Will Publish Review Committee's Orders On Internet Shutdown: Jammu & Kashmir UT Tells Supreme Court
The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir on Friday (February 23) agreed before the Supreme Court to publish the orders passed by the review committees regarding internet shutdown in the region, except for the internal deliberations. While recording the stand of the UT, the Court clarified that the internal deliberations of the committee need not be published. The review committee constituted...
The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir on Friday (February 23) agreed before the Supreme Court to publish the orders passed by the review committees regarding internet shutdown in the region, except for the internal deliberations.
While recording the stand of the UT, the Court clarified that the internal deliberations of the committee need not be published. The review committee constituted in terms of Rule 5 of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, reviews the internet shutdown orders passed by the competent authority.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an application filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals
Appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/Foundation, Advocate Mr Shadan Farasat expressed that J&K is the only region where the review orders of the committee have not been published, while all other states have published the same, including the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Punjab (border states like J&K).
“States themselves are publishing the review orders, I don't know why J &K is not publishing, I am surprised only J&K is resisting.”
The SG then replied, “ I am surprised that you want only J&K orders, but I am sorry, I am not surprised that you want J&K Orders”
The SG further pressed that the present matter involved political tangents and that the decision not to publish the review orders of the committee was part of the “internal mechanism” in light of the law and order situation there. SG stated that the original internet shutdown orders are published, which any aggrieved party can challenge, and it was not necessary to publish the review orders. However, Farasat submitted that as per the direction in the Anuradha Bhasin judgment, even the review committee orders have to be published as the direction was to "publish all orders in force and any future orders."
The discussion went as follows :
“SG: We are dealing with an internal mechanism not to be challenged separately….Your Lordship knows the background, of why some section wants only J&K order to be published…
Justice Gavai: All others, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Maharashtra etc, have published it….Solicitor we are only required to go into the legal question, we are not required to go into…
SG: It is politics that Your Lordships are dealing with…but we will confine to legal questions, if Your Lordships want we can publish, there is no difficulty. We will confine, because that is my difficulty I cannot go into politics”
The bench recalled that in the earlier hearing, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the UT, submitted that the objection of the government was only with regards to the publishing of the deliberations of the Committee and not the final decision. The SG seemed to have no objections to the same and was agreeable to having the final orders published. On being asked if the UT has raised any grievance on the review orders not being passed, the SG replied, “It's not in the payer…but my lords I am helpless I cannot do anything. There are many things going under the garb of litigation, I can confine to the facts and law.”
Taking note of the same, the bench while dictating its order observed,
“Respondent No.1 (UT of J&K) would not have objection to publishing the review order. We find that the stand taken by Respondent No. 1 is just unfair, particularly when other states are publishing the review order, there should be no impediment for Respondent No. 1..."
While dictating the order, the bench, on the suggestion of the SG, also added that "reasons" of the order also need not be published. “Let our neighbours find out on their own. It cannot be made public,” SG said. However, Farasat raised an objection, stating that non-publication of reasons would render the publication meaningless.
The bench lastly clarified that the final order passed by the Review Committee must be published and that the internal deliberations need not be.
Advocates Vrinda Bhandari, Natasha Maheshwari, Radhika Roy and Gayatri Malhotra also appeared for the Foundation for Media Professionals.
Case Details
Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. | Miscellaneous Application No. 1086 of 2020