Plea Against Internet Shutdown Around Jantar Mantar Withdrawn from Delhi HC

Legal services organisation Software Freedom Law Centre, India, on Monday withdrew from the Delhi High Court its PIL against the suspension of mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi, with services restored following the withdrawal of the CJP's stir.

"The counsel for the petitioner says he has instructions to withdraw the petition. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn," said a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.

In its petition, Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC.In), sought quashing of orders issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on July 17, 20, 22 and 23 to shut down mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi.

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) had been protesting in the heart of Delhi at Jantar Mantar since June 20 to seek accountability from the government over the NEET paper leak and the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan as Union education minister.

The over-a-month-long agitation was called off after Pradhan stepped down on Saturday and other demands of the CJP were accepted by the government. Soon after, internet services were restored in central Delhi.

SLFC.In said in its petition that the temporary suspension of telecommunication services, including mobile internet services, was "one of the most extraordinary coercive powers conferred upon the Executive" as it interfered with the exercise of freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) (free speech), 19(1)(b) (peaceful assembly), 19(1)(g) (right to practice any trade or profession) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution.

Terming the suspension orders "illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional", the petitioner said they neither disclosed any public emergency nor provided reasons to demonstrate why a blanket suspension of mobile internet services was necessary or proportionate to any alleged threat.

The plea underscored that the authorities invoked Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecom Act read with the Suspension Rules, 2024, to record that the suspension was necessary "in the interest of public safety and averting public emergency" but failed to consider "less restrictive alternatives" before imposing a blanket suspension of mobile internet services.

It further alleged that the suspension orders did not disclose an "apparent independent application of mind" and "reflect a mechanical exercise of statutory power inconsistent with the requirements of administrative law".

"The present challenge arises from the Impugned Orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs directing suspension of all mobile internet technologies within a radius of approximately 1.5 kilometres from Jantar Mantar, New Delhi," the plea said.

"The repeated issuance of six separate suspension orders over a span of seven days further underscores the necessity of examining whether each exercise of statutory power was independently undertaken in accordance with Section 20(2)(b)," it said.