Introduction:
In a landmark ruling, the Jharkhand High Court addressed the contentious issue of internet shutdowns during examination periods, highlighting the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights. This decision arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged the state government’s abrupt and widespread suspension of internet services. Justices Ananda Sen and Anubha Rawat Choudhary emphasized the need for judicial oversight in actions affecting citizens’ constitutional rights.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioners, through the PIL, argued that the state government had exceeded its authority by suspending not only mobile internet but also broadband services across Jharkhand. They contended that this blanket suspension violated the government’s own notification, which only called for a partial suspension of mobile internet during specific hours on September 21 and 22, 2024. The unannounced escalation to a total internet blackout raised concerns about the state’s compliance with legal protocols and its respect for citizens’ rights.
On behalf of the state, the Additional Advocate General (AAG) defended the decision, citing “intelligence inputs” that suggested a threat to public order during the exams. The government claimed that these measures were crucial to safeguarding students and preventing any potential disturbances during such a critical period.
The petitioners, however, argued that the state’s actions lacked factual backing and disproportionately infringed upon citizens’ fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. They stressed that internet access is essential in modern society, especially for students preparing for exams, and that the shutdown was an unnecessary overreach.
Court’s Judgment:
After reviewing the arguments, the Jharkhand High Court sided with the petitioners, temporarily barring the state from suspending internet services without prior court approval. The court highlighted that the state’s total shutdown of internet services amounted to an overreach of its earlier order, which permitted only a partial suspension. The bench emphasized that the government’s action undermined the judicial process and lacked adequate justification.
In its judgment, the court deemed the state’s claims of public safety insufficient without proper evidentiary support. Justice Mathur remarked that invoking terms like “public interest” and “safety of students” without a factual foundation was not enough to justify the shutdown. The court stated, “Merely using words such as ‘public interest’, ‘adequate safety of students’, and ‘ensuring fair examination’ without substantial evidence cannot justify shutting down internet services entirely.”
The ruling underscored that the balance of convenience must account for both public safety and the fundamental rights of citizens. The court acknowledged the critical role of internet access in daily life, especially for students who rely on it for preparation and communication. An indiscriminate shutdown, it concluded, infringed on the rights of many without adequate cause.
As a result, the court mandated that any future suspension of internet services in Jharkhand would require prior approval, ensuring that citizens’ rights are protected against arbitrary state actions.