PIL to ban TikTok: ‘Why didn’t you approach company’s grievance cell?’

The Bombay high court has directed a petitioner to justify her claims against video-sharing application TikTok in the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by her.

The Bombay high court has directed a petitioner to justify her claims against video-sharing application TikTok in the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by her.

HT Image

This comes after TikTok sought dismissal of the PIL, on the grounds that a grievance redressal mechanism was already in place and she should have approached it rather than moving court.

The PIL, filed by Heena Darvesh,36, a mother of three minors, sought a ban on the app as it gives accessibility of restricted content to people of all age groups.

The petition also stated that as the app was addictive and there was no control on the content being uploaded, it should be banned.

A division bench of acting chief justice Bhushan Dharmadhikari and justice Nitin Borkar was informed by advocate Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, appearing for the petitioner, that the video-sharing service was promoting the commission of criminal offences.

He submitted that minors were addicted to the app, which affected their studies and social behaviour.

However, senior counsel Milind Sathe, appearing for TikTok, opposed the PIL and sought its dismissal.

“There is a procedure laid down under Section 69-A of the Information Technology Act, which states if a person has any grievance regarding online content then he or she can approach the grievance cell of the company and seek for it to be removed,” said Sathe.

After hearing the parties, the bench asked the petitioner’s lawyer to respond to the point raised by the company and posted the matter for further hearing after three weeks.