Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Protocol For Internet Shutdowns

The Supreme Court, on Friday, issued notice to the Union Government seeking a response from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology regarding the protocol for internet shut downs.The Court issued the notice on a petition filed by Software Freedom Law Centre challenging arbitrary internet shutdowns. The petitioner had cited internet shutdowns in States of Rajasthan and Assam which were imposed to prevent cheating in public examinations. Although Union Government was not a party to the petition, the bench said that it will issue notice to the Union Government alone to ascertain the protocol and the compliance with respect to the same.The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice P.S. Narasimha. The petitioner sought pass directions for ensuring compliance with the directions issued by the Court in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 while enforcing internet shutdowns. At the outset, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Vrinda Grover, submitted that the respondent governments had been carrying out internet shut downs on account of preventing cheating during various exams, which was arbitrary in nature. Here, Justice Bhat orally remarked that such infractions could be dealt with when these infractions arose and a declaratory order of a general nature would not help because the governments may just do it again. The bench also noted that the petitioners had already filed various petitions in different High Courts such as the High Court of Delhi and Calcutta challenging individual instances of arbitrary internet shut downs. However, Adv. Grover stated that these orders were not public and it required a lot of effort on part of the petitioner to actually get hold of the orders. She submitted that the fact that the orders are to be published was directed in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637, and that had not been complied with. The court also discussed the justification provided by the State governments while imposing internet shutdowns. Sr. Adv. Grover submitted that–"They say it is to prevent cheating. But would proportionality permit this? Today when we're doing everything digital, retail, wholesale- it is all digital, for wages at MNREGA, food stamps, I have to give my fingerprints..."CJI Lalit orally remarked that a sense of proportionality would be there if the government could have jammers but to have jammers at every district would have cost implications.The petition had also challenged the blanket order of the Rajasthan government imposing an internet shutdown in the state. In context of the same, CJI Lalit asked Sr. Adv. Grover why the petitioner did not move to the High Court of Rajasthan Instead. To this, Grover responded that the issue was a pan India phenomenon.Accordingly, CJI Lalit stated that the bench could only issue notice to the Union Government at the time. However, the Union Government had not been made a party to the petition. Sr. Adv. Grover stated that she would file an amendment making the Union Government a party. The bench stated–"We want to know what exactly is the protocol, even when it is any examination...On oral prayer made by Ms. Vrinda Grover, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology is to be made party and impleaded as Respondent 5. At this stage we issue notice only to Respondent 5 indicating whether there is any standard protocol with respect to the grievance raised by the petitioner and if so to what extent and how the protocol is adhered to. Let response be filed in three weeks. List after four weeks."As per the petition, the Respondent Governments and its instrumentalities have been imposing internet shutdowns across different districts in India, on the pretext of imaginary, fanciful or fictitious law and order problems arising out of organization of examinations. It stated that–"The threat perception in all such cases is majorly flawed as district administrations in various states have been suspending internet services for an entire region for administrative reasons such as to prevent cheating in examinations. On one occasion, internet services were suspended even when high school examinations were being conducted. Such administrative decisions are manifestly arbitrary and wholly disproportionate response, and are impermissible under the Constitution."The petition gives examples of arbitrary internet shutdowns and states that–"In September 2021, the entire state of Rajasthan, had to bear the brunt of suspension of internet services, when the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) examinations were being conducted. Similar actions have been taken by states like Gujarat, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal and others. Suspending internet services for an entire district, or for multiple districts, is a disproportionate action on part of the state, which has a damaging impact on economic activities and the livelihood of millions of...

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Protocol For Internet Shutdowns

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags