NEW DELHI: Thirty-five years after declaring that newspaper publication was part of the right to free speech, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that expression of views and carrying out trade through internet are also part of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to free speech and indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible.
“We declare that 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 restrictions 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,” a bench of Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai said.
The verdict came on petitions filed by Congresss Ghulam Nabi Azad and Kashmir Times publisher Anuradha Bhasin against the suspension of internet in the wake of the Centres decision to scrap the special status for J&K. The SC said it did not test “whether right to access to internet is a fundamental right” and was hence not expressing any opinion on it as none of the counsel advanced any arguments on this issue.
The order marked an attempt to deal with the perennial tension between the right to freedom and liberty and the requirements of national security and public safety, with the court seeking to locate the pendulum in the middle. It placed the “legitimate” use of internet in the pantheon of fundamental rights, while acknowledging that it was subject to reasonable restrictions, like other fundamental rights.
On balance, the court took the line that while access to internet should be the norm, deviations could be allowed in the interest of order and safety provided they were temporary, proportionate and justified by reasons which were spelt out clearly and reviewed periodically. “We direct the state and competent authorities to review all (existing) orders suspending internet services forthwith,” the bench said.
The SC also said since existing provisions did not provide for periodic review of orders or the duration they would remain in force, “we direct the review committee must conduct a periodic review within seven working days of previous review” of orders suspending telecom services.
The continued internet shutdown in Kashmir has been a contentious issue, with opposition and activists criticising the curbs and the government insisting it was a security issue to be evaluated by the local administration, wary of the use of social media and messaging services to organise and foment trouble. The internet shutdown also attracted adverse international commentary.
The verdict steered clear of getting into the question of whether the communication ban was illegal, made no adverse comments on the Centre but made it clear that a prolonged shutdown could not be countenanced unless it was periodically reviewed and a satisfactory justification offered. It could also set the stage for the executive to close the gap in rules which do not limit the period for which internet services can be suspended.
Writing the judgment, Justice Ramana said, “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 utilised for temporary duration only.”
On the criticality of internet in contemporary times, it said, “There is no doubt that there are certain trades which are Read More – Source
NEW DELHI: Thirty-five years after declaring that newspaper publication was part of the right to free speech, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that expression of views and carrying out trade through internet are also part of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to free speech and indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible.
“We declare that 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 restrictions 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,” a bench of Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai said.
The verdict came on petitions filed by Congresss Ghulam Nabi Azad and Kashmir Times publisher Anuradha Bhasin against the suspension of internet in the wake of the Centres decision to scrap the special status for J&K. The SC said it did not test “whether right to access to internet is a fundamental right” and was hence not expressing any opinion on it as none of the counsel advanced any arguments on this issue.
The order marked an attempt to deal with the perennial tension between the right to freedom and liberty and the requirements of national security and public safety, with the court seeking to locate the pendulum in the middle. It placed the “legitimate” use of internet in the pantheon of fundamental rights, while acknowledging that it was subject to reasonable restrictions, like other fundamental rights.
On balance, the court took the line that while access to internet should be the norm, deviations could be allowed in the interest of order and safety provided they were temporary, proportionate and justified by reasons which were spelt out clearly and reviewed periodically. “We direct the state and competent authorities to review all (existing) orders suspending internet services forthwith,” the bench said.
The SC also said since existing provisions did not provide for periodic review of orders or the duration they would remain in force, “we direct the review committee must conduct a periodic review within seven working days of previous review” of orders suspending telecom services.
The continued internet shutdown in Kashmir has been a contentious issue, with opposition and activists criticising the curbs and the government insisting it was a security issue to be evaluated by the local administration, wary of the use of social media and messaging services to organise and foment trouble. The internet shutdown also attracted adverse international commentary.
The verdict steered clear of getting into the question of whether the communication ban was illegal, made no adverse comments on the Centre but made it clear that a prolonged shutdown could not be countenanced unless it was periodically reviewed and a satisfactory justification offered. It could also set the stage for the executive to close the gap in rules which do not limit the period for which internet services can be suspended.
Writing the judgment, Justice Ramana said, “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 utilised for temporary duration only.”
On the criticality of internet in contemporary times, it said, “There is no doubt that there are certain trades which are Read More – Source
