Supreme Court declines urgent listing of plea against Manipur internet ban since High Court already hearing the matter

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to urgently list a petition challenging the internet shutdown currently in force in the State of Manipur..A vacation bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal said that the Manipur High Court is already hearing the matter and hence, there is no need to duplicate the proceedings."The High Court is hearing the matter. No need to duplicate proceedings," Justice Bose remarked.The Court, therefore, asked the counsel for the petitioners, advocate Shadan Farasat, to mention the matter before a regular bench of the Manipur High Court. .An indefinite internet ban has been imposed in Manipur since May 3 after violence broke out in the State.This was after the Manipur High Court had ordered the State government to consider inclusion of the Meetei/ Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list.This led to widespread clashes between tribal and non-tribal communities leading to loss of lives. The latest internet suspension order was issued by the State government on May 26.The petitioners before the apex court, lawyer Chongtham Victor Singh and businessman Mayengbam James, pointed out that despite 'a clear and admitted de-escalation' of the situation', State-wide internet shutdown orders have repeatedly been issued by the Manipur government.The blocking orders cite law and order and anti-social elements rather than public order, and the latest extensions did not go through the oversight of Review Committee as necessary in law, the petition stated.Further, it was submitted that the orders are grossly disproportionate as they prevent residents from exercising their fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom to carry on trade and occupation.The internet ban does not serve a legitimate goal, and does not have a direct nexus with the purpose of law and order given the ground situation at present, the plea further said.The notifications on internet ban have not been published on any website or social media and therefore, residents have not been able to make alternative arrangements or challenge such ban, it was submitted.