Manipur Violence: Plea in SC Challenging Month-Long Internet Ban in Violence-hit Manipur.
(Judicial Quest News Network)
A Lawyer in the Manipur Court Chongtam Victor Singh and a businessman Mayengbam James filed a petition in Supreme Court Challenging the month-long Internet ban in Manipur which has significantly affected the economic growth of the state.
The plea argues that the petitioner has been facing a great difficulty in getting access to their respective funds in bank, receive payments and clients, distribute salaries, or communicate via e-mails and WhatsApp.
It is further stated that the imposition of the impugned internet shutdown was a response to reported incidents of violence during rallies organized by volunteers and youth protesting the demand for inclusion of the Meitei/Meetei community within the Scheduled Tribe category. These clashes escalated into widespread arson, violence, and killings across the state, which justified a temporary and timebound shutdown of the internet.
A few days after the initial shutdown, tensions were diffused, and aside from sporadic incidents of violence that could be addressed at the district level, there was a clear and admitted de-escalation of the situation
The petitioners have contended that there has been a complete blockade of internet access across the state for more than 24 days, causing significant harm to the rights of the Petitioners and other residents.
This is grossly disproportionate in its interference with Petitioners’ constitutional right to freedom of speech and 143 expressions under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g), using the constitutionally protected medium of the internet. Additionally, it does not pass the threshold of “public emergency” and “public safety” prescribed by Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
It is further submitted that the authorities cannot justify the continued suspension of the internet long after the tensions in the state of Manipur have subsided, as it cannot claim to prevent loss of life, damage to public or private property, and disturbances to public tranquillity and communal harmony. Despite a gradual return to normalcy in the state, the Respondent has prolonged the internet shutdown for more than 24 days, making it clear that the impugned orders were not passed to achieve a legitimate goal.
It is also contended that the prevention of disinformation campaigns, rumour-mongering, and sporadic threats to public safety cannot justify the significant economic loss suffered by the Petitioners, the general public, and the State itself during the 24-day internet shutdown. A 2017 report by Deloitte titled “Economic Impact of Disruptions to Internet Connectivity” estimates that the cost of an internet shutdown for every 10 million inhabitants per day is nearly 24 million dollars.
With Manipur’s population approximately reaching 3 million, the loss incurred over 24 days amounts to a staggering 57 million dollars. Hence, the internet suspension order also fails to pass the fourth prong of the proportionality test, which involves striking a balance between competing interests.
The Respondent has failed to explicate the circumstances which warranted the continued suspension of internet services across the state. Each time the shutdown orders are renewed, the Respondent merely state that there has been a threat to “law and order”, and that “anti-social elements” may use social media to spread rumours and incite the public, which may have “serious repercussions” on law and order in the state of Manipur. Thus, it is an admitted position that no “public emergency” or “public safety” interest is at stake, but, at its highest, internet shutdowns are being continued to be imposed to mitigate jeopardy to the “law and order” situation in the state. This clearly does not meet the pre-condition of “public emergency” or “public safety” necessary to suspend the internet under the Telegraph Act and Telecom Suspension Rules.
The plea also sought court orders to declare the internet shutdown orders as illegal, arguing that the orders after the de-escalation were passed in a mechanical and cyclostyled manner.
The petition is filed through AOR Shadan Farasat and Advocate Natasha Maheshwari.
