Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020) : A Landmark Judgment on Internet Freedom
Introduction
In August 2019, the Indian government imposed unprecedented restrictions in the Jammu and Kashmir region, including a complete shutdown of internet services. This move was part of a broader strategy following the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted special autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. The communication blackout raised significant concerns about the infringement of fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice one’s profession. Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of the Kashmir Times, challenged these restrictions, leading to the seminal case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.
Background of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020) : A Landmark Judgment on Internet Freedom
On August 5, 2019, the Government of India announced the abrogation of Article 370, effectively revoking the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Anticipating unrest, the government imposed a series of restrictive measures:
Communication Shutdown: All internet services, mobile connectivity, and landline services were suspended indefinitely.
Movement Restrictions: Curfews were enforced, and public movement was severely restricted.
Media Constraints: Journalists faced significant hurdles in reporting due to the lack of communication channels and movement restrictions.
Anuradha Bhasin argued that these measures impeded the freedom of the press, making it impossible for journalists to fulfill their duties. She contended that the indefinite suspension of internet services violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Legal Issues
The case presented several pivotal questions:
Legality of Internet Suspension: Was the indefinite suspension of internet services in violation of the law?
Freedom of Press: Did the restrictions infringe upon the freedom of the press?
Validity of Section 144 Orders: Were the orders issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) valid?
Judicial Review: What is the scope of judicial review concerning the aforementioned restrictions?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner (Anuradha Bhasin):
Violation of Fundamental Rights: The blanket internet shutdown infringed upon the rights to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business (Article 19(1)(g)).
Disproportionate Measures: The restrictions were excessive and not in proportion to the perceived threat to public order.
Lack of Transparency: The government did not publish the orders related to the restrictions, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability.
For the Respondent (Union of India):
National Security: The measures were necessary to maintain public order and protect national security in light of the significant constitutional changes in the region.
Temporary Measures: The restrictions were temporary and subject to periodic review.
Executive Prerogative: The executive had the authority to impose such restrictions in the interest of public safety.
Judgment
On January 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment. The key takeaways include:
Internet Access as a Fundamental Right: The Court recognized that the freedom of speech and expression through the medium of the internet is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Any restriction on internet access must adhere to the constitutional mandates of reasonableness and proportionality.
Proportionality and Necessity: The Court emphasized that any restriction on fundamental rights must be necessary and proportionate to the intended goal. Indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible, and any such orders must be reviewed periodically.
Publication of Orders: The Court mandated that all orders imposing restrictions must be made public to enable affected individuals to challenge them legally.
Section 144 CrPC: The Court held that orders under Section 144 cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights. Such orders must be based on material facts and should be exercised in a bona fide manner.
Impact on Related Cases
The Anuradha Bhasin judgment set a significant precedent for subsequent cases concerning internet shutdowns and the imposition of Section 144 orders:
Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (2020): Following the Anuradha Bhasin case, this petition challenged the continued restrictions on 4G internet services in Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court, while refraining from a direct order, constituted a special committee to review the necessity of such restrictions, emphasizing the principles laid down in the Anuradha Bhasin judgment.
Alok Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020): In this case, the Allahabad High Court quashed orders issued under Section 144 CrPC that were used to prevent protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The court relied on the guidelines established in the Anuradha Bhasin case to assess the validity of the restrictions.
Conclusion
The Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India judgment is a landmark decision that underscores the importance of the internet as a medium for exercising fundamental rights. It establishes that while the state has the authority to impose restrictions in the interest of public order and national security, such measures must be necessary, proportionate, and transparent. The judgment serves as a crucial reference point for evaluating the legality of governmental actions that impact fundamental rights in the digital age.
Read More Judgment Case Summaries : A R Antulay Case
Visit Our Youtube Channel
