PIL before Delhi High Court challenges internet shutdown around Jantar Mantar

A PIL petition has been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the orders passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) suspending mobile internet services near Jantar Mantar due to ongoing students' protests. The petition, filed by Software Freedom Law Centre, seeks quashing of six suspension orders issued between July 17 and July 23, alleging they are unconstitutional and violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the orders passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) suspending mobile internet services near Jantar Mantar due to ongoing students' protests. The matter was mentioned before a Division Bench of Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves seeking urgent listing. This development is significant as it highlights the contentious issue of internet shutdowns in India, particularly in areas where public gatherings are taking place.

The PIL petition filed by Software Freedom Law Centre seeks to challenge the constitutionality of six suspension orders issued between July 17 and July 23. The orders were invoked under Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024. However, the petition alleges that these orders merely reproduce statutory phrases without disclosing objective material or explaining why a blanket internet shutdown was necessary.

The PIL petition raises important questions about the limits of executive power in suspending mobile internet services. The petitioners argue that the MHA's actions are unconstitutional and violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. This is not the first time that concerns have been raised about internet shutdowns in India. In recent years, there have been several instances where reports of internet shutdowns have preceded public availability of information. The petitioners' argument that these orders are arbitrary and violate constitutional rights is a valid one.

The outcome of this matter has not yet been reported. However, the PIL petition highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the government's decision-making process regarding internet shutdowns. Practitioners should keep an eye on this development as it may have implications for future cases involving internet shutdowns.