CASE ANALYSIS –  ANURADHA BHASIN  v. UNION OF INDIA, 2019

INTRODUCTION 

The interim proceedings in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India were set against the backdrop of the communication shutdown and movement restrictions imposed in Jammu & Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370 on 5th August 2019. Anuradha Bhasin, the Executive Editor of The Kashmir Times, approached the Jammu & Kashmir High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. She challenged the constitutionality of the indefinite suspension of internet and telecommunication services, arguing that these restrictions infringed her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g). A central concern raised was whether sweeping restrictions of this nature could be imposed without issuing formal orders or providing clear justifications. While the High Court did not grant immediate relief, it instructed the government to submit a status report and consider the restoration of communication services particularly for journalists emphasising the press serves as a fundamental pillar supporting democracy.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. On 4th August 2019, a day before the abrogation of Article 370, the Government of Jammu & Kashmir enforced a complete communication lockdown across the Union Territory. Mobile networks, internet services, and even landline connections were suspended. Alongside, Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code was imposed to restrict public gatherings and the movement of people. These curbs were presented as precautionary measures aimed at maintaining law and order during a politically sensitive period.

2. Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of The Kashmir Times, approached the Jammu & Kashmir High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. Through her petition, she challenged the legality of the communication clampdown and restrictions on movement, arguing that these actions had effectively crippled press operations in the Valley. She stated that due to the blockade, the Srinagar edition of her newspaper could not be printed, and journalists were unable to perform basic newsgathering functions or reach their sources. These restrictions, she contended, amounted to a violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

3. The petitioner also raised serious concerns about the absence of publicly available orders authorising the restrictions. In her view, the government’s failure to issue formal or transparent directives made it impossible to assess the legality of the measures or seek proper legal redress. This, she argued, was contrary to the principles of natural justice and undermined the rule of law. She claimed that the blanket nature of the ban was not only excessive and arbitrary but also struck at the very core of media freedom in a democratic setup.

4. As part of the relief sought, the petition urged the Court to direct the government to immediately restore communication facilities, at least for journalists and media organisations, so they could resume their professional duties. The petition also called for stronger protections to prevent the future abuse of executive authority aimed at curbing freedom of expression and press liberty.

5. It claimed that the measures were preventive in nature, intended to avert any risk of violence or unrest, and were not specifically aimed at stifling the press. The State further assured that the restrictions were temporary and would be eased gradually in accordance with the ground situation.

6. Although the High Court did not grant immediate relief to the petitioner, it acknowledged the seriousness of the concerns raised. The Court directed the State to submit a status report detailing the steps taken to restore communication services, particularly for media personnel. It also kept the matter open for further deliberation. While the interim proceedings did not result in a conclusive judgment, they laid important groundwork for the later Supreme Court decision that addressed the constitutional limits of internet shutdowns and underscored the crucial role of freedom of expression in a democratic system.

ISSUES 

1. Whether the restrictions imposed on communication services (internet, mobile, and landlines) violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?

2. Whether the restrictions on movement and communication, in the absence of any publicly notified government orders, could be sustained in law?

3. Whether the indefinite shutdown of communication facilities amounted to an arbitrary and disproportionate response affecting freedom of the press and right to profession?

4. Whether the State was under a constitutional obligation to ensure that essential services like media and press are allowed to function, even during public emergency situations?

5. Whether the High Court should direct the Government to restore communication facilities at least to media houses to facilitate journalistic activity in the region?

JUDGEMENT

1. The Jammu & Kashmir High Court did not grant any immediate or coercive relief to the petitioner but approached the case with constitutional gravity. The Court acknowledged that the communication blackout directly impacted press freedom, a fundamental right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court observed that any curtailment of such a fundamental right must satisfy the constitutional standards of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality, particularly in the context of a democratic society.

2. The Court also took note of the troubling absence of formal, published orders justifying the restrictions. It held that without publicly accessible government directives, there was a lack of transparency and legal accountability. This, in turn, prevented meaningful judicial scrutiny of the executive action, raising serious concerns under the rule of law.

3. Adopting a measured stance, the Court refrained from issuing a mandatory directive but instructed the Government of Jammu & Kashmir to file a status report. This report was expected to detail the steps taken to ensure the functioning of media organisations and to explore possibilities for restoring communication services especially for journalists and press bodies operating in the region.

4. The Court further urged the government to maintain a careful balance between legitimate security interests and the constitutional obligation to protect freedom of expression and professional rights. It emphasised that even in sensitive or extraordinary circumstances, press freedom should not be unduly suppressed without a valid legal basis.

5. While the petition was kept pending for further examination, the Court made it clear that the matter would be closely monitored. It underlined that freedom of the press is not merely a personal right, but a foundational element of democratic governance that cannot be suspended indefinitely in the absence of lawful justification.

REASONING

1. The High Court acknowledged that the freedom of the press is an integral aspect of the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It stressed that in a functioning democracy, access to information and the ability to report freely are indispensable. The petitioner’s contention that the communication blackout had severely hampered press operations was found to be credible and raised important constitutional questions.

2. The Court reiterated that any restriction on fundamental rights must adhere to the constitutional principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and necessity. It held that limitations on speech and press cannot be arbitrary, excessive, or indefinite in nature. Although national security is a valid consideration, such a claim must be supported by formal legal orders that are subject to judicial oversight. The Court viewed the failure to issue or publish such orders as a serious procedural and constitutional deficiency.

3. Emphasising the importance of transparency in governance, especially when fundamental rights are at stake, the Court reasoned that the lack of officially communicated orders left individuals and institutions particularly the media in a state of legal uncertainty. Without access to the government’s rationale, affected parties were neither in a position to challenge the restrictions nor to comply with them lawfully.

4. In its observations, the Court sought to balance the State’s concern for national security and public order with the imperative of restoring civil liberties. It cautioned that while the government has the responsibility to ensure safety, it must not use that responsibility to unduly prolong the suspension of constitutionally protected freedoms.

5. Rather than issuing sweeping orders, the Court adopted a cautious and supervisory stance. It directed the State to submit a comprehensive status report detailing the progress made in restoring communication services. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that executive decisions, particularly those that impact fundamental rights, are subject to judicial review and cannot exist beyond the reach of constitutional accountability.

CONCLUSION 

In its interim judgment, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that the constitutional concerns raised by the petitioner particularly regarding the impact of the communication lockdown on press freedom were legitimate and warranted serious judicial consideration. Although the Court did not issue any immediate directive to restore communication services, it reaffirmed that the freedom of the press is a foundational element of democracy protected under Article 19(1)(a). It emphasised that any restrictions on this right must meet the constitutional standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality.

The Court expressed clear concern over the absence of formal and publicly available government orders to justify the restrictions. It observed that this lack of transparency not only compromised accountability but also made it difficult for the affected parties to seek legal recourse. Recognising the essential role of the media in a democratic society, the Court directed the State government to submit a detailed status report explaining the steps taken to facilitate the functioning of journalists and media organisations, and to consider the restoration of communication services.

While the Court stopped short of directly intervening in the executive’s decision-making at that stage, it cautioned that indefinite or arbitrary curbs on fundamental rights cannot be sustained without lawful and reasonable justification. The matter was kept open for further hearings, signalling that the Court was prepared to undertake a more in-depth constitutional review in the next phase of the proceedings.

REFERENCE 

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82461587/
2. 2019 Supreme Court Cases Online Jammu & Kashmir 764

Written by Abinaya Raja; an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.