Authored By: Manual Martin
Kannur University School of Legal Studies Manjeshwar Campus
Case Title & Citation
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors. (2020)
Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 637
Court Name & Bench
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy, and B.R. Gavai, JJ.
Bench Type: Division Bench of 3 judges
Date of Judgment
Delivered on: 10 January 2020
Parties Involved
Petitioner: Anuradha Bhasin – Executive Editor of the Kashmir Times, challenged restrictions on communication and movement in Jammu & Kashmir after abrogation of Article 370.
Respondents: Union of India & State of Jammu and Kashmir – Defended the restrictions citing national security and public order concerns.
Facts of the Case
On 5 August 2019, the Government of India revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370. In anticipation of unrest, the government imposed: Suspension of internet services, Restrictions on movement, Prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC. Anuradha Bhasin (journalist) filed a writ petition under Article 32, claiming: The restrictions curtailed freedom of press, The internet shutdown violated Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession).
Issues Raised
- Whether the freedom of speech and expression and freedom to practice any profession over the Internet is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g)?
- Whether the government’s blanket and indefinite suspension of Internet services is valid under the Constitution?
- Whether orders passed under Section 144 CrPC imposing restrictions were constitutional?
- Whether press freedom was violated due to restrictions?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner (Anuradha Bhasin):
Internet is essential for journalists; restrictions violated freedom of press.
Indefinite suspension of Internet is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Section 144 CrPC cannot be used to impose wide, blanket restrictions.
Citizens have a right to know and to express opinions freely.
Respondents (Union of India & J&K):
Restrictions were necessary for national security and public order post abrogation of Article 370.
Right to free speech is not absolute; restrictions can be imposed under Article 19(2).
Internet services are not a fundamental right in themselves.
Preventive measures were temporary and intended to protect lives and property.
Final Decision
Freedom of speech and expression and freedom to practice any profession through the Internet are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).
Internet shutdowns cannot be indefinite; they must be temporary, necessary, and proportionate.
Orders under Section 144 CrPC cannot be used arbitrarily; they must be based on objective material.
The Court directed the government to publish all orders imposing restrictions for transparency.
Press freedom cannot be curtailed unreasonably.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court recognized the Internet as a crucial medium for exercising freedom of speech and expression. Restrictions under Article 19 must satisfy the test of reasonableness and proportionality (Doctrine of Proportionality).
Referred to earlier judgments:
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – on free speech and restrictions.
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) – on freedom of press.
Emphasized that suspension of Internet must follow the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017, framed under the Telegraph Act. Indefinite suspension is unconstitutional as it fails the proportionality test.
Observations
The case marked a landmark recognition of Internet access as a fundamental right (derivative of Article 19). Strengthened press freedom in conflict situations. Imposed judicial safeguards on government powers to suspend Internet and impose Section 144 orders.
Criticism: The Court did not order immediate restoration of Internet in J&K but left it to the government, reducing the immediate impact.
Significance:
This case established that the Internet is integral to the enjoyment of fundamental rights and cannot be arbitrarily curtailed. It is often cited in later debates on digital rights and constitutional freedoms in India.
