Case: Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India
Date of Order / Judgment: 22nd August, 2024
The Matter Heard by Bench: Justices N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy, and B.R. Gavai
Background
The dispute in the case of Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India arose following the abrogation
of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, which removed the special status previously granted to
Jammu and Kashmir. Alongside this constitutional change, the Indian government enforced
severe restrictions in the region, including the invocation of Section 144 of the CrPC, which
prohibited public gatherings and freedom of movement. Additionally, landline, mobile phone,
and internet services were suspended. This led to significant disruptions, including
difficulties faced by journalists like the petitioner, Anuradha Bhasin, who was unable to
publish her newspaper due to the internet shutdown.
Issues
- 1. Whether the government could be exempt from producing the orders imposing
restrictions.
- 2. Whether the freedom to trade and commerce through the internet is protected under
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
- 3. The legitimacy and validity of the complete shutdown of internet services.
- 4. Whether the invocation of Section 144 was legally valid under the circumstances.
- 5. Whether the restrictions imposed violated the freedom of the press.
Observation
The Court observed that:
The restrictions imposed on movement and communication must meet the test of
proportionality, which requires a legitimate objective, rational nexus to that goal, the
absence of less restrictive but equally effective alternatives, and no disproportionate
impact on the right-holder. The Court acknowledged that the freedom to trade and
commerce includes the freedom to access the internet, which is essential for modern
communication and business. The Court also considered whether the restrictions on
internet access and movement were justified in light of the situation on the ground,
taking into account the necessity and proportionality of such measures. Further the
Court examined the extent and necessity of imposing Section 144, focusing on
whether it was applied in a manner consistent with the principles of legality and
necessity. In the end the Court evaluated whether the disruptions to communication,
especially the internet shutdown, constituted a violation of the freedom of the press
and the petitioner’s right to disseminate information.
Decision
The Court ruled in favour of the petitioner to some extent, finding that:
- 1. Production of Orders: The government must produce orders and material justifying
the restrictions imposed, ensuring transparency and accountability.
- 2. Internet as Part of Article 19: The freedom to trade and commerce through the
internet falls within the scope of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and restrictions
must align with constitutional guarantees.
- 3. Test of proportionality: The restrictions imposed on movement and communication
must qualify the four-prong approach:
- (a) The law intruding on privacy must have a legitimate objective,
- (b) It must have a rational nexus to that goal,
- (c) There must be no less restrictive but equally effective alternative, and
- (d) It must not have a disproportionate impact on the right-holder.
- 4. Internet Shutdown: The Court found that a blanket internet shutdown was
disproportionate and not the least restrictive means available to achieve the intended
objective. The government was directed to review the restrictions and consider more
targeted measures. The Court held that though the Government was empowered to
impose a complete internet shutdown, any order(s) imposing such restrictions had to
be made public and was subject to judicial review.
- 5. Section 144: The Court upheld the use of Section 144 but emphasized that it should
be enforced with proper justification and proportionality.
- 6. Freedom of Press: The Court acknowledged the impact on the freedom of the press
and directed the government to ensure that restrictions do not unduly infringe on this
fundamental right.