By Sarthak Chaudhary
The Internet has been in presence for many decades, it’s importance and utility has been felt across the world. Internet has not only sufficed our need in innumerable ways, in these extra-ordinary circumstances of covid-19 its utility has once again been felt to fulfil our basic necessity. The Internet has additionally assumed an instrumental part in activating individuals for their privileges and requests, which is unequivocal in the structure that the web has been utilized as a mode for individuals to dissent and stand firm around there.
In 2020, “India had nearly 700 million internet users across the country. This figure was projected to grow to over 974 million users by 2025, In fact, India was ranked as the second largest online market worldwide in 2019, coming second only to China”. Hence when we talk about internet users in India, we are referring to large chunk of people which will even surpass population of some of the developed countries in the world.
But such statistics often are not taken into consideration when violation of Internet rights took place across India. Dismantling the image of world’s largest democracy, with more than 130 lockdowns across the nation, India has been entitled as “Internet shutdown capital of the word”, “The world’s largest biggest democracy leads in digital authoritarianism”. What were the reasons of such shutdowns, most of them has been done in the name of national security and integrity during protests like “CAA” but what has been come upfront is the fact that these such shutdowns have been done to crush the dissenting voices in the country?
This article is an attempt to answer what constitutes “Right to internet “ and how the right has evolved over the period of time ,how violation of the same lead to breach of some of the most fundamental rights mentioned under “Part III of Indian Constitution” , considering the same the project also aims to dissect some of the related case laws for example Kerala high court judgement , in which the respected high court explicitly said that right to internet is a fundamental right and the other of the project is based upon the landmark judgment of Supreme court of India , “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India”.
Evolution of Right to Internet.
With repetitive reports and resolutions of “United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR)” in 2011, 2016 and 2018. In the fourth resolution titled “Promoting, safeguarding, and exercising human rights on the internet”, which reiterated the significance and importance of Right to Internet as fundamental Right. Also, several other countries, including “Spain, costa Rica, Finland, France, the European Union, Estonia, and Greece, have proclaimed internet a fundamental human right”.
Considering the position of India in this sphere, Indian Constitution has protected the right to speech and expression. The Indian constitution has protected the right to speech and expression. The constitution is sovereign piece of legislation and the fundamental rights has been protected by “Part III of Indian constitution” include the right to freedom.
These rights are of the utmost importance in achieving an individual’s complete intellectual, moral, and spiritual status. Indian constitution proves its adaptability and flexibility regarding right to internet. Since fundamental rights already provides right to speech and expression as “Article 19(1)(a)”.
Supreme court over the passage also through its various judgements and taking into consideration the broad perspective of “Article 14, 19 and 21” has reiterated the significance and importance of right to internet.
Related case laws.
Two Important developments apart from “Anuradha Bhasin vs UOI” which has taken place in Indian judiciary are “Faheema Shirin R.k v. State of Kerala” and “Foundation of media professionals vs State (UT of J&K)”. These judgements laid down important foundations to recognize the right to internet as a fundamental right.
“Faheema Shirin R.K vs State of Kerala”.
In September 2019, in a landmark judgment, the single seat of the Kerala high court held that the option to get to the web was a central right since it was essential for both the privilege to training and the privilege to life ensured by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The appellant is a female student at Sree Narayaguru college, university of Calicut, doing her 2nd year BA UG course. According to the rules of the hostel, occupants were not allowed to use cell phones or laptops from 10pm to 6 am. This rule was later revised, reducing the time 6pm to 10pm The warden sent a message to her that she vacant the hostel premises if she does not adhere to the rules, Shirin also sent the message to the principal of the college, but she received the same message. Upon receiving this, the petitioner then went to hostel to collect her things to leave the hostel, but the room was locked and the people in charge of the hostel did not allow her to do so.
Justice PV Asha in her single judge bench reiterated “That mobile phones have now become a necessary part of life and unavoidable to survive with dignity and freedom”. The court through its judgement also stated that, “When the human rights council of the UN has found right to access the internet is a fundamental freedom and a tool to ensure the right permitted to stand in the eye of law”.
The judgment is an image of how regular daily existence has changed, by augmenting its ability to speak freely and articulation rights under article 19 of the Indian constitution, it offers a particular key right. The decision upgrades this privilege by vindicating worldwide announcements that extreme fairness is the option to get to the web and is undifferentiated from the privilege to instruction and to one side to security.
This shows how our Indian courts progressed and that their sharpness verified with present day times and strategies. It likewise attempts to maintain the nature of training given to ladies with no gender inclination and offering equivalent chance to all. At last, the decision makes ready for advancing Internet based learning as a crucial piece of one's life, making the privilege to entrance the web in surmising with the privilege to instruction. Consequently, supporting up our constitution.
“Foundation of Media Professional vs State (Union Territory of J&K)”
In this case the ban on 3G and 4G internet services in Jammu & Kashmir was challenged, this case is popularly known as 4G case. This case it was again reiterated such ban on internet services completely violates right to education.
Three writ petitions were filled before SC, which concerned the limitation of web, the power outage of correspondences was important for a progression of steps that followed the area's adjustment of status, including the appearance of thousands of extra officers, curfews, and political pioneer's home capture.
The three applicants looked for the reclamation of 4G internet providers, and the dissolution of the request tested in the association domains of Jammu and Kashmir limiting the web.
In thinking about the proportionality of the limitation, the court saw that a sweeping request was passed for the whole Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir locales, instead of for determined in danger regions. The Court noticed that "the level of limitation and the extent of the equivalent, both regionally and transiently, should remain according to what is really important to battle an emanant circumstance." While orders gave by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir were for a restricted period, they neglected to give any motivation to help that such a limitation was important to be forced in all areas of Jammu and Kashmir. Again, following Anuradha Bhasin, the Court noted limitations ought to just be forced where it is considered significant.
At last, the Supreme Court perceived the disappointment of the public authority to submit to the Supreme Court's choice in Anuradha Bhasin, from which each request passed under “Rule 2(2) of the Telecom Suspension Rules” limiting Internet access should be set before a Review Committee. Such a Committee ought to regulate the "procedural and considerable shields" of such a limitation.
THE ULTIMATE JUDGEMENT: “ANURADHA BHASIN VS UOI OF INDIA”
To quote the judgment authored by Justice Ramana, “The genesis of the issue starts with the Security Advisory issued by the Civil Secretariat, Home Department, Government of Jammu, and Kashmir, advising the tourists and the Amarnath Yaris to curtail their stay and make arrangements for their return in the interest of safety and security. Subsequently, educational institutions and offices were ordered to remain shut until further orders. On 04.08.2019, mobile phone networks, internet services, landline connectivity were all discontinued in the valley, with restrictions on movement also being imposed in some areas.”
In the wake of hearing the contentions raised by the different sides the three appointed authority Bench of the Apex Court reasoned that, according to “Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution”, the right to speak freely and articulation and the opportunity to rehearse any vocation or to seek after any exchange, business or occupation over the web appreciate established insurance.
The court proceeded to clarify that, to be legitimately substantial, enactment to restrict web access would withstand the proportionality test, which the state needs to show that the actions taken were relative to the planned reason and were the most un-meddlesome measures conceivable .”Under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution”, the right to speak freely of discourse and articulation and opportunity to rehearse any profession or to take an interest in any occupation, exchange, or organization on the Internet are covered and, in the event that they are restricted, they ought to be done as per the proportionality test.
In any case, in its judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to unequivocally answer the legality of the Internet closure in Kashmir despite the fact that it was one of the issues to be heard the three-judge seat didn't remark on the issue, yet rather guided the public authority to frame a commission to audit the internet boycott Kashmir against the test illustrated in its judgment under the telecom suspension rules, 2017 and to lift those that we are not needed or didn't have a brief cap.
Albeit the judgment characterized huge lawful the pinnacle court just requested that the public authority "survey" its request when Kashmiris, which had been denied to them for a half year, might have legitimately requested the reclamation of rights.
This choice was broadly discussed, with numerous contending that high court didn't pronounce the privilege to the web as a central right yet only recognized the crucial part of the web in execution of key rights. By announcing the web as an empowering influence of central rights, the court has basically settled that an encroachment of the opportunity to get to the web should likewise be treated as an encroachment of basic rights.
It is hard to dismiss how the web closure genuinely restricts a resident's ability to speak freely and articulation thinking about UNHRC proposals and the high court choices. “The temporary suspension of telecom services law 2017”, which supposedly sets down rules for Internet shutdown, is filled with provisos in India specifically. Senior promoters additionally brought up that 2017 suspension guidelines have assisted with systematizing the closure system formally yet have not brought about straightforwardness. The standards permit web closures for an assortment of purposes, and keeping in mind that the guidelines determine that directions for web closures should be provided by contemplated orders, the public authority has not set up a public request data set.
Taking everything into account, the new decisions of the high court, which gave the privilege to the web the shade of an essential right, is, along these lines, a critical instrument in controlling the maltreatment lockdown in India. By necessitating that orders set according to a “Section 144 of the code of criminal procedure” should be delivered and that web internet should breeze through the proportionality assessment, the high court has planted the seeds to stay away from any discretionary government closures of the internet.
This task was endeavoured to examine the topic of how and why the privilege to the web ought to be perused in consonance with other essential rights ensured under Part III of the constitution. The venture has likewise managed two significant case laws identified with the privilege to the internet, “Fahima Shirin R.K vs State of Kerala “and the “Foundation of media vs UOI “separated from “Anuradha Bhasin vs UOI” which shapes another significant piece of the undertaking.
“Anuradha v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 63”
“Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala, (2019) SCC Online Ker 2976”
“Foundation for media professionals v. State (UT OF J&K), (2020) 5 SCC 746”
“Utkarshshara,” Right to internet and fundamental rights” <http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2967-right-to-internet-and-fundamental-rights.html >”
“Edited by Rupal Chikara < https://procejurelaw.co.in/2020/07/30/right-to-internet-as-a-fundamental-right/ >”
“Frank La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, United Nations, General Assembly, A/HRC/17/27, (16 May 2011) 4 available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf.”
“Global Freedom of expression , Columbia University <https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/foundation-for-media-professionals-v-union-territory-of-jammu-and-kashmir-anr/ >”
“UN General Assembly, The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on The Internet, 4 July 2018, A/HRC/38/L.10/Rev.”
“ Ravi Krishnan, ‘India: The world leader in Internet Shutdowns’, CNN December 14, 2019 <https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/14/opinions/india-world-leader-in-internet-shutdowns/index.html>”
“Shakir Mir, J&K internet shutdown based on ‘Dubious legal framework: report, the wire August 26, 2020 https://thewire.in/government/jammu-and-kashmir-internet-shutdown-jkccs”
“Digbijay Mishra & Madhav Chanchani ‘For the first time, India has more rural net users that urban, Times of India, May 6, 2020