Introduction
Case Name: Foundation for Media Professionals vs. Union of India
Citations: (2020) 3 SCC 637, AIR 2020 SC 3051
Petitioners: Foundation for Media Professionals, Soayib Qureshi and Private School Association Jammu & Kashmir & Anr.
Respondents: Union of India
Date of the Judgment: 11 May, 2022
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice N.V Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy, and B.R. Gavai
FACTS
In this case, the individuals of Jammu and Kashmir faced a lot of trouble due to the prohibition on the internet speed. The petitioner, “Foundation for Media Professionals”, filed three writ petitions in the Court under the Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. During the COVID-19 pandemic, at time government of Jammu & Kashmir imposed a complete internet shutdown followed by restricted 2G internet services for the purpose of national security. However, in January 2020, the government restored 2G internet services but, 4G internet stayed restricted. In the case of “Foundation of Media Professionals”, the petition was filed before the Court with the aim of resolving the issue of 4G internet services in Jammu and Kashmir because according to the Article 370, they had already suffered a lot from the internet shutdown since, August 5, 2019. According to the “Article 370 of the Indian Constitution the Indian government granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian Union, which was included the rights as well as the allowance to have its own constitution and it have the power to make its own laws by the authority on all matters excluding defence, foreign affairs and communications”.
The petition highlighted the point that access to high-speed internet was important for online education, medical consultations as well as media functioning. The restriction of such access was a disproportionate infringement on the rights to education, health and expression.
The case was heard by a three-judge bench, including Justice N.V Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy, and B.R. Gavai. The case is an important case because it addresses the delicate balance between national security and media freedom.
ISSUE RAISED
The case raised a number of the following legal and constitutional issues:
- Whether the fundamental rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir were violated due to the government’s prohibited on the internet?
- Whether the internet prohibited is justified?
- Whether there is a connection between terrorism and the internet and can the prohibited of internet access help reduce the spread of terrorism?
- Whether the prohibited on the internet speed will prevent the online sharing of material that promotes terrorism?
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED:
From the Petitioner:
- The petitioner’s argued that the restriction on 4G internet access in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of the fundamental rights under “Article 19(1)(a) (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Any Profession, or to Carry on Any Occupations, Trade or Business)” of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioners said that in the Court that the internet service is essential for the communication, education as well as in professional work and that the restrictions on the internet harm these rights.
- The petitioners argued for the need of high-speed internet in this critical situation of COVID-19, where 4G internet is the important source for the purpose of online education, healthcare services and professional journalism. The petitioners also stated that this it is unreasonable to impose restrictions on high-speed internet, especially when there was is no immediate threat to public order in the region.
- The petitioners argued that the government had not followed a clear and open process when enforcing and reviewing internet shutdowns. They requested for an independent review mechanism that would ensure the citizens’ rights are protected without compromising national security.
- The petitioners said that the government had neglected to review on the internet ban as well as not provide the proper reasons for the continuation of restrictions. According to the case of “Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India (2020)”, where the Court was set guidelines and stated that the internet shutdowns should be reasonable, necessary and subject to periodic review.
By the respondent (Union of India):
- The respondents said that the restriction of 4G internet service causes of national security concerns as well as maintains the public order in the region. The respondent highlights the point that the region of Jammu and Kashmir has experienced violence in the past. The allowing the use of high-speed internet could be misused by anti-national groups to provoke violence and unrest.
- The respondent argued that the restriction on the internet was important according to the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Service under the 2017 Telecom Suspension Rules and was necessary for maintaining law and order in Jammu and Kashmir.
- It was argued by the Union that the executive branch should handle national security issues, including decisions about internet access and public safety. They said that the judiciary should not interfere in these matters involving security concerns, as they are better managed by the government.
- The respondent’s attorneys argued that removing the restrictions all at once could affect in security, so it better it should be done slowly and carefully, based on security situations.
RATIONALE:
In this case, the Court carefully examined the arguments from both sides of the petitioners and the respondents while balancing the fundamental rights of citizens with national security concerns.
The Court declined to provide immediate relief to the petitioners, instead it requested the government to form a Special Committee composed of the Union Home Secretary and other high-ranking officers to examine the necessity and proportionality of the internet restrictions in the region.
According to the Anuradha Bhasin case, the Court reiterated the principals which laid down in this case, highlighting that:
- Internet restrictions should be reviewed regularly,
- Must be temporary and proportionate, and
- The orders should be shared with the public and open to Court review.
However, to decide the case the Court did not fully apply these principals instead, it relied on the government’s expertise in matters of national security.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
- Over-reliance on Executive Review: The Supreme Court directed the formation of a committee of executive officials that lacked judicial independence. The committee’s composition raised doubts about the ability to provide an unbiased and objective assessment.
- Lack of Time-bound Remedy: The Supreme Court didn’t set a clear specific deadline for the Special Committee to complete its review. Therefore, the public remained unaware of the rationale for continued restrictions.
- Judicial Abdications in Rights Adjudication: The Court’s refusal to grant substantive relief may be seen as going beyond judicial restraint and into neglect. As the protector of fundamental rights, the judiciary’s passive approach sent a message that executive decisions on national security were immune from meaningful review.
- Improper Application of Anuradha Bhasin Judgment: Although the Court repeated the importance of proportionality, it did not properly examine whether the restrictions actually followed that standard. This made its earlier judgment weaker.
INFERENCE
The judgment in this case its highlights the challenging role of the judiciary in balancing the fundamental rights of citizens with national security. It shows how the invocation of “security” can lead to the suppression of constitutional rights, particularly in sensitive regions. Although the Court recognized the significance of digital rights, its decision to defer to the government reduced the practical impact of the judgment.
In today’s digital world, where the internet servers are essential for democratic participation, such judicial restraint can set a dangerous precedent. The Court’s failure to enforce accountability or transparency from the government weakens the constitutional promise of liberty and equality.
CONCLUSION
In this case, it reflects the ongoing challenges in between the fundamental rights of citizens and national security. While the Court agreed that the internet access is essential, especially in this critical time, its lack of strong action raises questions about the enforceability of fundamental rights in sensitive regions.
In today’s digital era, the internet service is important for exercising constitutional rights and the judiciary must adapt to provide quick as well as effective remedies. In this case highlights that constitutional rights which should not be suppressed under the weight of executive convenience and strong judicial oversight is essential in preserving democratic values.
Name: Susmita Chatterjee
Collage Name: Kolkata Police Law Institute