Further, there is no scientific reason that playing this game will have an adverse impact on the health of its players. The reason behind the ban was ‘moral panic’ without any verifiable data demonstrating the adverse effects of the game.
Wherefore, the arbitrary action of the Gujarat police was mainly challenged on the grounds that Article 21 provides for the right to life and personal liberty and plying PUBG was not at all aggressive and it has no reason for the arrest. Moreover, arrest and punishment for playing PUBG are at the same time infringement of personal liberty. Article 19 provides for freedom of speech and expression and PUBG provides for the platform for team spirit and recreation. Also, PUBG can be the source of earning a livelihood as competitive playing can fetch cash prices also.
86540
103860
630
114
59824