Previous 4 / 130 Next

compromises the other. It is not our forte to answer whether it is better to be free than secure or be secure rather than free. However, we are here only to ensure that citizens are provided all the rights and liberty to the highest extent in a given situation while ensuring security at the same time. 3. The genesis of the issue starts with the Security Advisory issued by the Civil Secretariat, Home Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, advising the tourists and the Amarnath Yatris to curtail their stay and make arrangements for their return in the interest of safety and security. Subsequently, educational institutions and offices were ordered to remain shut until further orders. On 04.08.2019, mobile phone networks, internet services, landline connectivity were all discontinued in the valley, with restrictions on movement also being imposed in some areas. 4. On 05.08.2019, Constitutional Order 272 was issued by the President, applying all provisions of the Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and modifying Article 367 (Interpretation) in its application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In light of the prevailing circumstances, on the same day, the District Magistrates, apprehending breach of peace and 4

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Bhasin v. Union of India

Case Law

Country

India

Country Location

Latitude: 23.078537445745496

Longitude: 78.60363571015989

Country Location (linked Case Law): India

Decision Date: Jan 10, 2020

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Declaratory Relief

Keywords

Internet Shutdown
National Security
Public Order

Judicial Body: Constitutional Court

Court Name: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031/2019

Case Summary: The Supreme Court of India ruled 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 concerned the internet and movement restrictions imposed in the Jammu and Kashmir region in India on August 4, 2019, in the name of protecting public order. In the end, however, the Court did not lift the internet restrictions and instead, it directed the government to review the shutdown orders against the tests outlined in its judgment and lift those that were not necessary or did not have a temporal limit. The Court reiterated that freedom of expression online enjoyed Constitutional protection, but could be restricted in the name of national security. The Court held that though the Government was empowered to impose a complete internet shutdown, any order(s) imposing such restrictions had to be made public and was subject to judicial review.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Notes: The decision was given by a three-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court. Therefore, it establishes a binding precedent on all Courts within, unless overruled by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.

Primary Documents

1580301349938n29y644e8ii.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Bhasin v. Union of India

Primary Documents

Notifications