The public interest litigation challenges four Union Ministry of Home Affairs orders dated July 17, 20, 22 and 23, arguing that the restrictions were illegal, arbitrary and disproportionate. The petition seeks the cancellation of the orders, disclosure of the government records behind them and mandatory publication of any future internet suspension directives.
Counsel for the digital rights organisation mentioned the case on Friday before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. The bench agreed to consider an urgent listing, but the petition could not be taken up during court hours because procedural defects had not been cleared.
The shutdowns affected mobile data services in parts of Central Delhi as the Cockroach Janta Party-led agitation at Jantar Mantar intensified. The organisation has been demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET paper leak and a wider pattern of alleged failures in the administration of competitive examinations.
The petition contends that suspending telecommunications is among the most intrusive coercive powers available to the executive because it directly affects speech, peaceful assembly, trade, access to information and personal liberty. It invokes the protections guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The challenged orders were issued under Section 20 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, read with the Telecommunications Rules, 2024. The government cited public safety and the need to avert a public emergency while restricting services in and around the protest zone.
Software Freedom Law Center, India has argued that the orders merely reproduce those statutory phrases without identifying the circumstances that constituted an emergency. It says the documents do not explain why a broad mobile internet shutdown was required or whether authorities examined less restrictive measures.
The petition also seeks production of the original files, including official notings, intelligence assessments and proceedings of the Review Committee responsible for examining the legality and continued necessity of suspension orders. Access to those records, it argues, is essential for determining whether the authorities applied an independent mind before cutting connectivity.
A central issue is the alleged failure to publish the orders before or immediately after their implementation. The organisation says people affected by the restrictions cannot challenge them effectively unless the geographical scope, duration, issuing authority and reasons are publicly disclosed.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Anuradha Bhasin case in 2020 that indefinite internet suspensions are impermissible and that every shutdown order must be made available to the public. Restrictions must satisfy tests of legality, necessity and proportionality, while the authorities must periodically review whether they remain justified.
The 2024 suspension rules require orders to clearly specify the area and period of disruption and provide reasons for the action. They also require scrutiny by a Review Committee within five days. The petition alleges that these safeguards were not meaningfully followed in the Central Delhi shutdowns.
Mobile data disruption has complicated communications for protesters, journalists, commuters, businesses and residents in the affected areas. Shops and restaurants reported difficulty processing digital payments, while delivery workers and app-based transport operators faced problems accessing navigation and customer platforms.
The restrictions have been accompanied by the closure of several Delhi Metro stations, traffic diversions, prohibitory orders and heightened police deployment across the capital’s central districts. Eighteen Metro stations were ordered shut on Saturday, although interchange facilities remained available at selected stations.
The protest began at Jantar Mantar on June 20 and expanded after demonstrators attempted to march towards Parliament. Clashes between protesters and police, allegations of excessive force and the detention of political leaders have brought the government’s handling of the agitation under judicial and political scrutiny.
(IPA Service)
