A recent public interest litigation (PIL) has been presented before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) decision to suspend mobile internet services around Jantar Mantar. This suspension coincided with ongoing student protests. The PIL was brought to the forefront by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who requested an urgent hearing before the Division Bench comprising Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Tejas Karia.
During the proceedings, Gonsalves pointed out procedural issues, stating, “Due to some formatting issues, the petition is not being listed.” In response, the court advised, “Please remove the objections.” The petition, filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre, a legal services organization, seeks to annul six suspension orders issued between July 17 and July 23, arguing that they violate constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
The plea highlights the Ministry’s invocation of Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, to enforce the shutdown within a 1.5-kilometer radius of Jantar Mantar. However, it criticizes these orders for lacking detailed explanations and merely citing “public safety” and “public emergency” without providing any substantive justification for the comprehensive internet suspension.
Furthermore, the petition underscores a concerning trend where reports of internet shutdowns often surface before the public release of corresponding suspension orders. This discrepancy raises doubts about the contemporaneous publication of such orders, as mandated by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Anuradha Bhasin case. The plea argues that the absence of statutory requirements for immediate publication leads to ambiguity regarding the legality of restrictions on fundamental rights during their enforcement period.
Additionally, the petition suggests that the authorities neglected alternative measures such as regular policing, crowd control, or targeted enforcement, opting instead for a sweeping shutdown. It also raises procedural concerns, noting that the suspension orders were issued by an under-secretary rather than the designated competent authority as per the suspension rules.
More Read
The legal challenge was filed by advocates Jayant Malik and Nishant Shokeen, seeking not only the quashing of the current orders but also the implementation of a mandate for the publication of all future internet suspension orders.
