Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India 2020 | Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT PDF Download

Facts

• Jammu and Kashmir is an Indian territory bordering Pakistan that has been the subject of a decades-long dispute between the two countries. Under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the territory enjoyed special status, had its own Constitution and Indian citizens from other states were not allowed to purchase land or property there.
•  On August 5, 2019, the Indian Government issued Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special status that it had enjoyed since 1954 and made it fully subservient to all provisions of the Constitution of India.
• On August 2, the Civil Secretariat, Home Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, advised tourists and Amarnath Yatra pilgrims to leave the Jammu and Kashmir area in India. 
• On August 4, 2019, mobile phone networks, internet services, landline connectivity were all shutdown in the region. The District Magistrates imposed additional restrictions on freedoms of movement and public assembly citing authority to do so under Section 144 of the Criminal Penal Code.

Issues

• Whether the Government can claim exemption from producing all the orders passed under section 144 [3] and others under suspension rules?[4]
• Whether imposing restrictions under section 144 [5] are valid?
• Whether the freedom of speech and expression, freedom to practice any profession or to carry out any trade, occupation or business over the internet is a part of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India?
• Whether the action of Government to prohibit internet access in the state is valid?

Analysis

1. Petitioner's Argument

• That some trades are completely dependent on internet. This Right to trade through internet also fosters consumerism and provides wide availability to choose different goods and services.
• That the Freedom of Trade and Commerce via the medium of internet is protected under Article 19 (1) (g) of Indian Constitution, which is subject to certain restrictions provided under Article 19 (6) of Indian Constitution.
• That the restrictions imposed in the state under section 144 [7] were neither reasonable nor proportional with the aim of the public policy. It was asserted that “public order” is different from “law and order”. The restrictions were imposed as argued by the respondents was due to a threat to law and order.
• That, neither of those two expressions was at risk before passing the order of restriction under section 144[8]. It was also pleaded by the respondents that these restrictions were temporary in nature, but they have been enforced for more than 100 days.

2. Respondent's Argument

• That restrictions on internet in the State of Jammu and Kashmir were essential in order to combat terrorism.
• That the standard of free speech and expression cannot be applied to the internet in the view of the fact that internet is boundless as it opens up for a two-way communication through the engagement on social media and the dangers of the dark web is also present.
• That particular websites could not be targeted, but instead, the internet as a whole was supposed to be shut down in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
• That the claims made by plaintiff on the stringency of the restrictions on internet were grossly exaggerated.

Judgement
Following was held by the judges:

• That the orders for restrictions as mentioned under section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and orders for internet suspension for a temporary period of time must be published and made available for general public at the earliest.
• That section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 cannot be used to suppress the legitimate exercise of fundamental rights. Such powers should be directed to deal with emergencies that are likely to cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury to persons. And they are subject to scrutiny by the judiciary.
• That Freedom of Speech and Expression as mentioned under article 19(1 (a) of the Constitution of India enjoys constitutional protection over the medium of the internet too.

Conclusion

The judgment in the case of Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India, delivered by the Hon. Supreme Court of India, is related to Fundamental Rights mentioned in Indian Constitution. The judgment was well put together and has successfully sets a benchmark to consider that Freedom of Speech and Expression and Freedom to Practice any Profession or carry on any Trade, Business or Occupation through medium of internet is a Fundamental Right which is guaranteed as well as protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.