ANURADHA BHASIN VS. UNION OF INDIA

Case Name: ANURADHA BHASIN VS. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: AIR 2020 SC 1308

Bench: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Subhash Reddy

Judgement: 10 January 2020

FACT OF THE CASE

The dispute in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India arose in the wake of  the abrogation of Article 370 on 5 August 2019, a constitutional move that revoked the special status previously accorded to Jammu and Kashmir. The constitutional change also accompanied with restriction imposed by Government in Kashmir. In light of the prevailing circumstances the District Magistrate apprehending a breach of peace and tranquility imposed restriction on movement and public gathering by virtue of the powers vested under section 144 CRPC due to the aforesaid restrictions, the petitioner, anuradha bhasin of Kashmir Times claims that the movement of journalist was severely restricted. The petitioner has submitted, she has been unable to publish the Kashmir Times pursuant to the aforesaid restrictions.  Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court seeking issuance of an appropriate writ for setting aside or quashing any and all orders, notifications, direction, circulars under which any/all modes of communication including internet, mobile and telecommunications have been shut down or suspended or in any way made in accessible or unavailable in the locality. Further, the petitioner sought the issuance of an appropriate writ or direction directing immediately the restoration of all modes of communication  services throughout Kashmir in order to provide an enabling environment for the media to practice its profession. Therefore the legality of shutting down the internet connection and restricting movements in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was challenged in the Hon. Supreme Court of India under article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Raised

Issue 1:

Whether the freedom of speech and expression and freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business over the Internet is a part of the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution?

Issue 2:

Whether the freedom of the press of the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1031 of 2019 was violated due to the restrictions?

Issue 3:

Whether the imposition of restrictions under Section 144, CrPC were valid? Whether the Government can claim exemption from producing all the orders passed under Section 144, CrPC?

Issue 4:

Whether the Government’s action of prohibiting internet access is valid?

ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES

PETITIONER SIDE 

The petitioner contends that internet is crucial for modern press , without the internet it is difficult to published news in the modern world. The petitioner submitted that on 9th august 2019 , she was unable to publish her newspaper.

The petitioner also contended that trade are completelty dependent on internet. This Right to trade through internet also fosters consumerism and provides wide availability to choose different goods and services.

The freedom of trade and commerce is protected under article 19(1)g along with reasonable restrictions article 19(6) of our Indian Constitution.

That the restrictions imposed in the state under section 144 [7] were neither reasonable nor proportional with the aim of the public policy. It was asserted that “public order” is different from “law and order”. The restrictions were imposed as argued by the respondents was due to a threat to law and order.

RESPONDENT SIDE

Arguments were made by the Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General for Union of India and Mr. Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of the State of Jammu and Kashmir

The shutdown of internet is reasonable to proctect the citizen of Kashmir. It was contended that to prevent the spread of flase information and to deter potential violence.

The Government further argued that while some restrictions were broad, they were imposed with the intention of ensuring public safety and preventing the incitement of violence, and thus were justified in the circumstances.

JUDGEMENT

The supreme court acknowledges internet as a fundamental right to be recognised under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). Furthermore the court has directed the government to review the restriction order and to disclose the order related to restriction ensuring transparency and accountable .

The court also held that indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible. The suspension must be temporary and meet the test of proportionality as laid down under Article 19(6). Acknowledging the adverse impact on journalism, the Court directed the authorities to ensure that the freedom of the press is not unduly affected by such restrictions. This is crucial for upholding democratic values and ensuring that media can function without fear of undue interference.

CONCLUSION

India is a democratic country where every citizen has its own rights which is mention in our India constitution. Fundamental rights are enshrined under part III where court has acknowledged the right to use internet as fundamental rights under Article 19(1). Even though there is reasonable restriction, should be done in transparency and accountable.

It underscores the significance of constitutional rights in a democratic society and offers crucial advice on the limitations of government authority to restrict basic rights. The case serves as a reminder of the critical of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights in a democratic society.

Reference(S): 

Anuradha Bhasin v/s Union of India

[Case Brief] Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India by Arushi Jain

https://lawbhoomi.com/anuradha-bhasin-v-union-of-india/#Governments_Arguments