Introduction
Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India (2020) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that dealt with issues of freedom of speech, access to the internet, and the right to information under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The case arose in the context of the government’s decision to impose a communication and internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019.
Facts of the case:
Background:
On August 5, 2019, the Government of India revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370.Following this, there was a complete shutdown of internet services, communication networks, and severe restrictions on movement in Jammu and Kashmir.
Petitioner:
Anuradha Bhasin, the Executive Editor of the Kashmir Times, filed a petition challenging the restrictions, arguing that they violated fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to carry on profession(Article 19(1)(g)).
Contentions:
The petitioner contended that the internet shutdown and restrictions on movement adversely impacted the functioning of the media, freedom of the press, and economic activities in the region. The government argued that the restrictions were necessary to maintain law and order in the wake of the constitutional changes.
Significance:
The judgment established that access to the internet is integral to fundamental rights and highlighted the need for judicial scrutiny in cases of prolonged restrictions. It marked a significant step in balancing national security concerns with individual freedoms.
Issue Raised:
The primary issues raised in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) were:
Constitutional Validity of Internet Shutdowns:
Whether the complete shutdown of internet services in Jammu and Kashmir violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, particularly:
- Freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
- Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business (Article 19(1)(g)).
Proportionality of Restrictions:
Whether the restrictions on communication and movement imposed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were excessive, indefinite, and failed the test of proportionality.
Freedom of the Press:
Whether the restrictions on movement and internet access impeded the freedom of the press, a fundamental aspect of Article 19(1)(a).
Legality of the Executive Orders:
Whether the executive orders imposing these restrictions complied with the principles of natural justice, transparency, and reasonableness.
Scope of Judicial Review:
Whether the judiciary had the power to review such issues.
Judgment of Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India (2020) case:
The judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), delivered by the Supreme Court of India on January 10, 2020, provided key rulings on the issues raised. Here is a brief summary of the judgment:
Internet as a Fundamental Right:
The Court held that the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to carry on trade or business (Article 19(1)(g)) extend to the use of the internet as a critical part of fundamental rights, subject to reasonable restrictions.
Proportionality of Restrictions:
The Court ruled that restrictions on fundamental rights must satisfy the test of proportionality. Indefinite suspension of internet services is not permissible. Orders must be reviewed periodically.
Section 144 of CrPC:
The Court clarified that Section 144 CrPC cannot be used as a tool to suppress legitimate expression or impose indefinite restrictions.
Such orders must be based on objective facts, specific concerns, and should not be arbitrary or excessive.
Transparency and Publication of Orders:
The Court directed that all orders imposing restrictions, including internet shutdowns, must be published to ensure transparency.
Affected individuals must have the opportunity to challenge such orders in a court of law.
Freedom of the Press:
The Court acknowledged that restrictions had adversely impacted the press but did not provide specific relief for Anuradha Bhasin. It emphasized the need for freedom of the press to be upheld within the constitutional framework.
Directive to the Government:
The government was directed to review all restrictive orders periodically and ensure compliance with constitutional principles.
Outcome:
While the Court upheld the government’s authority to impose restrictions in the interest of national security, it set clear limits to ensure that such restrictions are lawful, proportionate, and not indefinite. The judgment emphasized judicial oversight and the need for balancing fundamental rights with state interests.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India (2020) held that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions. It ruled that restrictions on internet services and movement must be proportionate, lawful, and not indefinite, as prolonged shutdowns violate constitutional freedoms.
The Court emphasized the need for transparency, directing that all restrictive orders must be published and periodically reviewed. While acknowledging the impact of restrictions on press freedom, it stopped short of providing specific relief to the petitioner. The judgment reinforced the importance of balancing national security with individual rights within constitutional limits.
