PIL before Delhi High Court challenges internet shutdown around Jantar Mantar

A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the orders passed by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) suspending mobile internet services near Jantar Mantar due to the ongoing students' protests.

The matter was mentioned before Division Bench of Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves seeking urgent listing.

"Due to some formatting issues, the petition is not being listed," Gonsalves said.

"Please remove the objections," the Court said.

The PIL filed by Software Freedom Law Centre, a legal services organisation, has sought 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. It has also sought directions mandating the publication of all future internet suspension orders.

According to the plea, the MHA ordered the suspension of mobile internet services within a 1.5-kilometre radius of Jantar Mantar by invoking Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024.

However, the plea states that the orders merely reproduce the statutory phrases "public safety" and "public emergency" without disclosing objective material or explaining why a blanket internet shutdown was necessary.

"The Petitioner has observed multiple instances where reports of internet shutdowns have preceded the public availability of the corresponding suspension orders, thereby creating uncertainty as to whether the orders were contemporaneously published in accordance with the transparency requirements recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin. Although the legality of publication in each individual case must necessarily depend upon the evidence available, the absence of any statutory obligation requiring contemporaneous publication permits uncertainty regarding the legal basis of restrictions upon fundamental rights during the period in which such restrictions actually operate," the plea states.

The petition further contends that the authorities failed to consider less restrictive alternatives such as ordinary policing, crowd-control measures or targeted enforcement. It also alleges that the orders were issued by an under-secretary instead of the competent authority prescribed under the suspension rules.

The petition was filed through advocates Jayant Malik and Nishant Shokeen.