FOUNDATION FOR MEDIA PROFESSIONALS vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION   WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) ………. OF 2020 (D. No. 10817 OF 2020) FOUNDATION FOR MEDIA       … PETITIONER PROFESSIONALS                 Versus UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU  … RESPONDENTS AND KASHMIR & ANR.  AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) ………. OF 2020 (D. No. 10875 OF 2020) SOAYIB QURESHI       … PETITIONER                Versus UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU  … RESPONDENT AND KASHMIR  AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) ………. OF 2020 (D. No. 10904 OF 2020) PRIVATE SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION       … PETITIONER      J AND K          Versus Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2020.05.11 13:07:37 IST Reason: THE UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU  … RESPONDENT AND KASHMIR  1 O  R  D  E  R 1. Again, this Court is called upon to address a very important but a sensitive issue on national security and human rights, wherein we have to ensure that  national security and human rights can be reasonably   and   defensibly   balanced,   a   responsibility,   that   this Court takes with utmost seriousness. 2. This   Court,   vide   its   earlier   judgment   dated   10.01.2020   in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India , (2020) SCC Online SC 25, gave certain directions regarding the imposition of restrictions on the internet in a proportionate manner. The aforesaid case had, in addition to the procedural rules, supplemented the requirements of having   timely   review   and   the   non­permanence   of   internet shutdown orders. 3. The   three   Petitioners   before   us   are   aggrieved   by   the   fact   that Respondent No. 1 has restricted the mobile internet speed to 2G and have approached this Court seeking 4G mobile internet, and the quashing of the   impugned orders   restricting internet in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.  2 4. Broadly, the argument of the Petitioners is premised on the ground that in the existing COVID­19 situation, when there is a national lockdown, the restrictions imposed on the residents of the entire Union   Territory   of   Jammu   and   Kashmir   impacts   their   right   to health, right to education, right to business and right to freedom of speech and expression.  5. They submit that access to internet acquires even more importance under the prevailing circumstances in the country, relating to the pandemic.  The  Petitioners   contended   that  the   fulfillment  of  the right to health is dependent on the  availability of  effective and speedy internet in order to access medical services and information on containment strategies. The denial of such critical information not only violates the peoples’ right to receive information, but is also a denial of their right to health. Furthermore, the Petitioners contend that restrictions on internet speed directly impacts the students   of   Jammu   and   Kashmir   to   exercise   their   right   to education as they are unable to access to e­learning services such as online video classes, and other online educational content. This not   only   impacts   their   continuing   education,   but   also disadvantages   the   students   of   Jammu   and   Kashmir   who   are preparing for national/competitive exams. Petitioner in W.P. (C) D. 3 No. 10817 of 2020, has appended the affidavits of a journalist who collected   testimonies   of   doctors,   teachers,   students,   journalists, lawyers and business persons from the Union Territory, and of a technical expert narrating importance of 4G internet, to support the above submissions. 6. Moreover,   the   Petitioners   have   argued   that   the   actions   of Respondent No. 1 are violative of the directions laid down by this Court   in   (supra) as   well   as   the   Temporary Anuradha   Bhasin     Suspension   of   Telecom   Services   (Public   Emergency   or   Public Safety) Rules, 2017 [“ Telecom Suspension Rules ”]   as no Review Committee has been constituted by the Respondent No. 1. Further, the blanket orders passed by Respondent No. 1, indicates non­ application of mind. Lastly, Respondent No. 1 has failed to provide any rational nexus between the restriction of the internet speed and  national  security.   The   Petitioners   submitted   that   since  the introduction   of   internet   in   the   Union   Territory   of   Jammu   and Kashmir,   the   number   of   incidents   relating   to   terrorism   in   the region have actually reduced. Lastly, the Petitioners pleaded in the alternative that if the Respondents apprehend the misuse of data services, then they could consider restricting the internet only in 4 certain problematic areas or providing 3G/4G internet to certain regions on a trial basis.   7. The learned Attorney General preliminarily contended that Courts should not step into issues of national security which are best left to those in charge of policy making [ refer to  Zamora ,  (1916) 2 AC 77 (PC)]. Further, the learned Attorney General relying on some judicial pronouncements submitted that the claims of fundamental rights have to be examined against the larger public interest of protecting the security of the State, wherein, while balancing the aforesaid   conflicting   rights,   the   security   of   the   nation   should triumph against the fundamental rights of the citizens. Moreover, in   the   prevailing   circumstances   wherein   there   is   continuing insurgency   in   the   region,   the   spreading   of   fake   news   to   incite violence,   etc. ,   it   would   not   be   possible   to   provide   full   internet services to the region. 8. Learned Solicitor General vehemently opposed the petitions and argued   that   the   authorities   have   strictly   complied   with   the directions passed by this Court on the previous occasion, and that the relevant authorities  are  cognizant of  not only  the   changing circumstances   but   also   the   ground   realities.   The   information 5 regarding COVID­19 available on various social media platforms, government websites, applications developed by Respondent No. 2 for disseminating information can be easily downloaded over the 2G internet. Moreover, no restrictions exist over fixed line internet. Advisories and documents relating to COVID­19 have already been accessed by over 1 lakh health professionals in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through fixed line internet. Further, to ensure effective access to right to health, the Respondent No. 2 is broadcasting   information   through   various   radio   channels   and through satellite TV and local cable networks. 1.6 lakh pamphlets and   90,000   posters   in   English,   Urdu   and   Hindi   are   being disseminated to the public. Wide publicity is also being given to various helpline numbers which have been established for COVID­ 19 related queries through print and electronic media. With respect to the right to education of the students of Jammu and Kashmir, lessons are being delivered on 16 DD channels at a national level, and through the radio. The department has also undertaken the distribution and delivery of textbooks, upto elementary level, to the eligible students at their homes.  6 9. The learned Solicitor General also highlighted the fact that over 108 terrorist incidents have taken place in the recent past, between August 05, 2019 to April 25, 2020 in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. In view of the aforesaid fact, the learned Solicitor General submitted that the current situation in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is very grave and volatile, even referring to the   recent   terrorist   activity   in   Kupwara   District.   The   learned Solicitor   General   therefore   submitted   that   the   authorities   have calibrated   the   restrictions   based   on   the   requirement   so   as   to reduce the misuse of internet and that the measures adopted by the   authorities   are   reasonable.   He   therefore   prayed   that   the present petitions ought to be dismissed. 10. Before parting with the submissions of the parties, it may be stated that Respondent No. 1 submitted an additional note dated May 06, 2020,   after   the   hearing   of   the   matter   was   concluded,   wherein recent terrorist activities in the region, and the interest shown by the   Pakistani   military   regarding   the   political   developments   in Kashmir, were highlighted. Petitioners in W.P. (C) D. No. 10817 of 2020 and W.P. (C) D. No. 10875 of 2020 filed responses to the same on May 07, 2020 and May 06, 2020 respectively. Although the Petitioners have objected to the note filed by the Respondent 7 No. 1, taking into consideration the far­reaching consequences of the issues involved herein, we have considered the submissions of both parties. Heard both the parties, and perused the documents placed before 11. us.  12. At the outset, we have already laid down that the fundamental rights   of   citizens   need   to   be   balanced   with   national   security concerns, when the situation so demands. This Court is cognizant of   the   importance   of   these   matters   for   the   national   security concerns, and takes the same with utmost seriousness to ensure that citizens enjoy life and liberty to the greatest possible extent. National security concerns and human rights must be reasonably and   defensibly   adjusted   with   one   another,   in   line   with   the constitutional   principles.   There   is   no   doubt   that   the   present situation   calls   for   a   delicate   balancing,   looking   to   the   peculiar circumstances   prevailing   in   the   Union   Territory   of   Jammu   and Kashmir. Before considering the relief sought by the Petitioners, it is necessary to look at the steps taken by Respondent No. 1 after the   pronouncement   of   the   earlier   judgment   of   this   Court   in (supra).   For,   convenience,   the   table   below Anuradha   Bhasin   8 indicates   the   orders   which   have   been   passed   since   10.01.2020 (post  Anuradha Bhasin  (supra) judgment):

9

10

13. The above measures taken by the Respondent No. 1 have to be seen   in   light   of   the   circumstances   already   highlighted   by   the learned Solicitor General regarding the existing law and order and national   security   situations   in   the   Union   Territory,   and   the occurrence of incidents that affect the integrity of the nation. The learned Solicitor General stated that since 05.08.2019, around 108 terrorist related incidents have taken place in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, wherein 99 incidents were reported from the Kashmir   province   and   09   from   Jammu   province.   In   total,   30 civilians have lost their lives and 114 civilians have been injured. Further, more than 20 security personnel have been martyred and 54 security personnel have been injured. Moreover, 76 terrorists have been gunned down. These facts have not been rebutted by the Petitioners.   This   Court   will   have   to   consider   the   above   in   its analysis. It may be important to note that after this matter was reserved for orders, the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir 11 has   filed   another   note,   indicating   that   the   militancy   has significantly increased in the recent times, in the following manner:

12

Respondent   No.   1   has   also   pointed   to   certain   material,   which indicate that cyber terrorism, is on the rise within the valley. The Respondent No. 1, has brought to the notice of this Court that the Pakistani   Military   in   its   “Green   Book   2020”   has   called   for   an information  warfare   on  Kashmir,   after  the   revocation  of   special status of Jammu and Kashmir. While it might be desirable and convenient to have better internet 14. in   the   present   circumstances,   wherein   there   is   a   worldwide pandemic and a national lockdown. However, the fact that outside forces   are   trying   to   infiltrate   the   borders   and   destabilize   the integrity of the nation, as well as cause incidents resulting in the death of innocent citizens and security forces every day cannot be ignored.  13 15. However, the authorities in the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir   have   selected   the   2G   speed   to   restrict   the   flow   of information in order to prevent misuse of data by terrorists and their supporters to disturb the peace and tranquility of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.  16. In any case, we may note that the common thread in the impugned orders is that they have been passed for the entire Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. In this regard, our observations in the Anuradha Bhasin  (supra) may be of some relevance: “The degree of restriction and the scope of the same, both territorially and temporally, must stand in relation to what is actually necessary to combat an emergent situation.” Although the present orders indicate that they have been passed for a limited period of time, the order does not provide any reasons to reflect that all the districts of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir require the imposition of such restrictions. At the same time,   we   do   recognize   that   the   Union   Territory   of   Jammu   and Kashmir has been plagued with militancy, which is required to be taken into consideration. These competing considerations needs to calibrated in terms of our judgment in  (supra). Anuradha Bhasin  14 17. One of the criteria for testing the proportionality of the orders is the territorial extent of the restrictions. In view of the observations made in   (supra), for meaningful enforcement of Anuradha Bhasin the spirit of the judgment,  inter alia , the authorities are required to pass   orders   with   respect   to   only   those   areas,   where   there   is absolute   necessity   of   such   restrictions   to   be   imposed,   after satisfying the directions passed earlier.  18. In this regard,  our   attention  is  drawn to  the   fact that  blanket orders have been passed for the entire territory rather than for specific affected areas.  19. A perusal of the submissions made before us and the material placed on record indicate that the submissions of the Petitioners, in   normal   circumstances,   merit   consideration.   However,   the compelling circumstances of cross border terrorism in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, at present, cannot be ignored.  20. Additionally, although the Petitioners have argued that the orders passed   by   Respondent   No.   1   reveals   non­application   of   mind, however,   at   the   cost   of   repetition,   it   must   be   noted   that   the authorities   have   been   taking   steps   towards   easing   of   internet restrictions taking into account the prevailing circumstances. This 15 can be seen from the fact that initially only whitelisted websites were allowed, before internet access to all websites was provided on broadband,   and   finally   to   postpaid   and   verified   prepaid   mobile users as well, although at 2G speeds. Further, the various steps taken   by   Respondent   No.   1   with   respect   to   ensuring   the fundamental rights of the people, in relation to the existing COVID­ 19 pandemic, must also be taken into account.  21. During the course of the arguments, the Respondent No. 2­ Union of   India   has   submitted   that   continuous   infiltration,   foreign influence, violent extremism and issues of national integrity are prevalent in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which are serious issues.  22. In   Anuradha Bhasin   (supra), this Court has alluded to the fact that modern terrorism is being propagated through the internet and by using technology in the following manner: 

16 23. At the  same  time,  the   Court  is  also  cognizant  of  the   concerns relating to the ongoing pandemic and the hardships that may be faced by the citizens. It may be noted that in the earlier judgment of  Anuradha Bhasin  (supra) this Court had directed that, under the   usual   course,   every   order   passed   under   Rule   2(2)   of   the Telecom Suspension Rules restricting the internet is to be placed before a Review Committee which provides for adequate procedural and substantive safeguards to ensure that the imposed restrictions are narrowly tailored. However, we are of the view that since the issues   involved   affect   the   State,   and   the   nation,   the   Review Committee which consists of only State level officers, may not be in a   position   to   satisfactorily   address   all   the   issues   raised.   We, therefore,   find   it   appropriate   to  constitute   a  Special  Committee comprising of the following Secretaries at national, as well as State, level to look into the prevailing circumstances and immediately determine the necessity of the continuation of the restrictions in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir: a. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Home Secretary), Government of India. 17 b. The Secretary, Department of Communications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India. c. The   Chief   Secretary,   Union   Territory   of   Jammu   and Kashmir The aforesaid Special Committee shall be headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Home Secretary), Government of India.   24. The Special Committee is directed to examine the contentions of, and the material placed herein by, the Petitioners as well as the Respondents.   The   aforesaid   Committee   must   also   examine   the appropriateness of the alternatives suggested by the Petitioners, regarding   limiting   the   restrictions   to   those   areas   where   it   is necessary and the allowing of faster internet (3G or 4G) on a trial basis over certain geographical areas and advise the Respondent No. 1 regarding the same, in terms of our earlier directions.  25. The   writ   petitions   are   disposed   of   in   the   afore­stated   terms. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.   The Registry is directed to communicate this order, along with a copy of 18 the paperbooks of the present petitions, to the aforesaid Special Committee. ...............................J. (N.V. RAMANA)          ...............................J. (R. SUBHASH REDDY)          …...........................J.  (B.R. GAVAI) NEW DELHI; MAY 11, 2020. 19