The historic decision in anuradha bhasin v union of india highlights the increasing significance of the internet in modern society and places restrictions on the authority of governmental decrees that prohibit internet services altogether. The journalist Anuradha Bhasin in the case of anuradha bhasin v union of india filed a plea in this matter, arguing that Jammu and Kashmir’s internet restriction prevented her from publishing her newspaper, infringing upon her right to freedom of the press.
Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the legitimacy of internet shutdowns and travel restrictions. This issue started on August 5, 2019, when the President issued Constitutional Order 272, which modified Article 367, the Interpretation of the Indian Constitution in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and applied all of the Constitution’s provisions to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian Supreme Court declared that orders for internet shutdowns must pass the necessity and proportionality requirements, and that any vague restrictions on internet services would be unlawful.
anuradha bhasin v union of india Case Facts
· Anuradha Bhasin, the first petitioner, was the editor and publisher of the newspaper “Kashmir Times,” while Mr. Gulam Nabi Azad, the second petitioner, was the leader of the Rajya Sabha opposition and a native of the Jammu and Kashmir constituency.
· The following limitations were put in place in the Jammu and Kashmir Valley by the appropriate authorities:
Ø The Jammu and Kashmir government’s Civil Secretariat, Home department, issued a security alert advising visitors to shorten their stay and make plans to return.
Ø Landline connectivity, internet services, and mobile phone networks were terminated on August 4, 2019.
Ø In response to the President of India’s order to revoke the state of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, the District Magistrates on August 5, 2019, placed restrictions on public gatherings and movements under section 144 of the crpc in an effort to prevent situations of breach of peace in the valley.
· Because of the aforementioned, the petitioners’ rights under Article 19(1) were restricted. As a result, they filed a case with the Supreme Court under article 32 of the indian constitution to have the aforementioned orders and notifications imposing limits quashed.
anuradha bhasin v union of india Issues
· Is it possible for the Government to argue that it is not required to produce all of the orders issued under section 144 of the crpc and others issued under suspension rules?
· Can restrictions be imposed in accordance with section 144 of the crpc?
· Are the freedoms of speech and expression, practice of any profession, and Internet-based trade, business, and occupation included in the list of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?
· Is the state’s government’s decision to prohibit internet access legitimate?
· Was it lawful to impose movement limitations in accordance with section 144 of the crpc?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
· Ms. Anuradha Bhasin filed the case. She stated that without the internet, which she insisted is necessary for the modern press, print media has completely stopped. She claimed that since August 6, 2019, she has been unable to publish her newspaper.
· It was contended that some transactions could only be completed online. The freedom of trade and business over the Internet is protected under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution, subject to certain restrictions listed in Article 19 (6) of the Indian Constitution.
· Their objectives and the restrictions imposed by the state under section 144 were both inappropriate and at odds with public policy. “Law and order” is not the same as “public order.” The respondents argued that because law and order was in jeopardy, the constraints had to be imposed. Neither of those two phrases was in jeopardy before the section 144 order was passed. The responders also argued that although being temporary in nature, these limitations had been in place for more than a hundred days.
· Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, a member of parliament representing the State of Jammu and Kashmir, filed a second writ petition, claiming that section 144’s limitations could only be applied to a certain set of people and not to the State as a whole. The government should impose less restrictive measures since it must strike a balance between upholding public safety and the fundamental rights of India’s citizens.
Respondent:
· They said that the State of Jammu and Kashmir’s history of terrorism should be taken into account. Given the conditions and background information, it is evident that the government must follow these procedures in order to prevent serious violence, as stipulated in Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
· In 2016, the government took similar measures in response to the death of a terrorist, which served as an example.
· Because the petitioners lacked precise information of the actual situation on the ground in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Solicitor General of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Tushar Mehta, declared that the facts presented by the petitioners were untrue.
· The petitioners’ assertion that there were limitations on public movement was incorrect. In reality, there had never been any limitations on personal mobility. In addition, schools that had previously been closed have reopened. Limitations were enforced and are currently being gradually relaxed in accordance with the circumstances, requirements, and circumstances of each site.
· There have never been any restrictions on the Ladakh region. Contrary to what the petitioners allege, there was no widespread crackdown; this fact demonstrates that the police officers on the scene used their judgment when issuing commands.
anuradha bhasin v union of india Judgment
· The public must have access to the orders for limits as outlined in section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 and the orders for a temporary suspension of internet use as soon as possible.
· The rightful exercise of basic rights cannot be suppressed by the section 144 of the crpc. These authorities ought to be reserved for handling crises that could hinder, irritate, or harm people. And the courts have the authority to investigate them.
· The Indian Constitution’s article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, and this protection extends to the internet.
anuradha bhasin v union of india: Aftermath
· In contrast to predictions, India had more Internet shutdowns in the year after the SC’s ruling than in the year before.
· In 2020, more than 70% of the worldwide economic losses resulting from such outages were attributable to Internet limitations in India.
· Recent incidents underscore the ongoing problem, such as the limitations in Haryana amid farmer demonstrations and in Jammu and Kashmir after separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s death.
anuradha bhasin v union of india: Non-compliance of the Government
· Administration credibility is damaged by government disobedience to the SC’s commands, as seen by the government’s unwillingness to post shutdown orders.
· A lack of confidence arises when the justifications for Internet restrictions are not made public, particularly in light of the fact that the Internet is regarded as a necessary service in modern society.
· The problem is made worse by the Union Government’s refusal to give the SC’s directives legislative status.
In what ways does ignorance serve as a barrier?
· The problem is made worse by people’s ignorance and lack of comprehension of the SC’s ruling.
· Akin to the wrong application of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), non-statutory acknowledgment of court rulings results in inaccurate execution.
· Certain cases, like the State of Meghalaya’s ignorance of the Anuradha Bhasin ruling, show how important it is for court rulings to be recognized and disseminated more widely.
India needs to provide strict adherence to the rulings of the Supreme Court top priority if it hopes to shake off the infamous moniker of the “Internet shutdown capital”. To foster confidence, safeguard fundamental rights, and realise the potential of Digital India, it is essential to have transparent governance, statutory acknowledgment of court rulings, and regular reviews of Internet suspension orders. In order for the country to advance, there must be a steadfast dedication to maintaining the free flow of knowledge, creativity, and democratic expression.
Frequently Asked Question
1. Which coaching is best for Judiciary?
Jyoti Judiciary Coaching offers Jaipur’s best judiciary coaching services. The goal is to give the pupils a comfortable environment in which to learn. It raises the possibility of reaching the intended result by making the challenging work appear simple. Providing the greatest education available for students is the goal at Jyoti Judiciary. The Institute guarantees that it will make every effort to give you the best possible preparation for the Judicial Services entrance exams.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
