A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the Union Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA) orders suspending mobile internet services in and around Jantar Mantar during the ongoing student protests over alleged irregularities in the NEET examination.
The petition, filed by Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC.in), has sought quashing of six suspension orders issued between July 17 and July 23. It has also sought directions requiring authorities to publish all future internet suspension orders before or at the same time as they come into effect, Live Law and Bar & Bench report.
Urgent Mention Before Court
The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves. However, the petition could not be listed because of defects in the filing.
"Due to some formatting issues, the petition is not being listed," Gonsalves informed the court. In response, the Bench said, "Please remove the objections."
Petition Questions Legal Basis Of Shutdown
According to the PIL, the MHA suspended mobile internet services within a 1.5-kilometre radius of Jantar Mantar by invoking Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, along with the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024.
The petition argues that the suspension orders merely repeated the statutory expressions "public emergency" and "public safety" without placing any objective material on record to justify the restrictions. It contends that the orders do not explain why a blanket internet shutdown was necessary, nor do they demonstrate necessity, proportionality or consideration of less restrictive alternatives, as required under the law.
Transparency Under Scrutiny
The PIL also raises concerns over the lack of transparency in the issuance of internet shutdown orders. It states that affected persons cannot effectively challenge such restrictions if the orders are not made public in time, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.
According to the petition, there have been several instances where reports of internet shutdowns emerged before the corresponding suspension orders became publicly available. It argues that the absence of a statutory requirement for contemporaneous publication creates uncertainty over the legal basis of restrictions imposed on fundamental rights while they are in force.
Alternative Measures And Competent Authority Questioned
The petition further submits that the authorities failed to consider less restrictive measures such as ordinary policing, crowd-control arrangements or targeted enforcement before resorting to an internet shutdown. It also alleges that the suspension orders were issued by an under-secretary instead of the competent authority prescribed under the suspension rules.
Apart from seeking to set aside the suspension orders, the PIL has requested the High Court to direct the authorities to produce the original records relating to the decision, including file notings, intelligence inputs and the Review Committee proceedings. The petition has been filed through advocates Jayant Malik and Nishant Shokeen.
