Critic Takeaways of (Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
- Section 144 CrPC cannot suppress legitimate expressions or democratic rights.
- Section 144 CrPC is both remedial and preventive, used only in cases of clear or apprehended danger.
- Orders under Section 144 CrPC and internet suspension must be published for transparency.
- Judicial review is necessary for orders under Section 144 CrPC and internet suspension.
- Balance security concerns with citizens’ fundamental rights.
- Due process requires proper justification for imposing restrictions.
- Publishing orders ensures state accountability and allows legal challenges.
Facts of the Case
The case primarily focused on the suspension of internet services in the State of Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. However, one of the issues addressed in the case was the excessive imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section grants magistrates the authority to impose restrictions on movement and speech in areas where there is a potential for unrest.
Judgement of the case
In this particular instance, the Supreme Court of India ruled that Section 144 CrPC cannot be used as a means to hinder or suppress lawful expression of opinion. The court determined that Section 144 CrPC serves both a remedial and preventative purpose, and should only be used in situations where there is a clear and imminent danger or a reasonable fear of harm. The use of Section 144 of CrPC should not be employed to stifle the lawful articulation of opinion or complaint, or the exercise of any democratic rights.
The Supreme Court also instructed the respondent-State or competent authorities to publicly release all existing and future orders under Section 144 of CrPC and for the suspension of telecom services, including internet, so that the affected individuals can contest it before the High Court or the appropriate legal body.
