Skip to main content

The #BlueWhale Challenge to the Indian Judiciary: A Critical Analysis of the Response of the Indian Higher Judiciary to Risky Online Contents with Special Reference to the BlueWhale Suicide Game

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Responsive Judge

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 67))

Abstract

Since July 2017, shocking reports of suicides of teenagers and young adults started surfacing in Indian news media. These were unique because of their possible links with the notorious BlueWhale challenge, an online game, offering a 50 step challenge including suicide. The Madras High Court was the first High Court in India to take cognizance of the matter suo motu. Immediately after it, other High Courts in India were also approached by social cause lawyers through public interest litigations with similar prayers to direct the government and public stakeholders, including the intermediaries and website companies, to take preventive steps against the BlueWhale game. The multiplicity of the public interest litigations motivated the Supreme Court of India to take up the matter as one single matter, and it directed other High Courts not to deal with it to avoid a multiplicity of judicial responses. The case covered a tussle between the emotional intelligence of young people and the artificial intelligence used by the administrators and group members of the game to reach the teenagers and young adults and “trap” them in this dangerous game. This chapter analyses how the judges have responded to the issue and concludes with suggestions for sensitising the higher judiciary regarding the legal-technological issues involved in online games which may prove extremely dangerous for women and children. Finally, the chapter outlines the need for stricter judicial decision-making attitudes towards the liability of foreign hosted Internet service providers .

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai versus The Secretary to Government, Union Ministry of Communications, Government of India, New India & others, Suo Motu W.P. (MD). No.16668 of 2017.

  2. 2.

    In Re: Ayushman Foundation versus State Of West Bengal & Ors, W.P. No. 23537(W) of 2017.

  3. 3.

    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 177/2013 in the Supreme Court of India.

  4. 4.

    See Centre for Internet & Society (2015) for a copy of the order.

  5. 5.

    See paras. 12 & 13 of the order.

  6. 6.

    According to Android Central (2016), “Google Play, which was originally born and referred to by Google as the Android Market, is Google’s official store and portal for Android apps, games and other content for your Android-powered phone, tablet or Android TV device”.

  7. 7.

    See para. 6 of the order.

  8. 8.

    See para. 7 of the order.

  9. 9.

    See para. 6 of the order.

  10. 10.

    See Angiolino (2017) for more information.

  11. 11.

    WP. (criminal) no.167 of 2012.

  12. 12.

    See p. 96 of the order of the court in Shreya Singhal Versus Union of India (2012).

  13. 13.

    Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 2 S.C.R. 757 at 829.

  14. 14.

    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 177/2013 in the Supreme Court of India.

  15. 15.

    See S.67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) which speaks about punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.

  16. 16.

    See S.67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) which speaks about punishment for publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit acts, etc. in electronic form.

  17. 17.

    SMW (Crl.) No(S).3/2015 In Re: Prajwala Letter Dated 18.2.2015 Videos Of Sexual Violence And Recommendations.

  18. 18.

    It is an unfortunate fact that the concept of public interest litigations has been subjected to wide range misuse for gaining publicity by the petitioner. A recent report suggested that the Chief Justice of India has taken strong note of the same. See LiveLaw (2017b) for more information.

  19. 19.

    The proposals and recommendations can be seen in the order copy: SMW (Crl.) No(s).3/2015 In Re: Prajwala Letter Dated 18.2.2015 Videos Of Sexual Violence And Recommendations.

  20. 20.

    See p. 12 of the order.

  21. 21.

    See S.306 of the Indian Penal Code which defines abetment of suicide.

  22. 22.

    See S.84B of the Information Technology Act which prescribes punishment for abetting an offence.

  23. 23.

    See S.79 of the Information Technology Act, which speaks about nil liability of the intermediaries and the exceptions to this rule.

  24. 24.

    See p. 7 of the order.

  25. 25.

    See Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494/2012 in the Supreme Court of India.

  26. 26.

    See Writ Petition (Civil) No. 872/2017 in the Supreme Court of India.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debarati Halder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Halder, D. (2018). The #BlueWhale Challenge to the Indian Judiciary: A Critical Analysis of the Response of the Indian Higher Judiciary to Risky Online Contents with Special Reference to the BlueWhale Suicide Game. In: Sourdin, T., Zariski, A. (eds) The Responsive Judge. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 67. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1022-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1023-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics