Spread the love

Post Views: 6

CITATION	2020 SCC Online SC 2
YEAR OF JUDGMENT	10/01/2020
STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE	Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017—Section: R. 2(1), R. 2(2) Telegraph Act, 1885; Section: 5(2) Information Technology Act, 2000; Section: 69-A Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section: 144
PLAINTIFF	Anuradha Bhasin and Ors.
DEFENDENT	Union of India and Ors.
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice N.V.S Ramana, Hon’ble Justice R. Subhash Reddy, and Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai.

INTRODUCTION

The landmark ruling in the 2020 case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India emphasizes the internet’s increasing significance in modern society and places restrictions on the government’s ability to impose orders that restrict internet services completely.

The internet ban in Jammu and Kashmir prevented journalist Anuradha Bhasin from publishing her newspaper, violating her right to free expression. Another petition was submitted by Parliamentarian Gulam Nabi Azad, who was unable to meet with constituents because of the internet ban. The two petitions were combined by the Supreme Court of India, which then issued this historic ruling.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On August 4, 2019, after Article 370 was revoked, the Indian government placed restrictions on movement and suspended internet services in Jammu and Kashmir, giving rise to the case of Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India. The goal of these measures was to preserve security and public order.

Political leader Ghulam Nabi Azad and Kashmir Times executive editor Anuradha Bhasin contested these actions, claiming they infringed upon their fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, expression, and occupation.

The Indian Supreme Court considered whether the government’s actions were appropriate and justifiable in light of the circumstances when evaluating the legality of the internet shutdown and movement restrictions

ISSUE RAISED

Did the indefinite suspension of internet services violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution?

Did the restrictions on internet access and movement hinder the functioning of the press, thereby infringing on the freedom of the press?

Were the government’s actions proportionate and legally justified, considering the necessity and impact of the restrictions imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?

ARGUMENT OF PLAINTIFF

The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s indefinite suspension of internet services and restrictions on movement violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession) of the Indian Constitution.
The plaintiff contended that the government’s actions were disproportionate and lacked sufficient justification. The restrictions were excessive and not necessary to achieve the intended objective of maintaining public order and security.
The plaintiff asserted that the restrictions severely impacted the daily lives of residents, the functioning of the press, and the local economy, causing undue hardship and disruption.
The plaintiff sought the government should be required to make public the orders passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Suspension Rules that authorized these measures, ensuring accountability and transparency.

ARGUMENT OF DEFENDENT

The government argued that the suspension of internet services and movement restrictions were necessary to maintain public order and security in the region, especially in light of potential unrest following the revocation of Article 370.

The government contended that the actions taken were legally justified under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Suspension Rules, which allow for such measures in situations where there is a threat to public safety.

The government maintained that the restrictions were proportionate to the threat faced and were implemented to prevent any potential violence or disruption in the region.

While the government argued that certain orders could be withheld for security reasons, it also emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in the imposition of such restrictions.

PRINCIPAL APPLIED

The Supreme Court used a number of fundamental legal precepts in the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India case to strike a balance between individual liberties and national security. In assessing whether the government’s actions—such as restricting movement and suspending internet services—were excessive or whether there were less restrictive options, the court placed a strong emphasis on the proportionality criterion.

The court examined whether the government’s actions were necessary and reasonable, making sure that the limitations were appropriate in light of the situation. The court also looked at how these limitations affected citizens’ fundamental rights, including their freedom of speech and expression [Article 19(1)(a)] and their freedom to pursue any career [Article 19(1)(g)].

In order to determine whether the government’s actions were appropriate and justified in relation to the goal of upholding public order and security, the court focused its consideration on the necessity and reasonableness principles.

By mandating that the government make public the orders issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Suspension Rules, it further emphasized the significance of accountability and openness. In order to preserve individual liberties while attending to national security issues, these criteria were essential in establishing if any restriction of fundamental rights was required, warranted, and appropriate.

JUDGEMENT

In the Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India case, the Supreme Court ruled that indefinite internet shutdowns are not permissible under the law. The court emphasized the need for periodic review of internet suspension orders to ensure they are not excessive and are proportionate to the situation at hand.

Additionally, the court directed the government to make public all orders regarding internet shutdowns and restrictions under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), ensuring transparency and accountability.

The judgment also highlighted the balance between national security and fundamental rights. While acknowledging the government’s concerns about maintaining public order, the court stressed that any restriction on fundamental rights must be justified, necessary, and proportionate.

This landmark ruling underscored the importance of judicial oversight in cases involving restrictions on internet access and movement, ensuring that individual freedoms are protected even in times of national security concerns.

ANALYSIS

In the context of internet shutdowns, the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India case is a seminal ruling that tackles the delicate balance between individual liberties and national security.

The issue started when the Indian government, after Article 370 was repealed on August 5, 2019, restricted movement and terminated internet services in Jammu & Kashmir. Anuradha Bhasin and Ghulam Nabi Azad, the petitioners, contested these actions, claiming that they infringed upon their fundamental rights as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, expression, and occupation.

The Supreme Court’s decision, which held that indefinite internet shutdowns are illegal, highlighted the proportionality concept. In accordance with Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the court ordered the government to examine internet suspension orders on a regular basis and to make all orders pertaining to internet shutdowns and limitations public. This decision emphasized how crucial judicial supervision is to guaranteeing that any limitations on fundamental rights are appropriate, necessary, and justified. In order to guarantee that individual liberties are maintained even during periods of national security concern, the ruling also emphasized the necessity of openness and accountability in the application of such limitations.

CONCLUSION

In the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India decision, the Supreme Court ruled that any limitations on basic rights must be reasonable, required, and subject to regular review. It further declared that indefinite internet shutdowns are prohibited. Emphasizing the value of accountability and openness, the court ordered the government to publish any orders pertaining to internet shutdowns and movement restrictions under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This ruling emphasized the need to strike a balance between personal liberties and national security, making sure that any restrictions on rights are warranted and well watched.

The court also emphasized the importance of defending fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression and speech [Article 19(1)(a)] and the freedom to pursue any career [Article 19(1)(g)]. The decision strengthened judicial monitoring of executive acts that impact basic rights by requiring periodic review and public disclosure of orders. This historic ruling addresses national security issues while setting a precedent for defending individual liberties in the digital era.

REFERENCES

This article is written by Gourav Ghogare, a student of Renaissance Law College, Indore 452001, and an intern at Legal Vidhya.