ANURADHA BHASIN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

ANURADHA BHASIN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Court held that (i) the State must produce relevant orders affecting fundamental rights unless a specific privilege is justified; (ii) freedom of speech and the freedom to carry on trade or business via the internet are constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) subject to Article 19(2)/(6); (iii) indefinite suspension of internet under the 2017 Suspension Rules is impermissible and the Review Committee must conduct periodic review within seven working days of the previous review; (iv) orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. must state material facts, be proportionate, minimally intrusive and time-limited and remain subject to judicial review; (v) petitioner’s claim of...

Parties
Petitioner: Anuradha Bhasin; Petitioner: Ghulam Nabi Azad; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: State of Jammu and Kashmir
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Disposed
Outcome
Writ Petitions disposed of.
Legal Topics
Internet Shutdown, Section 144 Cr.p.c., Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017, Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(g), Telegraph Act, 1885, Freedom of Press, Proportionality Doctrine, Production of Orders
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Telecommunications Law Administrative Law Media Law Human Rights Internet Shutdown Section 144 Cr.p.c. +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anuradha Bhasin

Petitioner

Ghulam Nabi Azad

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

State of Jammu and Kashmir

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Disposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Government can claim exemption from producing all orders passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and under the Suspension Rules
  2. 2 Whether freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business over the internet are protected under Part III of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the Government’s action of prohibiting internet access is valid

Ratio Decidendi

Court held that (i) the State must produce relevant orders affecting fundamental rights unless a specific privilege is justified; (ii) freedom of speech and the freedom to carry on trade or business via the internet are constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) subject to Article 19(2)/(6); (iii) indefinite suspension of internet under the 2017 Suspension Rules is impermissible and the Review Committee must conduct periodic review within seven working days of the previous review; (iv) orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. must state material facts, be proportionate, minimally intrusive and time-limited and remain subject to judicial review; (v) petitioner’s claim of...

Court Disposition

Writ Petitions disposed of.

Orders

  • Respondent State/competent authorities directed to publish all orders in force and any future orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and for suspension of telecom services including internet
  • Declared that freedom of speech and expression and freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoy constitutional protection under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) subject to Articles 19(2) and 19(6) and the test of proportionality