In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review all orders of restrictions imposed in Jammu and Kashmir post the abrogation of the state’s special status within a week.

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review all orders of restrictions imposed in Jammu and Kashmir post the abrogation of the state’s special status within a week.
The Court observed that indefinite suspension of internet is not permissible and that repeated orders under Section 144 CrPC will amount to abuse of power. The Court also added that the Government should publish all orders of restrictions, and should follow the principles of proportionality to adopt less restrictive measures.
The bench started by saying that the Court has not delved into the political intent behind the prohibitory orders.
“Our limited concern is to find a balance regarding security and liberty of people. We only here to ensure citizens are provided their rights. We will not delve into the political intent behind the orders given”, Justice Ramana read out from the judgment.
“Kashmir has seen a lot of violence. We will try our best to balance the human rights and freedoms with the issue of security”, the Court added.
The highlights from the judgment :
Freedom of speech and expression includes right to internet within Art 19.
The restrictions on internet has to follow the principles of proportionality under Article 19(2)
Suspension of internet for indefinite period not permissible. It can only be for a reasonable duration and periodic review should be done.
Government cannot withhold from Court the orders of prohibition unless privilege is claimed.
Prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC cannot be imposed to crackdown dissent.
While passing orders under Section 144 CrPC, Magistrate has to balance interests of individual rights and concerns of state.
The internet shutdown in Kashmir has crossed 150 days, which is reportedly the longest ever in a democracy.
On November 27, a three judges bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai had reserved judgment on a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of Kashmir lockdown, which was imposed in the wake of abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir on August 5 last year.


The Court had heard the petitions filed by Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, Congress Rajya Sabha MP Ghulam Nabi Azad and few intervenors.

The petitioners mainly argued that the restrictions on the liberties of citizens under Article 19 failed to satisfy the tests of reasonableness and proportionality as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case on right to privacy.

Also, restrictions of such a wide scale for a period spanning over three months can be invoked only by declaring an emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution. Such restrictions cannot be imposed through orders of District Magistrates under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A declaration of emergency under Article 352 will be subjected to periodic review of the Parliament, and that way possibilities of abuse could be checked, argued the petitioners.

The restrictions have virtually paralyzed the lives of 7 million people; their daily lives have been impacted. Education, medical care, business, agriculture, tourism etc, have taken a bad hit due to the lockdown of the state, submitted the petitioners.

Advocate Vrinda Grover (for Bhasin), Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Azad), Senior Advocates Huzefa Ahmadi and Dushyant Dave (for intervenors) submitted arguments for petitioners.

The Central Government and J&K Administration, represented by the Attorney General and Solicitor General respectively, submitted that the restrictions were necessary in the interests of national security. It was submitted that internet ban is necessary to cut-off the co-ordination amongst militants. The restrictions have ensured that the “historic decision” of the Government to revoke the special status of the state was implemented without any bloodshed, the state argued.
(Story to be updated after receiving judgment)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME