SG : There were some oral arguments that were raised which weren't part of the pleadings, but I can't rest on such technicalities to say I won't argue that. I've filed a 2 pg affidavit to deal with those arguments
SG refers to cases in UK and observations from the House of Lords to buttress his argument that scope of review in such cases is limited. "Not saying your Lordships cannot look into the case, we are bound to inform you of the situation"
SG continues to argue that it is for the executive to take a call with decisions when they are in exclusive possession of material related to national security. The court must look at the evidence in such situations, and once it's established that national security is involved it should not interfere and accept executive's decision
SG : Dark webs operate in encrypted form which is untraceable. Blocking internet is justified to prevent such terror acts on dark web
Bench asks about dark web. SG explains
J Gavai talks about morphing. Grover adds that morphing is a big problem faced by women who face sexual harrassment through this. Yet, it does not mean the internet in itself is to be shutdown. SG says who said shutdown internet, what is this that's being said. Grover reiterates that internet is completely shut in j&k
SG talks about morphed images and how something happening in PoK reaches Kashmir valley in a certain manner and how the internet is capable of doing massive damage
SG reiterating his submission that social media is a tool for wide communication of hate and terror. Connection is instant, with minimum effort, message of terror can be spread far and wide. Cites articles on modern terrorism
J Gavai- what objections should you have if matters involving national security are seen by court?
J Ramana- we don't want to keep it..just see it and give back
VG- the court can be shown, but he should put it on affidavit that he'll submit something like this. If lordships were to rely on an argument that's based on what's submitted, then I'm handicapped.
Huzefa Ahmadi also objects and says SG never makes technical arguments on matters such as this. Why are we getting into these materials
J Ramana- we have not at all gone into technicalities in this case. We want this matter to be heard in the most effective way. Had we been technical, would we have heard you as extensively as we did? You're an intervenor.
HA- in matters relating to human rights, such technicalities are not always taken
Bench-matter would be prolonged if we were technical here. Asks SG if there's military/intelligence inputs. He says yes.
Sibal intervenes. Your Lordships don't need to see the documents. For this case, we'll assume that there is sensitive information. We'll argue accordingly..there is sensitive information, we agree to assume it
Bench agrees with this
SG looks to submit some material in a sealed cover, Grover looks to intervene. SG says I can show you the pictures and take it back, but can't show you the report which is sensitive. Talks about social media-
Before a case is taken up, there is a growing tendency now that people publish articles, prepare tweets and then an opinion is formed before the matter is even taken up by the Court.
There are people from our fraternity who play into the trend. It is very unfortunate.
SG seeks to place on record certain material regarding daily updates with data being given through SPs of each area.
J Ramana- Do we need this?
SG- Its for reference..a report by the police.
Vrinda Grover- Can we be given that material?
SG says No.
Ramana puts away the material without looking at the report.."we don't need it"