Liberty and Responsibility

Context: SC rulings on internet restrictions in J&K uphold balanced constitutionalism

Background details of the case: 

• On August 5, 2019, internet services for the entire union territory of Jammu and Kashmir was suspended under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017. 

• A case was filed before the Supreme Court seeking to quash internet restrictions.  

• Supreme Court recently passed a judgment on Internet restriction:

1. The January 10 Judgement (Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India): SC laid down guidelines to test the validity of internet suspension orders and their periodic review. 
2. The May 11 judgment (Foundation for Media Professionals vs UT of Jammu & Kashmir): SC ordered the constitution of a special committee to review the orders passed by the J&K authorities.

Defending the SC order considering hard facts in the Valley: 

• Internet, a tool of modern terrorism: A terrorists use the internet to influence, communicate and fund violence on a real-time basis. 
• Valuable safeguards to protect citizen’s right: 

• January 10 Judgement laid down the test of proportionality requirement and periodic review.  

• Balanced constitutionalism: The Court cannot be the sole protector of the rights under Part III, the executive and legislature have an equal responsibility. 

• The constitution of the special committee by the Court is in furtherance of “balanced constitutionalism”.

Way forward: 

• The government must gather inputs from individual districts across J&K to assess whether the internet is being misused to circulate fake news.  
• The government should consider bringing a narrowly tailored legislation to curtail fake news, not only for Jammu and Kashmir but also for the rest of India.

Conclusion: we can quote renowned Indian jurist Nani A Palkhivala: “It is true that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. But it is true, in even a deeper sense, that eternal responsibility is also part of the price of liberty”.