Restrictions on high-speed internet again challenged in Apex Court

New Delhi: An association of 3,800 private schools of Jammu and Kashmir has moved Supreme Court challenging the order of the Central government restricting internet speed in Jammu and Kashmir to 2G as violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The petition by Private Schools Association of J&K has sought restoration of 4G mobile internet services in J&K stating that it was constrained to file the petition "after more than 500 days of continuous internet restrictions which have developed a routine and permanent character."
The Central government had restored 4G mobile internet access in two districts – Ganderbal in Kashmir Division and Udhampur in Jammu Division, last year. However, mobile internet speed continue to be limited to 2G in all other 18 districts of Jammu & Kashmir.
This would be the third petition filed in Supreme Court since August 2019 challenging internet restrictions in Kashmir which were introduced after the abrogation of Article 370.
The Supreme Court eventually pronounced its judgment in that petition on January 10, more than 5 months after the restrictions were put in place.
The court held that freedom of speech and expression through internet and freedom to carry on trade or profession through internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution.
It also clarified the law concerning orders passed under Suspension Rules.
First, orders suspending internet can be only for a temporary duration and not an indefinite period; Second, such orders should clearly indicate the specific reasons for imposing the restrictions; Third, such orders should be published and the validity of such orders can be reviewed by courts.
After the Supreme Court judgment, an order was issued by Union Territory of J&K on January 14 restoring limited internet services in J&K. Fixed line connectivity was allowed in Kashmir for institutions offering essential services like hospitals after installation of firewalls and whitelisting.
2G mobile internet services were allowed for post-paid users to access whitelisted sites in Jammu, Samba, Kathua, Udhampur and Reasi.
However, internet service providers were directed to restrict internet speed to 2G for all mobile internet users.
In March 2020, NGO, Foundation for Media Professionals moved the Supreme Court challenging the restrictions on mobile internet speed to 2G arguing that patients, doctors, and general public of J&K were unable to access latest information, guidelines, protocols and advisories about COVID- 19 because of the slow internet speed.
The Supreme Court passed a detailed judgment on May 11 in which it refrained from passing directions to restore 4G mobile internet services instead asking a special committee comprising high level government officers to take a call on the same.
The present petition has primarily raised concerns about how the restriction in internet speed in the valley are detrimental to the interests of students, business and medical professionals.
The petitioner association states that while students from Class 9 to 12 have been permitted to visit schools on a voluntary basis in Jammu & Kashmir, expecting younger students to attend physical classes is inadvisable since they may not have the maturity required to adhere to health and safety protocols.
"Doctors in Jammu & Kashmir have reported that they are unable to download the latest studies, protocols, manuals and advisories due to slow internet speed. Further, patients in Jammu and Kashmir are being forced to flock at hospitals which are hotbeds of infection and subject themselves to the risk of contracting COVID-19 because telemedicine is virtually impossible at 2G speed," the plea adds.
Making a case for how the December 11 order violates the constitutional provisions the plea states that Article 21A of the Constitution imposes an obligation on the State to provide “free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.”
"It is, therefore, clear that no exceptions to the duty are envisaged in the said Constitutional provision and the right recognized therein is inalienable," reads the plea.