Publish Review Committee Orders Relating To Internet Shutdowns In Jammu & Kashmir : Supreme Court To Centre

This observation was made by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol in response to an application filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals, pressing for compliance with the court's May 2020 judgment. In this ruling, the Supreme Court had directed the formation of a special committee - consisting of the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Secretary of the Department of Communication and the Chief Secretary of the UT-  to assess the necessity of internet restrictions in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

During the hearing today, Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the journalists' body, argued for the publication of the orders of review committees assessing every order passed under Rule 2(2) of the Telecom Suspension Rules restricting the internet in terms of the Supreme Court's Anuradha Bhasin ruling. The essence of the petitioner's contention was that the publication requirement contained in this judgment extended to all orders relating to internet shutdowns, including review committee orders.

Opposing the application, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, however, insisted that the government had duly complied with all the directions issued by the court. “A contempt petition was also dismissed. Now they have come up with a new prayer for publication of recommendations...”

“Review orders are not to be kept in the cupboard,” Justice Gavai countered. In response to this, the law officer representing the union territory insinuated that review committee orders have already been published. “We are saying it has been done, there is compliance.”

Justice Gavai asked again, “Are you making a statement then that the review orders have been published or they will be published?”

At this juncture, ASG Nataraj backed down, saying, “Let me seek instructions within two weeks.”

While acceding to the government counsel's request for time to seek instructions, the court recorded a prima facie observation in today's order mandating the publication of the review committee orders. Justice Gavai pronounced –

“The applicant has submitted that though this court in the case of Anuradha Bhasin held that even review orders must be published, the same is not being done. ASG KM Nataraj has said that a perusal of the order would show that deliberations are not required to be published. We are prima facie of the view that it may not be necessary to publish the deliberations, but the orders passed in the review require to be published. Mr Nataraj seeks two weeks' time to take instructions in this regard.”

Background

The current legal controversy can be traced to a batch of pleas, initiated by the Foundation for Media Professionals, a lawyer named Soayib Qureshi, and the Private Schools Association of Jammu and Kashmir, seeking the restoration of 4G internet services in the region. A communication blackout had been imposed by the central government in August 2019. Recognising the delicate balance between citizens' rights and national security concerns, the Supreme Court, in its May 2020 judgment, acknowledged the importance of weighing freedom of speech, health, education, and business against prevailing security issues. While the court highlighted that the impugned order lacked reasons for the blanket enforcement of the shutdown, it also considered the 'compelling circumstances of cross-border terrorism'.

Instead of ruling on the constitutional violation, the court directed the central government to constitute a special committee, tasked with the responsibility of examining the material placed before it by the parties as well as the appropriateness of the petitioners' alternatives to complete internet shutdowns in the region, and of accordingly advising the Union of India.

Subsequent developments included the Foundation of Media Professionals filing a contempt petition in June 2020, alleging the government's failure to constitute this special committee. In August of the same year, after noting that the committee in its third meeting had decided on a trial basis to allow high-speed internet in limited and specified geographical areas in the union territory. The committee also outlined conditions for this trial, including the exclusion of areas adjoining the International Border/Line of Control, low intensity of terrorist activities, and strict monitoring.

While the journalists' body expressed dissatisfaction with the committee's decision, the top court found no case for contempt based on the additional affidavit filed by the Union of India and closed the contempt petition.