Editorial

Source: The Hindu

Introduction

On 10^th January 2020, a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India declared access to the Internet a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) emphasized that government-imposed restrictions on Internet access must be temporary, limited, lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Despite these guidelines, the prevalence of Internet shutdowns in India has continued, earning the country the dubious title of the world's Internet shutdown capital.

What was the Supreme Court’s Decision in the Case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India?

• Freedom of Speech and Expression:
  • The Court declared that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g).
  • The restriction upon such fundamental rights should be in consonance with the mandate under Article 19 (2) and (6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality.
• Suspending Order:
  • An order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017.
  • Suspension can be utilized for temporary duration only.
• Principle of Proportionality:
  • Any order suspending internet issued under the Suspension Rules must adhere to the principle of proportionality and must not extend beyond necessary duration.
• Judicial Review:
  • Any order suspending internet under the Suspension Rules is subject to judicial review based on the parameters set out herein.

What was the Aftermath of Supreme Court’s Decision in the Case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India?

• Contrary to expectations, the year following the SC's decision witnessed a surge in Internet shutdowns in India, surpassing the preceding year.
• In 2020, India's Internet restrictions accounted for over 70% of the global economic losses attributed to such shutdowns.
• Recent events, such as the restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir following the death of separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, and in Haryana amid farmer protests, highlight the persistent issue.

How Government did not Comply with the SC’s Decision in the Case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India?

• Governmental non-compliance with the SC's directives, as exemplified by the reluctance to publish shutdown orders, erodes trust in the administration.
• The absence of public disclosure of reasons behind Internet restrictions creates a trust deficit, especially when the Internet is considered an essential service in contemporary society.
• The Union Government's failure to grant statutory recognition to the SC's directions further exacerbates the situation.

What were the Implications of Non-Publication of Orders?

• The non-publication of Internet suspension orders undermines legal safeguards.
• Those affected by restrictions find it challenging to challenge the legality of orders when they cannot access them.
• Even if they approach the court, delays in the production of orders allow the government to escape accountability.
• This not only facilitates illegal restrictions but also diminishes public confidence in the government.

How Lack of Awareness Act as a Barrier?

• The lack of awareness and understanding of the SC's decision adds to the problem.
• Similar to the erroneous enforcement of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) non-statutory recognition of court decisions leads to incorrect implementation.
• Instances, such as the State of Meghalaya's ignorance of the Anuradha Bhasin judgment, highlight the need for wider dissemination and recognition of legal decisions.

What are Economic, Social, and Psychological Consequences of Internet Shutdowns?

• Internet shutdowns have severe repercussions on the Indian economy, causing losses.

• Beyond economic ramifications, the psychological, social, and journalistic harm inflicted by these suspensions outweigh any speculative benefits.
• The Internet is integral for information, entertainment, healthcare, education, livelihood, and democratic expression, making restrictions a hindrance to the nation's progress.

Conclusion

To shed the notorious label of the "Internet shutdown capital", India must prioritize faithful compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines. Transparent governance, statutory recognition of court decisions, and periodic reviews of Internet suspension orders are imperative to build trust, protect constitutional rights, and fulfill Digital India's potential. The nation's journey towards progress demands an unwavering commitment to ensuring the uninterrupted flow of information, innovation, and democratic expression.