SC makes important theoretical observation but 'teethy directions' to deter 'thick skinned' BJP, need of the hour: Congress' Jaiveer Shergill

Congress spokesperson Jaiveer Shergill, who is also a practicing Supreme Court lawyer held that the top court made an important theoretical observation regarding the five-month internet shutdown in Kashmir. But the lawyer held that  'teethy directions' to deter 'thick skinned' BJP were the need of the hour, asking, "Who will compensate for $1 billion trade loss?"

SC falls short of offering immediate reprieve, but order reinstates hope that arbitrary use of Section 144 will end

Today the Supreme Court of India has finally put an end to the dubious practice of using Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code to shut the Internet down. This had become a norm in the past few years, regularly used by Police and State Governments that had made India the shutdown capital of the world with around 381, disruptions since 2012.

Although the order grants no immediate relief to the people of Kashmir who have been without internet for past 159 days but review under Telecom Suspension Rules has been ordered. Let's hope this is the end of this repressive practice unworthy of a democracy with ambitions of a digital superpower.

The Supreme Court of India, like the Kerala High Court, has recognized the right to freedom of speech and expression through the internet to be part of Article19 (1) (a). This is what a court that moves with times must hold and has done so. Internet generation will not be governed by arbitrary internet shutdowns.

Hopefully, from now on authorities will follow their own rules and not circumvent procedures to curb legitimate expression.

SC order reminder to 'tyrant duo', says Congress

Taking to Twitter, the Congres party said: "The Supreme Court rules that tactics like indefinite internet shutdowns and indiscriminate use of Section 144 to silence dissent are unacceptable in a democracy. We hope this serves as a reminder to the tyrant duo that law and constitution is above their divisive policies."

Status quo SC likely to continue in Kashmir; SC avoided primary responsibility of judicial review

The Kashmir telecom and internet shutdown judgement will need to be studied and may be used to give grounds for future challenges to the rules. However, it seems that it does not do much at the present and the status quo will continue in Kashmir.

The Supreme Court also avoided the primary responsibility of judicial review, by just laying down broad principles for the review. This verdict is also unlikely to provide lasting relief even if the review does occur within 2-3 days and all orders are set aside. Restrictions can be re-imposed in Kashmir and across India. Here exercise of executive authority has not been checked in specific orders by the court.

Ghulam Nabi Azad welcomes verdict

One of the petitioners in the case, Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad reacted to the judgment, welcoming it. He said,  "Each individual in Jammu and Kashmir was waiting for this decision. SC has made it clear to that the government should publish all the orders passed since 5 Aug 2019." The top court had also said that any order on the internet comes under judicial scrutiny

'Reinstates our faith in judiciary': PDP on SC judgement

Jammu and Kashmir's Peoples Democratic Party took to Twitter to react to the top court's judgement. The party said, "Finally the Supreme Court has woken up to the injustices cast upon the people of J&K, calling such government lodged curbs an "abuse" of power reinstates our faith in the judiciary."

SC delivers 'first jolt of 2020' to BJP-led Centre, says Congress leader

Minutes after the top court gave its verdict, Congress chief spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala on Twitter said that the Supreme Court delivered the "first big jolt of 2020 to illegal activities" of Narendra Modi government by stating the importance of the internet as a fundamental right.

He further added, "Double shock for Modi-Shah that dissent cannot be oppressed by imposing section 144."

SC says right to carry out trade using internet is 'constitutionally protected' 

Internet cannot be curbed unless 'incitement to violence' says SC

The bench held that internet shutdowns cannot be ordered to suppress speech unless there is incitement to violence or similar reasons. "Reasonableness of Section 144 orders must be assessed based on territorial reach, nature of restrictions and  time period," 

Indefinite Internet Suspension Impermissible, says bench on J&K clampdown

The Supreme Court ordered the suspension of internet should be reviewed forthwith and that such suspension can be only “for a limited time period.” It is also subject to judicial review, Justice Ramana said while reading the judgment.

SC orders Centre to publish all orders under Section 144

The apex court has ordered that Centre publish all orders of the governmnet under Section 144 imposing restrictions, including curbing of internet. The apex court also ordered the suspension of the internet should be reviewed forthwith and that such suspension can be only “for a limited time period.”

The bench also said that magistrates, while passing prohibitory orders, should apply mind and follow doctrine of proportionality. 

Indefinite internet suspension is violation of telecom rules, says SC bench

"All orders suspending such services must be published so that those affected can challenge if necessary. All orders are to be also put in the public domain which can then be challenged in a court of law. Internet suspension without any particular duration and indefinitely is a violation of telecom rules," the SC bench observed. It also directed the government to produce all orders by which Section 144 is invoked.

Any order on internet restriction will come under judicial scrutiny, says Supreme Court

Any order that has been passed to restrict or suspend internet services will be subject to judicial scrutiny, says Justice NV Ramana. The bench held that: "Test of proportionality needs to be satisfied. This freedom can only be restricted after relevant factors are considered and only if there are no other options."

Disagreement does not justify destabilization, says bench

"Disagreement does not justify destabilization. The power under Section 144 of CrPC cannot be used as a curb on the legitimate expression of democratic rights. No doubt that the freedom of the press is a right is a part of right under 19(1)(a) and is required in every modern democracy," the bench said. 

SC orders govt to restore internet in Valley for all 'essential services'

The Supreme Court orders the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review all restrictive orders within a week. All orders are also asked to be also put in public domain which can then be challenged in a court of law. These orders can be challenged in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and Supreme Court. 

The apex court has also ordered the internet to be restored for all 'essential services' across the Valley. 

Importance of internet cannot be underestimated, says apex court

The importance of the internet cannot be underestimated and the internet as a tool should be distinguished from the Freedom of Expression through the internet, the apex court said, before announcing the final verdict. Internet is a major means of information, therefore the Freedom of Expression through the internet is part of Article 19(1)(a) and restrictions on it should be in accordance with restrictions to this right, the court observed.

Justice NV Ramana begins reading out the judgment

Justice Ramana reads out a passage from the classic 'Tale of two cities' before pronouncing the judgement. He said, "The court will not delve into the political intent behind the orders."

He further added, "Liberty and security are always at loggerheads. It is the court's job to ensure that the citizens are provided with all rights and security."

Verdict to be announced shorty

The judges have gathered in the courtroom to announce the verdict in the Supreme Court. The judgment will be given a three-judge bench, headed by Justice NV Ramana. Other members of the bench are Justices R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai. The apex court is to rule on reasonableness and proportionality of restrictions, and also the duration of it.

Mehbooba Mufti's remarks on Article 370 downgraded J&K Status, says PDP leader Muzaffar Baig

Ahead of the slated hearing in Supreme Court today, PDP leader Muzaffar Hussain Baig on Thursday took a dig at party chief Mehbooba Mufti over her remarks where she had linked holding the Indian flag to the scrapping of provisions of Article 370 and said such "statements resulted in downgrading Jammu and Kashmir from a state to Union Territory".  He was answering a query about Mehbooba Mufti's earlier remarks that no one will hold the tricolour in J&K if Article 370 is tampered with.

"Statements like that resulted in downgrading J&K from state to Union Territory. That did not help us. That should not have been made," he said. "My opinion is that if you want to talk about issues relating to people of Jammu and Kashmir, you will have to talk in a dignified and civilised manner. You can't achieve anything by coercing the Prime Minister, Home Minister or NSA," he said.

SC to hear plea filed by Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad

The court has listed for hearing the petition by Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad. When assked about his petition at a press conference earlier, Azad had said: “My petition is non-political. It is my personal petition and not on behalf of the Congress party… It is on humanitarian grounds. I have expressed a concern as a citizen of the state and as an MP from the state.”

“I tried to visit the state three times but was sent back, twice from Srinagar and once from Jammu. Approximately one third of our people are labourers. They are daily-wage earners… Nobody has paid attention to them. It has been 42 days (since restrictions have been imposed). Do they have food to eat?… nobody has bothered about their plight. So I am raising a humanitarian issue… it is a humanitarian question for the state government, Central government, media and the entire country….”

On abrogation of the special status, since many of his party colleagues had backed it, he said the matter was no more in the hands of political parties now that a law had been made and the Supreme Court will decide the matter.

SC to give verdict in matter by 10:30 am today

Centre claims no deaths had occurred, while reports state as many as 6 have died post scrapping of Article 370

On 21 November, the Centre had justified restrictions imposed in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of provisions of Article 370 and said that due to the preventive steps taken, neither a single life was lost nor a single bullet fired.

What do the pleas state?

The petitioners in their pleas have challenged the restrictions imposed in the Union territory in Jammu and Kashmir. They said that the restrictions had thrown life out of gear in the region and affected all sections of people, including farmers and daily wagers. They also questioned the curbs on internet and mobile communication and said this had a crippling effect on the lives of people.

Who are the petitioners in this case?

A bench of Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai had reserved its decision in the matter on November 27, 2019. The court will decide petitions, including those by Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad and Kashmir Times Executive Editor Anuradha Bhasin.

Recap: Petitioners argue restrictions imposed in UT are 'unreasonable'

The petitioners argued that the restrictions were unreasonable and that the long duration of curbs could only be invoked by declaring an emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution. However, the Centre and the Jammu and Kashmir administration justified the restrictions by saying that they were necessary in the interests of national security.

Recap: Centre, J&K administration suppressed orders related to communication blockade in Valley

Back in October last year, the Centre and the Jammu and Kashmir administration had "suppressed" from the Supreme Court the relevant orders and notifications related to communications shutdown and internet blockade in the Valley, a senior journalist has alleged.

Executive editor of Kashmir Times Anuradha Bhasin, who has filed a petition in the apex court on the restrictions imposed by the authorities following the abrogation of provisions of Article 370 on 5 August, said this in her rejoinder affidavit.

She said the Centre had also suppressed such orders and not placed them before the court. "The respondent nos. 1 and 2 (Centre and Jammu and Kashmir) have not placed any such orders before this court and suppressed the said orders in its affidavit," Bhasin said in her counter-affidavit.

Three members bench to hear matter today

The Supreme Court will hear a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370, which gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. On 11 December, the bench of Justices NV Ramana, SK Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant had deferred the hearing in the matter until January 2020.

Apex court to give verdict on pleas challenging restrictions in J&K

Supreme Court will today deliver its verdict on pleas against restrictions imposed in Kashmir post abrogation of Article 370. A bench of Justice NV Ramana, Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice BR Gavai had earlier reserved the verdict on 27 November 2019.