Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard three writ petitions challenging the restriction of mobile internet speed to 2G in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, imposed by the respondents (Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and another). The petitioners, including Foundation for Media Professionals, Soayib Qureshi, and Private Schools Association J and K, argued that the restrictions violated fundamental rights to health, education, and freedom of speech and expression, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when internet access was crucial for accessing medical services, online education, and information. They contended that the respondents failed to comply with the directions in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017, as no Review Committee was constituted and the orders were blanket and disproportionate. The respondents, represented by the Attorney General and Solicitor General, argued that the restrictions were necessary for national security due to ongoing insurgency and terrorist activities, and that the measures were calibrated and proportionate. They highlighted that 2G mobile internet was available with access to all websites, fixed line connectivity had no speed restrictions, and alternative means like radio, TV, and pamphlets were used for disseminating COVID-19 information. The Court, after hearing both sides and considering the documents, noted the steps taken by the respondents post-Anuradha Bhasin, including gradual easing of restrictions from whitelisted sites to full website access on 2G. The Court held that the fundamental rights of citizens must be balanced with national security concerns, and in the peculiar circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir, the measures adopted were reasonable and proportionate. The Court dismissed the petitions, finding no violation of the earlier directions or the Telecom Suspension Rules, and emphasized that the authorities had periodically reviewed the orders.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Right to Health and Education - Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India - Petitioners argued that 2G internet restrictions during COVID-19 violated rights to health, education, and freedom of speech - Court considered the balance between national security and fundamental rights, noting steps taken by respondents including 2G mobile internet access to all websites and fixed line connectivity without speed restrictions - Held that the measures were reasonable and proportionate in the prevailing circumstances (Paras 1-13). B) Telecom Law - Internet Shutdown - Proportionality - Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 - Petitioners contended non-compliance with Anuradha Bhasin directions and lack of Review Committee - Court noted that orders were periodically reviewed and restrictions were gradually eased - Held that the authorities had complied with the directions and the restrictions were not permanent (Paras 2, 6, 12-13). C) National Security - Judicial Review - Deference to Executive - Petitioners sought 4G internet; respondents cited terrorist incidents and security concerns - Court acknowledged the sensitive nature of national security and the need for balancing - Held that the court should not substitute its judgment in matters of national security but must ensure proportionality (Paras 1, 7, 9, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the restriction of mobile internet speed to 2G in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is proportionate and justified in light of national security concerns and the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether it violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the measures taken by the respondents, including 2G mobile internet with access to all websites and fixed line connectivity without speed restrictions, are reasonable and proportionate in the prevailing circumstances of national security and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court found no violation of the directions in Anuradha Bhasin or the Telecom Suspension Rules.
Law Points
- Balancing of fundamental rights with national security
- Proportionality of internet restrictions
- Right to health
- Right to education
- Right to freedom of speech and expression
- Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules 2017
- Review Committee requirement
