SFLC.in’s Letter to Reconsider Internet Shutdown in Manipur
SFLC.in has sent a letter to the Manipur Government to reconsider its decision to impose an internet shutdown for 5 days in the entire state. It is stated in the order that the shutdown of internet is being imposed after it was reported that a van was set ablaze by a group of 3/4 youths suspected to be of a certain community which has created “tense communal situation and volatile law and order situation in the State”.
It is to be noted that this suspension of Internet services across the State is bound to impact livelihood, education and health care for lakhs of people in the State as 96 percent of the population in India depends on mobile internet services.
The letter sent to the Manipur Government can be accessed below:
To
Shri N. Biren Singh
Chief Minister
Government of Manipur
Babupara, Imphal
Manipur- 7950001
cmmani@nic.in
Dear Sir,
Greetings from SFLC.in!
Subject: Suspension of Mobile Internet services in the entire state of Manipur for 5 days.
This letter is with reference to the order numbered 1/1(3)/2008-H, dated 6 August 2022, issued by the Government of Manipur directing suspension of “mobile data services in the territorial jurisdiction of entire state of Manipur” for 5 days. It is stated in the order that the shutdown of internet is being imposed after it was reported that a van was set ablaze by a group of 3/4 youths suspected to be of a certain community which has created “tense communal situation and volatile law and order situation in the State”.
The order goes on to state that the internet services are being used by some anti-social and anti- national elements to spread hate speech and false information which might have serious repercussions for the law and order situation.
It is requested to the Government to reconsider its decision to impose an internet shutdown for 5 days in the entire state. Such a measure is disproportionate and excessive for multiple reasons. Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1951 requires existence of a public emergency or public safety concern. The ambit of these two terms was laid down in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301. It was observed by the court that: “Public emergency would mean the prevailing of a sudden condition or state of affairs affecting the people at large calling for immediate action. The expression “public safety” means the state or condition of freedom from danger or risk for the people at large….Neither the occurrence of public emergency nor the interest of public safety are secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable person.”
The court further interpreted the application of section 5(2) and observed that:
“Occurrence of any public emergency” or “in the interest of public safety” are the sine qua non for the application of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act. Unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety demands, the authorities have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the said section….When either of these two conditions are not in existence, the Central Government or a State Government or the authorised officer cannot resort to telephone- tapping even though there is satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India etc.”
Here it is important to note that a “law and order” situation is not a situation related to “public order” or “public safety”. This distinction was laid down in the judgement of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v State of Bihar and Ors. (1966) 1 SCR 709 and has been followed in numerous judgments thereafter. The court observed that law and order comprehends disorders of lesser gravity when compared to public order and public order comprehends disorder of lesser gravity when compared to security of the state. It was also observed that public safety will not include a situation of law and order.
It is to be noted that there is no existing public emergency or public safety situation. Suspending internet services for a long duration of 5 days due the incident of car burning is excessive, arbitrary and illegal. It has also been observed by the Supreme Court of India in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine SC 25 that an internet shutdown must be imposed only if it is unavoidable and necessary.
Moreover, the Government has also imposed section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which to curb the law and order situation. In the light of this, suspension of Internet services is not only disproportionate but also a harsh measure. While a physical curfew is in place people heavily rely on internet for essential services like online transactions, healthcare services and education. Internet is also an important source of information during tense times like these.
It is also pertinent to note that, the incident took place in the Phougankchao Ikhai area of the Bishnupur District, however, Internet services are suspended across the State vide this order. It is to be noted that this suspension of Internet services across the State is bound to impact livelihood, education and health care for lakhs of people in the State as 96 percent of the population in India depends on mobile internet services.
For the above reasons it is requested to the government to reconsider the decision to impose the internet shutdown and to restore internet services on an urgent basis.
SFLC.IN is the first Indian legal services organization that works exclusively on technology, law, and policy. As a not-for-profit organization engaged in the empowerment of Indian citizens about their digital freedom and rights, it operates as a collective bringing together different stakeholders to a common platform to further the cause of digital rights. SFLC.IN promotes innovation and open access to knowledge by helping policy makers make informed and just decisions regarding the use and adoption of technology. As of 2022 SFLC.IN is the only Indian organization to be inducted as a member of the IFEX, a global network to defend the right to freedom of expression and information.
Regards,
Sincerely,
Prasanth Sugathan
Legal Director
SFLC.IN
prasanth@sflc.in
Copy to:
1. Shri H Gyan Prakash
Special Secretary (Home)
Government of Manipur
