Cannot become a totalitarian state and ban all porn websites, Centre tells Supreme Court
'State can't enter into people's bedrooms', govt's top lawyer argues
New Delhi: The NDA government, under attack for blocking porn sites, today told the Supreme Court that it does not believe in a "totalitarian" state and cannot become moral police.
The government, however, told a bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu that it has blocked the "porn sites dealing with child pornography" and this is "standard accepted practice" across the globe.
"Child pornography has to be banned. There is no doubt about it. But, it is difficult, as the geographical frontiers have now become meaningless. You ban 10 such websites, five new will come up," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said.
He termed the issue relating to banning of porn sites as "grey area" and said that violation of fundamental right of speech and expression will also arise and hence, it needs a public debate.
Read: Banned: Complete list of 857 porn websites blocked in India
"The state cannot become the moral police. We cannot peek inside. The entire issue needs larger debate. Every computer and mobile phone have the child lock. It is difficult to stop such things at the source level," Rohatgi said.
"We are going towards 'Digital India' and the Prime Minister is inviting suggestions from public about his 15th August speech," he said.
On being pointed out by a lawyer that the government has banned porn sites in pursuance of a court order, the bench, also comprising justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy said, "We have not passed any such order."
Meanwhile, the central government asked the Internet service providers to sit with authorities to resolve issues relating to the Department of Telecom order on banning porn websites.
Read: Right to see porn?
The bench then adjourned the hearing on the plea. Earlier, the government had assured the court that all possible measures would be taken to block porn sites, particularly those dealing with child pornography. However, the government, which acted in pursuance of the court's observation, came under attack for blocking porn sites.
"You have not blocked the websites. The petitioner is saying so much," it had said.