This order from the Supreme Court of India considers three petitions challenging internet restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir imposed by the government. The petitioners argue that the restrictions violate rights to health, education, business and free speech during the COVID-19 pandemic. The government responds that national security concerns require the restrictions to prevent terrorism and spread of misinformation. The Court acknowledges the need to balance civil liberties and national security, and notes steps taken by the government to provide information during the pandemic through other means. It reserves its judgment on the appropriate balancing of these issues in Jammu and Kashmir's circumstances.
Citizens and rights groups demand that the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill 2019 not be passed by Parliament. The bill allows extensive collection and storage of DNA profiles from a wide range of individuals for various purposes. However, it provides inadequate privacy protections and could be misused to target dissenting voices or vulnerable groups. There are also concerns about the accuracy of DNA evidence and informed consent protections. If passed, the bill would violate individuals' fundamental rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and protection against self-incrimination.
This document summarizes an order from the Supreme Court of India regarding its suo motu writ petition on the distribution of essential supplies and services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The order provides context on the case, outlines relevant sections of the Disaster Management Act of 2005, and discusses the Court's directions to the central and state governments to submit additional affidavits on issues like oxygen availability, medical infrastructure, vaccines, and essential drugs. The Court aims to facilitate dialogue between stakeholders within a human rights framework, while clarifying it does not intend to usurp executive/legislative roles.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Orissa regarding two recent incidents where sanitation workers died while manually cleaning sewers and septic tanks in Bhubaneswar and Cuttack, Odisha. The court notes that such deaths continue in violation of national laws banning manual scavenging. It orders compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the families of the deceased workers in both incidents. It also notices relevant state agencies to examine applying provisions of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act and to ensure all legal provisions and Supreme Court directives on safety equipment and working conditions for sanitation workers are properly implemented.
The document discusses two writ petitions challenging certain rules under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Specifically, it challenges Rules 3, 7, and 9 on the grounds that they infringe on freedom of speech and media independence. The court notes that Rule 9 has already been stayed by the Bombay High Court. It orders that any actions taken under Rules 3 and 7 will abide by the result of the present petitions and further court orders. The matters are listed to be heard again in late October.
This document is a court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by human rights advocate Nandita Haksar on behalf of 7 Myanmarese citizens who fled to India after the military coup in Myanmar in 2021. The petition seeks permission for the 7 individuals to travel to New Delhi to seek protection from the UNHCR. While the individuals entered India illegally without documents, the court recognizes that they meet the definition of "refugees" rather than "migrants" given the circumstances compelling them to flee Myanmar. The court rules that India is obligated under international law and its own constitution to respect the right of non-refoulement and protect the life and liberty of all individuals within its borders. Therefore, it
The Supreme Court of India heard two writ petitions seeking directions to provide ex gratia compensation of Rs. 4 lacs to the families of those who died from Covid-19, in accordance with Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The petitioners argued that Covid-19 has been declared a notified disaster, therefore Section 12 mandates guidelines for relief, including ex gratia payments for loss of life. The Union of India argued that Covid-19 is a continuous disaster not originally envisioned under the Act, and fiscal constraints prevent providing compensation to all Covid-19 deceased families. The Court considered the arguments on both sides regarding the interpretation of Section 12 and the government's obligations.
This document summarizes a case before the Supreme Court of India regarding petitions filed concerning allegations that the Indian government used spyware to surveil its citizens. It provides background on the spyware called Pegasus and reports that it was used to hack phones. It notes that while the government denies the allegations, several petitioners are seeking an independent investigation, including some who claim their phones were directly hacked. The court will hold further hearings to examine the evidence and issues raised.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria examined the provisions of the Evidence Act 2011 regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence in the case of Kubor v Dickson. The Court established that for electronically generated documents to be admissible, the party seeking to tender them as evidence must satisfy the four conditions listed in Section 84(2) of the Act. These conditions require showing that the computer was operating properly, the information was supplied in the ordinary course of business, and a certificate identifying the document and describing its production is filed. The decision underscores that while electronic evidence is now recognized in Nigeria, the specific provisions of Section 84 must be met for such evidence to be admitted in court proceedings.
Citizens and rights groups demand that the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill 2019 not be passed by Parliament. The bill allows extensive collection and storage of DNA profiles from a wide range of individuals for various purposes. However, it provides inadequate privacy protections and could be misused to target dissenting voices or vulnerable groups. There are also concerns about the accuracy of DNA evidence and informed consent protections. If passed, the bill would violate individuals' fundamental rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and protection against self-incrimination.
This document summarizes an order from the Supreme Court of India regarding its suo motu writ petition on the distribution of essential supplies and services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The order provides context on the case, outlines relevant sections of the Disaster Management Act of 2005, and discusses the Court's directions to the central and state governments to submit additional affidavits on issues like oxygen availability, medical infrastructure, vaccines, and essential drugs. The Court aims to facilitate dialogue between stakeholders within a human rights framework, while clarifying it does not intend to usurp executive/legislative roles.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Orissa regarding two recent incidents where sanitation workers died while manually cleaning sewers and septic tanks in Bhubaneswar and Cuttack, Odisha. The court notes that such deaths continue in violation of national laws banning manual scavenging. It orders compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the families of the deceased workers in both incidents. It also notices relevant state agencies to examine applying provisions of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act and to ensure all legal provisions and Supreme Court directives on safety equipment and working conditions for sanitation workers are properly implemented.
The document discusses two writ petitions challenging certain rules under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Specifically, it challenges Rules 3, 7, and 9 on the grounds that they infringe on freedom of speech and media independence. The court notes that Rule 9 has already been stayed by the Bombay High Court. It orders that any actions taken under Rules 3 and 7 will abide by the result of the present petitions and further court orders. The matters are listed to be heard again in late October.
This document is a court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by human rights advocate Nandita Haksar on behalf of 7 Myanmarese citizens who fled to India after the military coup in Myanmar in 2021. The petition seeks permission for the 7 individuals to travel to New Delhi to seek protection from the UNHCR. While the individuals entered India illegally without documents, the court recognizes that they meet the definition of "refugees" rather than "migrants" given the circumstances compelling them to flee Myanmar. The court rules that India is obligated under international law and its own constitution to respect the right of non-refoulement and protect the life and liberty of all individuals within its borders. Therefore, it
The Supreme Court of India heard two writ petitions seeking directions to provide ex gratia compensation of Rs. 4 lacs to the families of those who died from Covid-19, in accordance with Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The petitioners argued that Covid-19 has been declared a notified disaster, therefore Section 12 mandates guidelines for relief, including ex gratia payments for loss of life. The Union of India argued that Covid-19 is a continuous disaster not originally envisioned under the Act, and fiscal constraints prevent providing compensation to all Covid-19 deceased families. The Court considered the arguments on both sides regarding the interpretation of Section 12 and the government's obligations.
This document summarizes a case before the Supreme Court of India regarding petitions filed concerning allegations that the Indian government used spyware to surveil its citizens. It provides background on the spyware called Pegasus and reports that it was used to hack phones. It notes that while the government denies the allegations, several petitioners are seeking an independent investigation, including some who claim their phones were directly hacked. The court will hold further hearings to examine the evidence and issues raised.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria examined the provisions of the Evidence Act 2011 regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence in the case of Kubor v Dickson. The Court established that for electronically generated documents to be admissible, the party seeking to tender them as evidence must satisfy the four conditions listed in Section 84(2) of the Act. These conditions require showing that the computer was operating properly, the information was supplied in the ordinary course of business, and a certificate identifying the document and describing its production is filed. The decision underscores that while electronic evidence is now recognized in Nigeria, the specific provisions of Section 84 must be met for such evidence to be admitted in court proceedings.
Dimensions of online arbitration in India - Chenoy CeilChenoy Ceil
This document discusses online arbitration in India. It notes that online arbitration combines traditional arbitration with technology and allows proceedings to occur virtually. While offering benefits like speed and access, online arbitration also faces challenges in India like lack of digital infrastructure and acceptance. For online arbitration to succeed in India, efforts are needed to improve technology, provide training, and build trust in the online dispute resolution process. Overall, the document argues that online arbitration could help reduce India's backlog of court cases if the country advances its digital capabilities and online arbitration framework.
This document is a project report submitted by a student to their professor on the topic of the right to privacy in India. It provides an introduction to privacy rights and concerns over personal data protection. It then summarizes the status of privacy rights in the Indian constitution and legal system, including key court cases. It also discusses international developments regarding privacy protections from the UN, OECD, and European Union. The report concludes that while privacy is recognized judicially in India, comprehensive privacy legislation is still needed.
This document is a high court order regarding a writ petition filed by three widows seeking compensation for the death of their husbands who were manual scavengers. The court notes that manual scavenging is prohibited by law and those engaged in it are entitled to rehabilitation. It discusses the relevant laws and state government policies on compensation. While the state argues the developer and contractor should pay, the court observes the state also holds responsibility. It directs the government lawyer to immediately pay interim compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 to each petitioner, while holding all respondents including the housing society responsible for fully paying the mandated Rs. 10 lakhs compensation per petitioner.
The document analyzes the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India. It provides background on the interpretation of personal liberty under Article 21 prior to this case. The case involved the impounding of Maneka Gandhi's passport by the government under the Passports Act. The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21, holding that any law depriving personal liberty must satisfy due process and be tested against Articles 19 and 14 as well. This established that personal liberty is a broad concept that includes various fundamental rights, and that the procedure for depriving it must be fair, just and not arbitrary. The case widened the interpretation of personal liberty and its relationship with other constitutional rights.
This document is a high court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by Babbar Khan challenging his detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. The key details are:
1) Babbar Khan claimed the detention order violated his constitutional rights and was based on false FIRs. However, the court found the detaining authority had provided Khan with copies of the detention order and grounds in Urdu and informed him of his right to make representations.
2) While personal liberty is a fundamental right, preventive detention is allowed under Article 22(5) to prevent threats to public order. The goal is to prevent future harm, not punish past actions.
3) The court dismissed Khan's petition
The petitioner, a member of the Indian Administrative Service in Tamil Nadu, was passed over for the position of Chief Secretary in favor of a junior officer. He challenged this as a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, arguing it was arbitrary and affected his career prospects. While the court unanimously rejected the petition, one judge used this opportunity to interpret equality more broadly as prohibiting arbitrary state action, establishing it as a check against unreasonableness. This new interpretation laid the foundation for a more dynamic concept of equal protection in India.
The High Court of Delhi is hearing a petition related to COVID-19 management in Delhi. It notes the massive surge in COVID cases overwhelming healthcare systems. It directs private labs to provide test results within 48 hours instead of 24. It orders the central government to increase daily oxygen supply to Delhi from 300MT to 700MT. It also directs a private company to resume supplying 140MT of oxygen daily to Delhi hospitals. The court orders affidavits on hospital bed capacity and utilization. It directs Delhi government to use funds to provide food and supplies to construction workers impacted by the lockdown. The matter will be heard again the next day.
The document summarizes two petitions filed by Dalbir seeking regular bail in two FIRs registered against him for speeches alleged to have objectionable content against the Chief Minister of Haryana. The court granted bail to Dalbir subject to furnishing a surety of Rs. 2 lakhs in each case, noting that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, the investigation in both cases is complete, and conclusion of trial will take time. However, the state can seek cancellation of bail if Dalbir is found to misuse the bail granted.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union Of India and Impact on GovernanceBibhu Manik
The Maneka Gandhi case established important precedents that expanded fundamental rights and judicial review in India. It ruled that the Passport Act allowing the impounding of Maneka Gandhi's passport without due process was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court broadened the scope of personal liberty under Article 21, established that any law depriving liberty must conform with Articles 14, 19 and 21, and introduced the principles of natural justice and due process into Indian law. This landmark case expanded judicial activism and paved the way for the development of public interest litigation in India.
The petitioner is seeking to quash an FIR registered against her for a tweet she posted on Twitter on April 14, 2020. In the tweet, the petitioner reposted a video from a religious gathering where one member of the crowd blamed the Prime Minister of India for the Covid-19 outbreak. The police registered an FIR against the petitioner under Section 153A of the IPC for intentionally promoting enmity between religious groups. The petitioner's counsel argued that the tweet did not promote enmity between two religious communities and was merely criticizing the views of one member of the crowd. The counsel also argued that the petitioner was not the creator of the original video and her tweet did not incite violence. The state counsel argued the
This document is the summary of a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding two writ petitions filed challenging communication restrictions imposed in Jammu and Kashmir.
The court noted the conflicting accounts presented to it regarding the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. It aimed to balance liberty and security concerns to secure citizens' right to life. While the government claimed national security justified restrictions, petitioners argued they violated rights and freedoms.
The court recounted the history of events in Jammu and Kashmir and the constitutional changes made. It also summarized the orders passed in related hearings, including allowing one petitioner restricted access to the region. The government refused to share some restriction orders with petitioners, citing privilege, but agreed to submit them
The document describes the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, which was established under the Information Technology Act 2000. It has jurisdiction over appeals of orders made by controllers or adjudicating officers. The tribunal consists of a single presiding officer, who must be qualified as a high court judge or have sufficient experience in the Indian Legal Service. It has the power to regulate its own procedures and also has powers equivalent to civil courts to summon parties, require discovery, and review decisions. The purpose is to provide a forum for aggrieved parties to appeal orders made under the Information Technology Act.
On 16th December, 2012 a young lady (23 years in age) and her friend were returning home after watching a movie in a multiplex located in one of the glittering malls of Delhi. They boarded a bus to undertake a part of the journey back home. While the bus was moving, 5 persons brutally assaulted the young lady, sexually and physically, and also her friend. Both of them were thrown out of the bus. The young lady succumbed to her injuries on 29.12.2012.
HAQ: Center for Child Rights
B1/2, Ground Floor,
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi - 110017
Tel: +91-26677412,26673599
Fax: +91-26674688
Website: www.haqcrc.org
FaceBook Page: https://www.facebook.com/HaqCentreForChildRights
The court ordered the State Government to expedite the submission of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory in a case involving 5 accused where 4 have been apprehended and 1 is absconding. The court directed further reports on the investigation and Forensic Science Laboratory report to be submitted on March 1st in a sealed envelope. The court also directed the State Government to consider issuing directions to local authorities and agencies to comply with rules prohibiting manual scavenging and ensure contractor compliance. The State Government's response is also to be submitted by March 1st.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
Mp hc wp 12166 2021_final_order_06-sep-2021sabrangsabrang
The petitioner challenged his detention order on the grounds that it did not mention his right to make a representation against the order to the District Magistrate who issued the order, violating his rights under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. The court referred to previous judgments which held that not informing a detainee of their right to make a representation to the detaining authority infringes on their Article 22 rights and renders the detention illegal. As the respondent admitted the detention order did not contain this stipulation, and in line with previous judgments, the court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner be released.
The legislator has filed the petition asking the JSC to instigate disciplinary measures against Chief Justice David Maraga following the Supreme Court's decision to nullify President Uhuru Kenyatta's election on August 8. The petition was filed by NASA leader Raila Odinga
This case involved a public interest litigation filed by M.C Mehta regarding pollution caused by a chemical factory. The factory was releasing toxic gases without proper safeguards, endangering public health. The Supreme Court found that the factory was violating various environmental laws and regulations. It ordered the factory to pay compensation to those affected by the pollution and to properly handle hazardous waste in accordance with the law to prevent future violations. The case strengthened environmental protection by establishing the polluter pays principle and setting precedents to curb industrial pollution for the benefit of public health.
With the profound sophistication of technologies throughout the globe, the nature of crimes has also been changed tremendously which redound to shifting from physical to virtual paradigm. Furthermore, this high-tech has also surplus the sphere of crimes to economic, social, political, even cultural arenas, mostly through the internet. In consequence, to cope up with such cyber threats, the efficacy of electronic surveillance has been intensifying ostentatiously over the last two decades, predominantly in the west. Malaysia too has introduced such modern technology of e-surveillance owing to ensure security in both national and transnational levels by the adoptions of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) 2012 and the Prevention of Crime Act (PCA) 2014. However, such enactments have raised a new controversy by allowing police to impose electronic monitoring devices as well as other types of technologically-aided surveillance over the arrested or suspected crime offender’s body. All these maneuvers undoubtedly intersect the very basic notion of individuals’ data privacy and freedom of liberty which are shielded by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to some extent. With latest legislative and judicial supports on the right to data privacy of the citizens of Malaysia, the question now emerge on whether this trend will be short-lived by the newly passed security laws such as the SOSMA 2012 and PCA 2014 which empower electronic surveillance to the law enforcements? The purpose of the author is to delineate the application of e-surveillance in Malaysia under these security related enactments and find the loopholes in implementing such legislations. Data from journals and books have taken into consideration to dissect these conceptions. It also have cogitated some prominent decisions of the judges throughout the world to enlighten this literature.
The court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners who were accused of protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. The court found that while the petitioners' protest was unlawful for lacking proper permission, it was a peaceful protest and no criminal acts occurred. Further, witness statements did not properly identify the petitioners as being involved. Prior court rulings established the right to peaceful protest. Thus, the court concluded there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioners and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
Globally remove links of video defaming Ramdev, Delhi HC directs Facebook, Go...sabrangsabrang
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Delhi regarding a defamation case filed by Swami Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. against Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter and others ("Platforms"). The Plaintiffs allege that defamatory content about them from a book was disseminated on the Platforms and sought an injunction. The court had earlier directed the Platforms to remove the URLs for access in India but not globally. In this judgment, the court considers arguments for and against globally blocking the URLs and content. The Plaintiffs argue for a global block, while the Platforms argue they should not be obligated to implement court orders globally. The court examines the relevant laws and precedents
Dimensions of online arbitration in India - Chenoy CeilChenoy Ceil
This document discusses online arbitration in India. It notes that online arbitration combines traditional arbitration with technology and allows proceedings to occur virtually. While offering benefits like speed and access, online arbitration also faces challenges in India like lack of digital infrastructure and acceptance. For online arbitration to succeed in India, efforts are needed to improve technology, provide training, and build trust in the online dispute resolution process. Overall, the document argues that online arbitration could help reduce India's backlog of court cases if the country advances its digital capabilities and online arbitration framework.
This document is a project report submitted by a student to their professor on the topic of the right to privacy in India. It provides an introduction to privacy rights and concerns over personal data protection. It then summarizes the status of privacy rights in the Indian constitution and legal system, including key court cases. It also discusses international developments regarding privacy protections from the UN, OECD, and European Union. The report concludes that while privacy is recognized judicially in India, comprehensive privacy legislation is still needed.
This document is a high court order regarding a writ petition filed by three widows seeking compensation for the death of their husbands who were manual scavengers. The court notes that manual scavenging is prohibited by law and those engaged in it are entitled to rehabilitation. It discusses the relevant laws and state government policies on compensation. While the state argues the developer and contractor should pay, the court observes the state also holds responsibility. It directs the government lawyer to immediately pay interim compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 to each petitioner, while holding all respondents including the housing society responsible for fully paying the mandated Rs. 10 lakhs compensation per petitioner.
The document analyzes the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India. It provides background on the interpretation of personal liberty under Article 21 prior to this case. The case involved the impounding of Maneka Gandhi's passport by the government under the Passports Act. The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21, holding that any law depriving personal liberty must satisfy due process and be tested against Articles 19 and 14 as well. This established that personal liberty is a broad concept that includes various fundamental rights, and that the procedure for depriving it must be fair, just and not arbitrary. The case widened the interpretation of personal liberty and its relationship with other constitutional rights.
This document is a high court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by Babbar Khan challenging his detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. The key details are:
1) Babbar Khan claimed the detention order violated his constitutional rights and was based on false FIRs. However, the court found the detaining authority had provided Khan with copies of the detention order and grounds in Urdu and informed him of his right to make representations.
2) While personal liberty is a fundamental right, preventive detention is allowed under Article 22(5) to prevent threats to public order. The goal is to prevent future harm, not punish past actions.
3) The court dismissed Khan's petition
The petitioner, a member of the Indian Administrative Service in Tamil Nadu, was passed over for the position of Chief Secretary in favor of a junior officer. He challenged this as a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, arguing it was arbitrary and affected his career prospects. While the court unanimously rejected the petition, one judge used this opportunity to interpret equality more broadly as prohibiting arbitrary state action, establishing it as a check against unreasonableness. This new interpretation laid the foundation for a more dynamic concept of equal protection in India.
The High Court of Delhi is hearing a petition related to COVID-19 management in Delhi. It notes the massive surge in COVID cases overwhelming healthcare systems. It directs private labs to provide test results within 48 hours instead of 24. It orders the central government to increase daily oxygen supply to Delhi from 300MT to 700MT. It also directs a private company to resume supplying 140MT of oxygen daily to Delhi hospitals. The court orders affidavits on hospital bed capacity and utilization. It directs Delhi government to use funds to provide food and supplies to construction workers impacted by the lockdown. The matter will be heard again the next day.
The document summarizes two petitions filed by Dalbir seeking regular bail in two FIRs registered against him for speeches alleged to have objectionable content against the Chief Minister of Haryana. The court granted bail to Dalbir subject to furnishing a surety of Rs. 2 lakhs in each case, noting that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, the investigation in both cases is complete, and conclusion of trial will take time. However, the state can seek cancellation of bail if Dalbir is found to misuse the bail granted.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union Of India and Impact on GovernanceBibhu Manik
The Maneka Gandhi case established important precedents that expanded fundamental rights and judicial review in India. It ruled that the Passport Act allowing the impounding of Maneka Gandhi's passport without due process was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court broadened the scope of personal liberty under Article 21, established that any law depriving liberty must conform with Articles 14, 19 and 21, and introduced the principles of natural justice and due process into Indian law. This landmark case expanded judicial activism and paved the way for the development of public interest litigation in India.
The petitioner is seeking to quash an FIR registered against her for a tweet she posted on Twitter on April 14, 2020. In the tweet, the petitioner reposted a video from a religious gathering where one member of the crowd blamed the Prime Minister of India for the Covid-19 outbreak. The police registered an FIR against the petitioner under Section 153A of the IPC for intentionally promoting enmity between religious groups. The petitioner's counsel argued that the tweet did not promote enmity between two religious communities and was merely criticizing the views of one member of the crowd. The counsel also argued that the petitioner was not the creator of the original video and her tweet did not incite violence. The state counsel argued the
This document is the summary of a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding two writ petitions filed challenging communication restrictions imposed in Jammu and Kashmir.
The court noted the conflicting accounts presented to it regarding the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. It aimed to balance liberty and security concerns to secure citizens' right to life. While the government claimed national security justified restrictions, petitioners argued they violated rights and freedoms.
The court recounted the history of events in Jammu and Kashmir and the constitutional changes made. It also summarized the orders passed in related hearings, including allowing one petitioner restricted access to the region. The government refused to share some restriction orders with petitioners, citing privilege, but agreed to submit them
The document describes the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, which was established under the Information Technology Act 2000. It has jurisdiction over appeals of orders made by controllers or adjudicating officers. The tribunal consists of a single presiding officer, who must be qualified as a high court judge or have sufficient experience in the Indian Legal Service. It has the power to regulate its own procedures and also has powers equivalent to civil courts to summon parties, require discovery, and review decisions. The purpose is to provide a forum for aggrieved parties to appeal orders made under the Information Technology Act.
On 16th December, 2012 a young lady (23 years in age) and her friend were returning home after watching a movie in a multiplex located in one of the glittering malls of Delhi. They boarded a bus to undertake a part of the journey back home. While the bus was moving, 5 persons brutally assaulted the young lady, sexually and physically, and also her friend. Both of them were thrown out of the bus. The young lady succumbed to her injuries on 29.12.2012.
HAQ: Center for Child Rights
B1/2, Ground Floor,
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi - 110017
Tel: +91-26677412,26673599
Fax: +91-26674688
Website: www.haqcrc.org
FaceBook Page: https://www.facebook.com/HaqCentreForChildRights
The court ordered the State Government to expedite the submission of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory in a case involving 5 accused where 4 have been apprehended and 1 is absconding. The court directed further reports on the investigation and Forensic Science Laboratory report to be submitted on March 1st in a sealed envelope. The court also directed the State Government to consider issuing directions to local authorities and agencies to comply with rules prohibiting manual scavenging and ensure contractor compliance. The State Government's response is also to be submitted by March 1st.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
Mp hc wp 12166 2021_final_order_06-sep-2021sabrangsabrang
The petitioner challenged his detention order on the grounds that it did not mention his right to make a representation against the order to the District Magistrate who issued the order, violating his rights under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. The court referred to previous judgments which held that not informing a detainee of their right to make a representation to the detaining authority infringes on their Article 22 rights and renders the detention illegal. As the respondent admitted the detention order did not contain this stipulation, and in line with previous judgments, the court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner be released.
The legislator has filed the petition asking the JSC to instigate disciplinary measures against Chief Justice David Maraga following the Supreme Court's decision to nullify President Uhuru Kenyatta's election on August 8. The petition was filed by NASA leader Raila Odinga
This case involved a public interest litigation filed by M.C Mehta regarding pollution caused by a chemical factory. The factory was releasing toxic gases without proper safeguards, endangering public health. The Supreme Court found that the factory was violating various environmental laws and regulations. It ordered the factory to pay compensation to those affected by the pollution and to properly handle hazardous waste in accordance with the law to prevent future violations. The case strengthened environmental protection by establishing the polluter pays principle and setting precedents to curb industrial pollution for the benefit of public health.
With the profound sophistication of technologies throughout the globe, the nature of crimes has also been changed tremendously which redound to shifting from physical to virtual paradigm. Furthermore, this high-tech has also surplus the sphere of crimes to economic, social, political, even cultural arenas, mostly through the internet. In consequence, to cope up with such cyber threats, the efficacy of electronic surveillance has been intensifying ostentatiously over the last two decades, predominantly in the west. Malaysia too has introduced such modern technology of e-surveillance owing to ensure security in both national and transnational levels by the adoptions of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) 2012 and the Prevention of Crime Act (PCA) 2014. However, such enactments have raised a new controversy by allowing police to impose electronic monitoring devices as well as other types of technologically-aided surveillance over the arrested or suspected crime offender’s body. All these maneuvers undoubtedly intersect the very basic notion of individuals’ data privacy and freedom of liberty which are shielded by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to some extent. With latest legislative and judicial supports on the right to data privacy of the citizens of Malaysia, the question now emerge on whether this trend will be short-lived by the newly passed security laws such as the SOSMA 2012 and PCA 2014 which empower electronic surveillance to the law enforcements? The purpose of the author is to delineate the application of e-surveillance in Malaysia under these security related enactments and find the loopholes in implementing such legislations. Data from journals and books have taken into consideration to dissect these conceptions. It also have cogitated some prominent decisions of the judges throughout the world to enlighten this literature.
The court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners who were accused of protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. The court found that while the petitioners' protest was unlawful for lacking proper permission, it was a peaceful protest and no criminal acts occurred. Further, witness statements did not properly identify the petitioners as being involved. Prior court rulings established the right to peaceful protest. Thus, the court concluded there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioners and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
Globally remove links of video defaming Ramdev, Delhi HC directs Facebook, Go...sabrangsabrang
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Delhi regarding a defamation case filed by Swami Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. against Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter and others ("Platforms"). The Plaintiffs allege that defamatory content about them from a book was disseminated on the Platforms and sought an injunction. The court had earlier directed the Platforms to remove the URLs for access in India but not globally. In this judgment, the court considers arguments for and against globally blocking the URLs and content. The Plaintiffs argue for a global block, while the Platforms argue they should not be obligated to implement court orders globally. The court examines the relevant laws and precedents
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd waSeth Row
This order addresses National Union Fire Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment regarding its duties to defend and indemnify Redbox Automated Retail in various lawsuits. The court grants in part and denies in part the motion. Specifically, the court finds that National Union has a duty to defend Redbox in the Cain lawsuit, which alleges violations of Michigan's video rental privacy law, but not in the Mehrens lawsuit, which alleges violations of California's credit card receipt law. The court also finds that while National Union may issue reservations of rights and set reasonable rate caps when defending insureds, it must do so reasonably and in good faith.
SC order dated 11.05.2022- Sedition case.pdfsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offense of sedition. In its order, the Court noted the Union of India's agreement that the sedition law is not in tune with the current social climate. As such, the Court directed that the central and state governments refrain from using Section 124A while it is being reconsidered. The Court also kept pending sedition cases and trials in abeyance until further orders.
The judge dismissed the appellants' application to set aside a default judgment entered against them for failing to file their defence on time. The judge found that the appellants did not provide a good explanation for the delay as required. The appellants appealed, arguing that: (1) the judge applied the wrong legal test in assessing the reasons for delay; (2) the evidence disclosed a good reason for the delay; and (3) the judge failed to properly consider their extension of time application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the judge applied the correct legal test and his decision was unimpeachable.
This document summarizes three petitions heard by the Patna High Court regarding the right to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bihar, India. It discusses the constitutional right to health and life under Article 21 and the state's duty to provide medical infrastructure and treatment. It notes the massive surge in COVID cases in Bihar in 2021 and orders the state to take steps to improve oxygen supply and healthcare infrastructure to treat patients.
Popat and kotecha_property_vs_state_bank_of_india_staff_..._on_29_august,_2005chithra venkatesan
This document is a Supreme Court of India case summary from 2005 regarding a property dispute between Popat and Kotecha Property and the State Bank of India Staff Association. The key details are:
1) Popat and Kotecha Property built a property for the State Bank of India Staff Association in 1983 per an agreement. The agreement stated Popat would receive a lease for certain floors once construction was complete.
2) Construction finished in 1984 but the lease was never executed. Popat sued in 1990 seeking execution of the lease or damages.
3) The trial court dismissed a motion to reject the suit as barred by limitation period but the High Court overturned this, finding the suit was outside the limitation period.
The document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging an order by a Special Court dismissing the NIA's application to extend the period of investigation and judicial remand of accused Akhil Gogoi.
The High Court notes two key issues - whether the appeal is maintainable and whether the Special Court's order rejecting the extension was proper. The Court admits the appeal, finding the order may substantially affect the NIA's investigation rights unlike a previous case. It will conduct a deeper consideration of whether the Prosecutor's report supported allowing more time for investigation.
The petition challenges certain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as amended, on the grounds that they violate fundamental rights under the Constitution. Specifically, the petition challenges the 2019 amendment which arbitrarily classifies "terrorists" without basis in law. It also challenges the near-impossibility of obtaining bail under Section 43D(5) as inserted in 2008, which denies bail if a prima facie case is established. The petition argues these provisions allow arbitrary exercise of power, prevent individuals from challenging bad faith prosecutions, and violate rights to life and liberty. The petition seeks to strike down or read down these provisions.
1) The petitioner filed a PIL seeking directions to ensure the rights and welfare of sanitation workers in Delhi are protected.
2) The court examined responses from the relevant commissions and government bodies, and found that protections like PPE, masks, gloves and training were being provided to sanitation workers.
3) The court directed the Delhi government to strictly follow legal provisions protecting sanitation workers and to take action on recommendations of the Delhi Commission for Safai Karamcharis within 60 days.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition to quash an FIR registered against him for conducting a peaceful protest against the CAA and NRC amendments. While the court acknowledged that there were grounds to register the FIR for public nuisance and traffic interference, it ruled that continuing the prosecution was not warranted since no violence or untoward incidents occurred. Noting that peaceful protests had been seen across India against the amendments, the court quashed the FIR and allowed the petition, with the benefit also applying to other non-petitioning accused in the case.
The Chief Justice heard arguments from the State regarding a public interest litigation concerning banners placed in Lucknow with personal details of over 50 individuals accused of vandalism.
The State argued the Court did not have jurisdiction and the banners served the public interest of deterring unlawful behavior. However, the Court found no law permitted disclosing personal details and this violated privacy rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
While the State can maintain law and order, it cannot violate fundamental rights. The banners interfered with privacy without statutory backing. Privacy is a fundamental right in India, recognized globally and integral to human dignity. Therefore, the Court ruled the banners must be removed.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Shrivastava against the Central Information Commission. Some key points:
1) The petitioner filed an RTI application seeking information about a case registered against him by CBI and related departmental proceedings.
2) The CIC rejected the appeal citing an exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which allows withholding information that could impede an investigation.
3) The court dismisses the writ petition, noting the petitioner failed to disclose serious allegations and criminal proceedings against him in the petition. The court also finds the CIC order was correctly decided and Section 8(
Allah hc order mohd. faizan v. state of up sabrangsabrang
This document summarizes a court case in India challenging a show-cause notice issued to deposit damages for public property. The petitioner's counsel argued the notice violated Supreme Court guidelines requiring an independent claims commissioner to investigate liability. While the respondent cited a pending Supreme Court case, the court ruled the notice's authority was also being challenged in that case. It stayed the notice's effect until the Supreme Court makes a determination and the petitioner agreed to abide by the Supreme Court's final order.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to quash an FIR registered against him and others for conducting a peaceful demonstration against the CAA and NRC amendments. While there was prima facie evidence for an FIR, the court noted that no untoward incidents occurred during the peaceful protest. Since continued prosecution was not warranted given the lack of violence, the court quashed the FIR to secure the ends of justice, with the benefit also applying to the non-petitioning accused mentioned in the FIR.
The court document summarizes a writ petition filed by Rajesh Singh and others seeking to quash an FIR registered against them under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The state conceded that the FIR could not be registered under the invalid section. Noting repeated instances of FIRs still being registered under the unconstitutional section despite Supreme Court orders, the court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioners in this case. The court also directed circulation of the Supreme Court judgment invalidating Section 66A to address continued non-compliance with the ruling.
Umar Khalid RBR18102022CRLA1732022_143522.pdfsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes a court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Umar Khalid seeking bail in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The trial court had previously rejected Khalid's bail application, finding the charges against him to be prima facie true. In this appeal judgment, the court discusses the background of the case, the charges against Khalid, arguments made by both sides, and inconsistencies claimed in witness statements by Khalid's lawyer. The court will consider whether the trial court order rejecting bail was correct or if bail should now be granted to Khalid.
Previous judgments walking down the lane to 2021kashishworld
This document summarizes 11 previous judgments related to intellectual property law in India from 2021. Key cases included: 1) The Delhi High Court case on copyright of sound recordings and underlying works. 2) The Delhi High Court granting an anti-anti-suit injunction in a patent dispute. 3) The Delhi High Court case on post-mortem personality rights of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
- The complainant filed an RTI application seeking information about the creation of India's Aarogya Setu contact tracing app, including documents related to its proposal, approval, development, and use of personal data.
- However, the CPIOs from the National E-Governance Division (NEGD) and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) did not provide any information in response.
- During the hearing, the CPIOs were not able to explain where the relevant information could be accessed or how the app was created without their knowledge, suggesting an attempt to deny information. Considering the privacy issues and public interest in transparency around the app, the Commission did not accept the denial of information
Food safety, prepare for the unexpected - So what can be done in order to be ready to address food safety, food Consumers, food producers and manufacturers, food transporters, food businesses, food retailers can ...
Bharat Mata - History of Indian culture.pdfBharat Mata
Bharat Mata Channel is an initiative towards keeping the culture of this country alive. Our effort is to spread the knowledge of Indian history, culture, religion and Vedas to the masses.
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
AHMR is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed online journal created to encourage and facilitate the study of all aspects (socio-economic, political, legislative and developmental) of Human Mobility in Africa. Through the publication of original research, policy discussions and evidence research papers AHMR provides a comprehensive forum devoted exclusively to the analysis of contemporaneous trends, migration patterns and some of the most important migration-related issues.
United Nations World Oceans Day 2024; June 8th " Awaken new dephts".Christina Parmionova
The program will expand our perspectives and appreciation for our blue planet, build new foundations for our relationship to the ocean, and ignite a wave of action toward necessary change.
Combined Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) Vessel List.Christina Parmionova
The best available, up-to-date information on all fishing and related vessels that appear on the illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing vessel lists published by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and related organisations. The aim of the site is to improve the effectiveness of the original IUU lists as a tool for a wide variety of stakeholders to better understand and combat illegal fishing and broader fisheries crime.
To date, the following regional organisations maintain or share lists of vessels that have been found to carry out or support IUU fishing within their own or adjacent convention areas and/or species of competence:
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO)
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)
North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC)
South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO)
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO)
Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)
The Combined IUU Fishing Vessel List merges all these sources into one list that provides a single reference point to identify whether a vessel is currently IUU listed. Vessels that have been IUU listed in the past and subsequently delisted (for example because of a change in ownership, or because the vessel is no longer in service) are also retained on the site, so that the site contains a full historic record of IUU listed fishing vessels.
Unlike the IUU lists published on individual RFMO websites, which may update vessel details infrequently or not at all, the Combined IUU Fishing Vessel List is kept up to date with the best available information regarding changes to vessel identity, flag state, ownership, location, and operations.
karnataka housing board schemes . all schemesnarinav14
The Karnataka government, along with the central government’s Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), offers various housing schemes to cater to the diverse needs of citizens across the state. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the major housing schemes available in the Karnataka housing board for both urban and rural areas in 2024.
2. O R D E R
1. Again, this Court is called upon to address a very important but a
sensitive issue on national security and human rights, wherein we
have to ensure that national security and human rights can be
reasonably and defensibly balanced, a responsibility, that this
Court takes with utmost seriousness.
2. This Court, vide its earlier judgment dated 10.01.2020 in
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) SCC Online SC 25,
gave certain directions regarding the imposition of restrictions on
the internet in a proportionate manner. The aforesaid case had, in
addition to the procedural rules, supplemented the requirements of
having timely review and the nonpermanence of internet
shutdown orders.
3. The three Petitioners before us are aggrieved by the fact that
Respondent No. 1 has restricted the mobile internet speed to 2G
and have approached this Court seeking 4G mobile internet, and
the quashing of the impugned orders restricting internet in the
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
2
3. 4. Broadly, the argument of the Petitioners is premised on the ground
that in the existing COVID19 situation, when there is a national
lockdown, the restrictions imposed on the residents of the entire
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir impacts their right to
health, right to education, right to business and right to freedom of
speech and expression.
5. They submit that access to internet acquires even more importance
under the prevailing circumstances in the country, relating to the
pandemic. The Petitioners contended that the fulfillment of the
right to health is dependent on the availability of effective and
speedy internet in order to access medical services and information
on containment strategies. The denial of such critical information
not only violates the peoples’ right to receive information, but is
also a denial of their right to health. Furthermore, the Petitioners
contend that restrictions on internet speed directly impacts the
students of Jammu and Kashmir to exercise their right to
education as they are unable to access to elearning services such
as online video classes, and other online educational content. This
not only impacts their continuing education, but also
disadvantages the students of Jammu and Kashmir who are
preparing for national/competitive exams. Petitioner in W.P. (C) D.
3
4. No. 10817 of 2020, has appended the affidavits of a journalist who
collected testimonies of doctors, teachers, students, journalists,
lawyers and business persons from the Union Territory, and of a
technical expert narrating importance of 4G internet, to support
the above submissions.
6. Moreover, the Petitioners have argued that the actions of
Respondent No. 1 are violative of the directions laid down by this
Court in Anuradha Bhasin (supra) as well as the Temporary
Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public
Safety) Rules, 2017 [“Telecom Suspension Rules”] as no Review
Committee has been constituted by the Respondent No. 1. Further,
the blanket orders passed by Respondent No. 1, indicates non
application of mind. Lastly, Respondent No. 1 has failed to provide
any rational nexus between the restriction of the internet speed
and national security. The Petitioners submitted that since the
introduction of internet in the Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir, the number of incidents relating to terrorism in the
region have actually reduced. Lastly, the Petitioners pleaded in the
alternative that if the Respondents apprehend the misuse of data
services, then they could consider restricting the internet only in
4
8. No. 1, taking into consideration the farreaching consequences of
the issues involved herein, we have considered the submissions of
both parties.
11. Heard both the parties, and perused the documents placed before
us.
12. At the outset, we have already laid down that the fundamental
rights of citizens need to be balanced with national security
concerns, when the situation so demands. This Court is cognizant
of the importance of these matters for the national security
concerns, and takes the same with utmost seriousness to ensure
that citizens enjoy life and liberty to the greatest possible extent.
National security concerns and human rights must be reasonably
and defensibly adjusted with one another, in line with the
constitutional principles. There is no doubt that the present
situation calls for a delicate balancing, looking to the peculiar
circumstances prevailing in the Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir. Before considering the relief sought by the Petitioners, it
is necessary to look at the steps taken by Respondent No. 1 after
the pronouncement of the earlier judgment of this Court in
Anuradha Bhasin (supra). For, convenience, the table below
8
9. indicates the orders which have been passed since 10.01.2020
(post Anuradha Bhasin (supra) judgment):
ORDER IMPLICATION
Home03 (TSTS) of
2020
14.01.2020
For Kashmir, fixed line connectivity to
institutions managing essential services like
hospitals, after installation of firewalls and
whitelisting.
2G mobile internet to postpaid users to
access whitelisted sites in Jammu, Samba,
Kathua, Udhampur and Reasi.
No social media or VPNs.
Number of whitelisted sites: Not mentioned
Home04 (TSTS) of
2020
18.01.2020
Fixed line connectivity to also be provided to
IT/software companies.
2G mobile internet for postpaid users in all
districts of Jammu and Kupwara and
Bandipora in Kashmir for accessing white
listed sites.
Prepaid connections will be provided mobile
internet only after verification by TSPs as per
applicable norms
Home05 (TSTS) of
2020
24.01.2020
Fixed line connectivity with MAC binding.
Access only to whitelisted sites.
2G mobile internet restored in all districts of
J&K for postpaid and verified prepaid
customers but only whitelisted sites can be
accessed.
No social media or VPNs
Home08 (TSTS) of
2020
31.01.2020
Restrictions mentioned in the Order dated
24.01.2020 will continue.
Number of whitelisted sites: 329
9
10. Home 09 (TSTS) of
2020
07.02.2020
Restrictions mentioned in Order dated
31.01.2020 will continue.
Number of whitelisted sites: 481
Home13 (TSTS) of
2020
15.02.2020
Fixed Line connectivity with MAC binding.
Access only to whitelisted sites.
2G mobile internet for postpaid and verified
prepaid customers but only whitelisted sites
can be accessed.
No social media or VPNs.
Home16 (TSTS) of
2020
24.02.2020
Restrictions in Order dated 15.02.2020 will
continue to apply.
Number of whitelisted sites: 1674
Home17 (TSTS) of
2020
04.03.2020
2G mobile internet for postpaid and verified
prepaid customers and access allowed to all
websites.
Fixed line connectivity with MAC binding to
access all sites.
Home20 (TSTS) of
2020
17.03.2020
Restrictions in Order dated 04.03.2020 will
continue to apply.
Home21 (TSTS) of
2020
26.03.2020
2G mobile internet for postpaid & verified
prepaid customers to access all websites.
Fixed line connectivity with MAC binding to
access all sites
Home22 (TSTS) of
2020
03.04.2020
Restrictions in Order dated 26.03.2020 will
continue to apply.
Home28 (TSTS) of
2020
15.04.2020
2G mobile internet for postpaid customers &
verified prepaid customers to access all
websites.
Fixed line connectivity with MAC binding to
access all websites without any speed
restrictions.
10
11. Home34 (TSTS) of
2020
27.04.2020
2G mobile internet for postpaid customers &
verified prepaid customers to access all
websites.
Fixed line connectivity with mac binding to
access all websites without any speed
restrictions.
13. The above measures taken by the Respondent No. 1 have to be
seen in light of the circumstances already highlighted by the
learned Solicitor General regarding the existing law and order and
national security situations in the Union Territory, and the
occurrence of incidents that affect the integrity of the nation. The
learned Solicitor General stated that since 05.08.2019, around 108
terrorist related incidents have taken place in Union Territory of
Jammu and Kashmir, wherein 99 incidents were reported from the
Kashmir province and 09 from Jammu province. In total, 30
civilians have lost their lives and 114 civilians have been injured.
Further, more than 20 security personnel have been martyred and
54 security personnel have been injured. Moreover, 76 terrorists
have been gunned down. These facts have not been rebutted by the
Petitioners. This Court will have to consider the above in its
analysis. It may be important to note that after this matter was
reserved for orders, the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
11
12. has filed another note, indicating that the militancy has
significantly increased in the recent times, in the following manner:
DATE INCIDENT DISTRICT CONSEQUENCE
26.04.2020 Encounter at
Gudder Kulgam
Kulgam 01 person died
27.04.2020 Encounter at
Lower Munda
Qazigund Kulgam
Kulgam 03 terrorists killed
02 security force
personnel injured
28.04.2020 Encounter at
Melhoora
Zainpora
Shopian 03 terrorists killed
02 security personnel
injured
01 civilian injured
29.04.2020 Grenade attack
on police
deployment at
Nowhatta
Srinagar
Srinagar 04 CISF personnel
injured
01 police personnel
injured
02.05.2020 Encounter at
Dangarpora
Pulwama 02 terrorists killed
02.05.2020 Encounter at
Najar Mohalla
Chanjimulla
Handwara
Kupwara 02 terrorists killed
04 army personnel
killed including two
senior officers
01 Police SI killed
01 SF personnel
injured
02.05.2020 Grenade attack
upon CRPF at
Tahab Pulwama
Pulwama No damage caused
03.05.2020 Grenade attack
upon SFs at
Nowshera
Srinagar
Srinagar No damage caused
04.05.2020 Firing attack on
CRPF at Wangam
Karlgund
Handwara
crossing
Kupwara 03 CRPF personnel
killed
01 Civilian killed
01 CRPF personnel
injured
12
13. 04.05.2020 Grenade attack
upon CISF
Bunker at Grid
Station Wagoora
Nowgam Srinagar
Srinagar 01 CISF personnel
injured
05.05.2020 Grenade attack
on police
deployment at
Pakharpora
Budgam
Budgam 01 CRPF personnel
injured
01 Police personnel
injured
04 civilians injured
Respondent No. 1 has also pointed to certain material, which
indicate that cyber terrorism, is on the rise within the valley. The
Respondent No. 1, has brought to the notice of this Court that the
Pakistani Military in its “Green Book 2020” has called for an
information warfare on Kashmir, after the revocation of special
status of Jammu and Kashmir.
14. While it might be desirable and convenient to have better internet
in the present circumstances, wherein there is a worldwide
pandemic and a national lockdown. However, the fact that outside
forces are trying to infiltrate the borders and destabilize the
integrity of the nation, as well as cause incidents resulting in the
death of innocent citizens and security forces every day cannot be
ignored.
13
14. 15. However, the authorities in the Union Territories of Jammu and
Kashmir have selected the 2G speed to restrict the flow of
information in order to prevent misuse of data by terrorists and
their supporters to disturb the peace and tranquility of the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
16. In any case, we may note that the common thread in the impugned
orders is that they have been passed for the entire Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir. In this regard, our observations in the
Anuradha Bhasin (supra) may be of some relevance:
“The degree of restriction and the scope of the
same, both territorially and temporally, must
stand in relation to what is actually necessary
to combat an emergent situation.”
Although the present orders indicate that they have been passed
for a limited period of time, the order does not provide any reasons
to reflect that all the districts of the Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir require the imposition of such restrictions. At the same
time, we do recognize that the Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir has been plagued with militancy, which is required to be
taken into consideration. These competing considerations needs to
calibrated in terms of our judgment in Anuradha Bhasin (supra).
14
15. 17. One of the criteria for testing the proportionality of the orders is the
territorial extent of the restrictions. In view of the observations
made in Anuradha Bhasin (supra), for meaningful enforcement of
the spirit of the judgment, inter alia, the authorities are required to
pass orders with respect to only those areas, where there is
absolute necessity of such restrictions to be imposed, after
satisfying the directions passed earlier.
18. In this regard, our attention is drawn to the fact that blanket
orders have been passed for the entire territory rather than for
specific affected areas.
19. A perusal of the submissions made before us and the material
placed on record indicate that the submissions of the Petitioners,
in normal circumstances, merit consideration. However, the
compelling circumstances of cross border terrorism in the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, at present, cannot be ignored.
20. Additionally, although the Petitioners have argued that the orders
passed by Respondent No. 1 reveals nonapplication of mind,
however, at the cost of repetition, it must be noted that the
authorities have been taking steps towards easing of internet
restrictions taking into account the prevailing circumstances. This
15
16. can be seen from the fact that initially only whitelisted websites
were allowed, before internet access to all websites was provided on
broadband, and finally to postpaid and verified prepaid mobile
users as well, although at 2G speeds. Further, the various steps
taken by Respondent No. 1 with respect to ensuring the
fundamental rights of the people, in relation to the existing COVID
19 pandemic, must also be taken into account.
21. During the course of the arguments, the Respondent No. 2 Union
of India has submitted that continuous infiltration, foreign
influence, violent extremism and issues of national integrity are
prevalent in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which are
serious issues.
22. In Anuradha Bhasin (supra), this Court has alluded to the fact
that modern terrorism is being propagated through the internet
and by using technology in the following manner:
“39. Modern terrorism heavily relies on the
internet. Operations on the internet do not
require substantial expenditure and are not
traceable easily. The internet is being used to
support fallacious proxy wars by raising
money, recruiting and spreading
propaganda/ideologies. The prevalence of the
internet provides an easy inroad to young
impressionable minds….”
16
17. 23. At the same time, the Court is also cognizant of the concerns
relating to the ongoing pandemic and the hardships that may be
faced by the citizens. It may be noted that in the earlier judgment
of Anuradha Bhasin (supra) this Court had directed that, under
the usual course, every order passed under Rule 2(2) of the
Telecom Suspension Rules restricting the internet is to be placed
before a Review Committee which provides for adequate procedural
and substantive safeguards to ensure that the imposed restrictions
are narrowly tailored. However, we are of the view that since the
issues involved affect the State, and the nation, the Review
Committee which consists of only State level officers, may not be in
a position to satisfactorily address all the issues raised. We,
therefore, find it appropriate to constitute a Special Committee
comprising of the following Secretaries at national, as well as State,
level to look into the prevailing circumstances and immediately
determine the necessity of the continuation of the restrictions in
the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir:
a. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Home Secretary),
Government of India.
17
18. b. The Secretary, Department of Communications, Ministry
of Communications, Government of India.
c. The Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir
The aforesaid Special Committee shall be headed by the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs (Home Secretary), Government of India.
24. The Special Committee is directed to examine the contentions of,
and the material placed herein by, the Petitioners as well as the
Respondents. The aforesaid Committee must also examine the
appropriateness of the alternatives suggested by the Petitioners,
regarding limiting the restrictions to those areas where it is
necessary and the allowing of faster internet (3G or 4G) on a trial
basis over certain geographical areas and advise the Respondent
No. 1 regarding the same, in terms of our earlier directions.
25. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforestated terms.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. The
Registry is directed to communicate this order, along with a copy of
18