New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused to urgently hear a petition challenging an “indefinite” internet shutdown in Manipur in the wake of ongoing violence. Starting from May 3, the Manipur government has extended the suspension of internet services in the state multiple times.
A vacation bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Rajesh Bindal on Friday, June 9, said that the petition will be heard by a regular bench after the court resumes its regular functioning following summer vacation. The court has been closed from May 22 until July 3 for summer vacation.
“The [Manipur] high court is hearing the matter. What’s the need to duplicate proceedings? Mention before the regular bench,” the bench said, according to Indian Express.
Meanwhile, the Manipur State counsel countered that the Manipur high court was already seized of the issue of internet shutdown and had asked the state government to look into it.
Earlier, advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the petitioners, had told the vacation bench what was the need to suspend the internet when the state government admits that there has been a “de-escalation” in violence and clashes in the state.
Farasat had said that the ban on the internet has been continuing for over 35 days, preventing the general public from carrying out any trade or occupation and depriving them of exercising their constitutionally derived freedom of speech and expression.
“The shutdown order is grossly disproportionate in its interference with the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry on any trade or business using the constitutionally protected medium of the internet,” the petitioners had told the court, according to The Hindu.
They had challenged the state government’s decision to “mechanically” extend the internet shutdown while officially maintaining that normalcy had returned to the state. So far, the internet suspension has been extended five times, between May 3 and May 26. Under the latest order of May 26, the internet blockade will continue until 3 pm on June 10. Such multiple extensions, the petitioners argued, had “effectively resulted in an indefinite shutdown of the internet”.
The petitioner had further argued that the orders to block the internet only cite law and order and anti-social elements rather than public order, and the latest extensions did not go through the oversight of a Review Committee as necessary in law, according to Bar and Bench.
They claimed that four of the suspension orders issued on May 3, May 4, May 7, and May 21 were not reviewed by the Review Committee. “Orders have been repeatedly issued in a cyclostyled format, reflecting a clear non-application of mind on the part of the State,” the petitioners had argued, adding that shutdown orders do not divulge a protracted risk or emergency to public safety.
To buttress their argument, they pointed to the top court’s directions in Anuradha Bhasin‘s case (2019), which upheld the need for authorities to “proactively publish the shutdown orders as a measure of transparency and accountability”. The top court also, at that time, had said that an indefinite suspension of internet services would be illegal under Indian law and that orders for internet shutdown must satisfy the tests of necessity and proportionality. The case dealt with the internet blackout in Jammu and Kashmir in the aftermath of the reading down of Article 370.
There has been a “significant economic, humanitarian, social and psychological impact” on the lives of people in Manipur due to the internet ban, the petitioners had argued. “Children have been unable to attend school. People have not been able to access funds from banks, receive payments from clients, distribute salaries or communicate via email or WhatsApp,” they had submitted to the court.
The petition was moved by Chongtham Victor Singh, a lawyer, and Mayengbam James, a businessman.
Please visit our website London Institute of Peace Research for latest peace news
