Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising, CJI U.U Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, during mentioning, expressing concerns on the matter, was of the opinion that the issue of internet shutdown is to be listed before a three-judge bench, to decide upon the matter.

The Counsel submitted that the 'rampant' internet shutdowns all over the country are in clear violation of Anuradha Bhasin. Further submitted that despite the strict guidelines, the country has witnessed several internet shutdowns. And the matter, therefore, needs an urgent hearing.

In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India and Ors, a bench of Justice N.V. Ramana (former CJI), Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice B.R. Gavai, opined, "Governments are required to respect the freedom of the press at all times. Journalists are to be accommodated in reporting and there is no justification for allowing a sword of Damocles to hang over the press indefinitely". And passed directions to the State authorities to 'review all orders suspending internet services forthwith' amongst other.

Some specific directions were:

1. The Respondent State/competent authorities are directed to publish all orders in force and any future orders under Section 144, Cr.P.C and for suspension of telecom services, including internet, to enable the affected persons to challenge it before the High Court or appropriate forum.

2. We declare that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). The restriction upon such fundamental rights should be in consonance with the mandate under Article 19 (2) and (6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality.

3. An order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017. Suspension can be utilized for temporary duration only. d. Any order suspending internet issued under the Suspension Rules, must adhere to the principle of proportionality and must not extend beyond necessary duration. e. Any order suspending internet under the Suspension Rules is subject to judicial review based on the parameters set out herein.

4. The existing Suspension Rules neither provide for a periodic review nor a time limitation for an order issued under the Suspension Rules. Till this gap is filled, we direct that the Review Committee constituted under Rule 2(5) of the Suspension Rules must conduct a periodic review within seven working days of the previous review, in terms of the requirements under Rule 2(6).