PIL In Calcutta High Court Challenges State's Decision To Suspend Internet Services Amid Class 10 Board Exams, Govt To Respond By Tomorrow

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the decision of the State government to temporarily suspend internet services in eight districts of West Bengal between March 7 and March 16. The decision was purportedly taken by the State in order to prevent mass cheating in the upcoming Class 10 State board (Madhyamik) examination. The districts in which the internet will be suspended are Malda, Murshidabad, Uttar Dinajpur, Coochbehar, Jalpaiguri, Birbhum, and Darjeeling. However, it has been clarified that there remains no curbs on call and SMS services.A bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the State government to file an affidavit containing the relevant documents relied upon, by tomorrow i.e. on March 10 at 10:30am. Senior advocate Ranjan Bachawat appearing on behalf of the petitioner apprised the Court that the notification of suspension of internet services issued on March 3, 2022 does not meet the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and thus cannot be sustained in law. It was further argued that although the notification clearly states that such an order of suspension of internet services has been issued by the State Government under Section 144 CrPC, however the notification does not make any reference to any order issued by the concerned District Magistrate in this regard which is mandated under the provision. Advocate General S.N Mookherjee appearing for the State government apprised the Court that such a notification on suspension of internet services has been issued not only under Section 144 CrPC but also under sub-rule 2 (1) of Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017 (2017 Rules) and is thus tenable in law. He further contended that the notification issued is in compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.Pertinently, the Advocate General apprised the Bench that a meeting of the Review Committee constituted under Rule 2(6) of the 2017 Rules is scheduled to be held tomorrow at 11am. Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for further hearing tomorrow i.e. on March 10 at 2pm after directing the State government to apprise the Court about the decision taken by the Review Committee tomorrow. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner Senior advocate Ranjan Bachawat brought to the notice of the Court that the notification issued by the State government suspending internet services is not available on any official government website. He further submitted that although various newspapers have reported on the order of suspension, however even they do not have access to the full official notification.The Court was further apprised that the notification issued by the State government stipulates that such a decision has been taken in order to prevent 'unlawful activities'. However it was argued that the notification is vague as it does not mention what specific unlawful activities are sought to be curtailed through the suspension of internet services. Furthermore, it was contended that the notification is arbitrary as it orders the suspension of internet services in intervals and on specific days in a week. The senior counsel remarked, "It cannot be that criminals go to sleep after 3:30 pm and on Sundays". Pertinently, it was contended that such a notification of suspension cannot be issued by the State government under Section 144 CrPC without a judicial order first being issued by a District Magistrate. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India in this regard. The senior counsel further averred that although the notification does not mention the reason for which internet services has been suspended, the dates and timings of suspension of internet services coincides with the dates of the Class 10 State board (Madhyamik) examination. He thus argued that as per Supreme Court's directions the notification should have provided reasons and material facts while ordering such a suspension. The Court was also apprised that such an order of suspension does not fulfilled the test of proportionality as propounded by the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. The senior counsel argued that such blanket suspension of internet services would have an adverse effect on the functioning of banking services as well as businesses. He also submitted that Courts which are conducting virtual hearings in the affected districts would also face inconvenience and that university students who are still taking recourse to online classes would be aggrieved. It was also submitted that the order of suspension of internet services under Section 144 CrPC could not be issued without an incumbent situation of emergency as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment. The senior...

PIL In Calcutta High Court Challenges State's Decision To Suspend Internet Services Amid Class 10 Board Exams, Govt To Respond By Tomorrow

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aaratrika Bhaumik

PIL In Calcutta High Court Challenges State's Decision To Suspend Internet Services Amid Class 10 Board Exams, Govt To Respond By Tomorrow

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers