Ban Pokemon Go because its non-veg: PIL in Gujarat HC

AHMEDABAD: Meat, fish, egg... and Pokemon Go. The non-veg family has a new member, Alay Dave believes. Gujarat High Court on Wednesday asked the Centre and the state to respond to the allegation - made in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Alay - that the location-based augmented reality game hurts religious sentiments by showing eggs at places of worship. The court has also issued a notice to Niantic, the game's San Francisco-based developer. A division bench of Chief Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice V.M. Pancholi asked them to respond within four weeks.

The petitioner, a budding lawyer who chose not to meet the media, has sought a ban on the game that is yet to be formally launched in India. His lawyer Nachiket Dave said his client felt the game, which can be played on iOS and Android devices and whose primary objective is to collect as many Pokemons - or virtual pocket monsters - as possible, hurts religious sentiments. "People playing the game get their points in the form of virtual eggs.... To find eggs in temples of Hindus and Jains is blasphemous and therefore my client has sought a ban on the game. Such obnoxious unreligious activity under the guise of a game cannot be allowed," the PIL said. Nachiket is also Alay's older brother. Their father Anil R. Dave is a senior Supreme Court judge. Social media reacted to the petition with disbelief, with one Twitterer asking: "Seriously? Do we not have something better to do?" Another tweeted: "Hard to beat this idiocy." A third wrote: "When you think it won't get any more ridiculous..." A PIL is a unique weapon available in Indian courts for espousing a genuine public cause. The Supreme Court frowns upon "frivolous" petitions and has in the past imposed penalty on petitioners for wasting the judiciary's time. It has dismissed quite a few PILs that it said were "private interest litigations or personal interest litigations". Sometime back the top court had dismissed a petition seeking a CBI probe into Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi's alleged concealment of UK citizenship. Chiding the petitioner, advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, for filing a frivolous petition, the court had warned him that he could face "exemplary costs" (fines) for such petitions in the future. The same advocate had to pay a penalty of Rs 50,000 for filing another petition seeking a probe into the assets of a former Chief Justice of India. Nachiket defended his brother's PIL, saying the Supreme Court's observation regarding frivolous petitions did not apply to it. "The game hurts sentiments and it is a serious issue. I think the petition is legally sound," he said. The petition also cited what it called infringement of privacy and a possible threat to the life of those who go searching for Pokemons. There have been reports of people being involved in accidents when playing Pokemon Go. Further ground for banning the game? E(gg)xactly, the Dave brothers would say. -The Telegraph Calcutta