PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Scrutiny Of Central Delhi Internet Shutdown During CEC Protest

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking judicial scrutiny of the suspension of mobile internet services within a four-kilometre radius of the Janpath–Kartavya Path crossing in Central Delhi on October 9 and 10 during protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Filed by advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, the petition seeks production of the original reasoned order authorising the suspension, the material relied upon to justify the restriction, records relating to publication of the order and details of the statutory Review Committee's proceedings.

As per the plea, the suspension was imposed from 10 PM on October 9 to 10 PM on October 10, pursuant to an authorisation attributed to the Union Home Secretary.

While Goswami acknowledges that the restriction was reportedly authorised by the competent authority, but he submits that the original order and the supporting decision-making records are necessary to determine whether the statutory requirements were fulfilled.

The petition clarifies that Goswami does not seek restoration of services under the reported suspension, which has already expired. Instead, he says that the plea seeks examination of the legality of the measure and directions to ensure compliance with the applicable statutory framework in future cases.

“What is not presently in the Petitioner's possession is the original operative signed suspension order, its recorded reasons, the material establishing a public emergency or public-safety necessity, the record showing why less restrictive lawful measures could not serve the same purpose, the publication particulars, the 24-hour transmission to the statutory Review Committee, and the ensuing review findings,” the plea states.

“….the present petition is confined to the distinct telecommunications instrument and its statutory safeguards. Should the connected Bench already assume that issue, the Petitioner seeks permission for appropriate coordinated consideration rather than duplicative orders,” it adds.

Goswami has said that Constitutional liberty is not a licence for disorder but neither is the vocabulary of public safety a charter of unreasoned power.

“A State worthy of constitutional confidence will prove necessity by its record, not demand immunity from scrutiny on the strength of its assertion,” the plea says.