In a fresh twist in the loudspeaker controversy, the Allahabad High Court has deemed that use of loudspeakers for playing azaan (a traditional call to prayers by mosques) is not a fundamental right. On May 4, 2022 the Allahabad High Court Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vikas Budhwar dismissed a Civil Writ Petition no. 12350 of 2022 (Irfan v/s. State of U.P. & Ors.) holding it as ‘patently misconceived’.

The dispute over the use of loudspeakers for ‘azaan’ emerged over the past few months when several right-wing outfits started demanding a ban on it. BJP member and president of Shri Kashi Vishwanath Gyanvapi Movement, Sudhir Singh had asked all Hindu residents of Varanasi to install loudspeakers and join in by reciting Hanuman Chalisa five times a day to coincide with the azaan timings.

Last month, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray had warned the government that his party workers would start playing ‘Hanuman Chalisa’ at higher decibel levels if the state did not get the loudspeakers removed from the mosques in Maharashtra.

Brief about the Case

The Petition was filed by Irfan, a resident of Budaun district in Uttar Pradesh who sought permission to play azaan using a loudspeaker at the Noori Masjid. The petition prayed for the quashing of order of Bisauli subdivision Magistrate dated December 2021, which rejected his application seeking permission to use a loudspeaker at the said mosque. He further requested the High Court to direct the UP government to grant him permission to deliver azaan on loudspeaker.

The Petitioner’s counsel, Sachin Kumar Sharma argued that the Order passed by the SDM was wholly illegal and violated his fundamental and legal rights to run loudspeakers from the mosque, as reported by Live Law.

Court’s Observation

On May 4, 2022 the Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vikas Budhwar observed, “The law has now been settled that use of loudspeaker from mosque is not a fundamental right. Ever otherwise a cogent reason has been assigned in the impugned order.”

The Court had observed that although azaan is an integral part of Islam, delivering it via loudspeaker is not. The Bench sated, “Azaan is an integral part of Islam, but giving it through loudspeakers is not a part of Islam,” a news agency quoted the court as saying.

The Bench while dismissing the Petition held, “Accordingly, we find that the present petition is patently misconceived, hence the same is dismissed.”

The Judgment copy may be read here: 

Earlier directions by courts

As reported by The Wire, the court then went on to add that there had been previous instances when courts had ruled that call for prayer on loudspeakers was not a fundamental right.

During the Covid-19 Pandemic in May 2020, the Allahabad High Court Division Bench of Justice Shashi Kant Gupta and Justice Ajit Kumar had made the following observation in the PIL and letter Petitions filed against alleged orders restricting the recital of azaan during the lockdown. According to LiveLaw, the Bench stated, “Azan is certainly an essential and integral part of Islam but use of microphone and loud-speakers is not an essential and an integral part thereof…Azan can be recited by Muezzin from minarets of the Mosques by human voice without using any amplifying device and such recitation cannot be hindered with under the pretext of violation of the Guidelines issued by the State, to contain the pandemic- Covid19.”

The May 2020 ruling was in response to petitions filed by Ghazipur MP Afzal Ansari, Congress leader Salman Khurshid and lawyer S Wasim A Qadri, who challenged the orders of the Ghazipur, Farrukhabad and Hathras administration that placed a ban on loudspeakers to deliver azaan as part of Covid-19 curbs.

According to the Indian Express, in May 2020, the high court had ruled that azaan might be an essential and integral part of Islam, but the same cannot be said of using sound-amplifying devices, loudspeakers. Therefore, it had said the fundamental right of religious freedom enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution cannot be applied in this particular case. Even so, the court had said, it was subject to public order, morality or health and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.

Related:

Mathura: Krishna Janmabhoomi temple mutes loudspeaker
Maharashtra mosques reiterate commitment to following noise pollution laws
Maharashtra’s Barad village stands together against loudspeaker controversy
UP priest booked for playing Hanuman Chalisa outside mosque

The post Use of loudspeakers not a fundamental right: Allahabad HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Allahabad High Court has denied bail to a man accused of cow slaughter in a detailed order propagating cow protection and pushing for making cow protection a fundamental right for Hindus. The single-judge bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav denied bail to one Javed, who was accused under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the charges against him were false and that he was not at the place of incident and was falsely implicated by the police. He also stated that no cow either dead or alive was recovered from him, hence, he should be granted bail. Meanwhile, the state counsel opposed the bail stating that the applicant, along with other accused were found with some dead cows slaughtered and they ran away from the scene on being discovered.

The court, in its initial observations stressed upon the cultural importance of cows and how cow as an animal is sacred in Indian culture. The court also spoke of the beneficial properties of cow urine and how cow provides us with milk. The court then said that Punjab Kesari Maharaja Ranjit Singh had in his reign made cow slaughter an offence punishable with death. The court also claimed that scientists believe that cows are the only animals that exhale oxygen! Interestingly, the same claim was made by former Uttarakhand Chief Minister Trivendra Singh Rawat a couple of years ago, but was summarily trounced by scientists saying that no animal can exhale oxygen.

The court further quoted Vedas and Hindu deities and their mythological stories around cows. Basically, most of the court’s observations in this bail matter are about Indian culture, reverence of cows, importance of cows to Hindus, mythology, historical references and unscientific claims.

The court then stated that keeping these references in mind, the cow should be declared a national animal and cow protection be declared a fundamental right for Hindus because it is known that when India’s culture and belief systems is in danger, the country becomes weak. The court then said that eating cow meat cannot be a fundamental right.

The court further said that strict laws should be made to punish those who talk about harming cows. “Jab gaaye ka kalyaan hoga, tabhi desh ka kalyaan hoga (only if cow is revered, country will prosper),” the order said. The court pointed out that the Supreme Court has also given judgements keeping in mind protection of cow and at least 24 states have laws aimed at protecting cows.

The court also observed that gaushalas do not sometimes take proper care of cows and leave diseased cows in the roads to die. “There are hundreds of examples in our country that whenever we forgot our sanskriti, the foreigners attacked us and made us slaves and even today if we do not wake up, then we should not forget the autocratic Taliban invasion and occupation of Afghanistan,” the court said.

While denying bail to the applicant, the court said, “In such a situation, when everyone takes a step forward to unite India and support its faith, then some people whose faith and belief are not at all in the interest of the country, they only weaken the country by talking like this in the country. In view of the above circumstances, prima facie offense is proved to be committed against the applicant.”

The court while justifying the refusal of bail stated that this is not he applicant’s first offence of cow slaughter which has disturbed harmony in society, and if he is released he will repeat the same offence and will disturb the harmony in society. The court found the bail application to be baseless and rejected the same.

The complete order may be read here:

A problematic order

A complete reading of the order will indicate that the order is merely a preaching about importance of Indian culture, importance of cows to Hindu religion and how in a diverse country like India, all religions respect each other’s beliefs and culture. Much less has been explored by the court about the case, the material brought on record by the prosecution and the facts and circumstances. Even the arguments of the counsels have been briefly mentioned. The facts have been mentioned in detail but the order does not deliberate upon them, thus leaving little room for justification of refusal of bail. In the concluding last paragraph, the court does mention that this is not the applicant’s first offence, and that is the reasoning of the final decision of the court.

Apart from this, the issues that emerge from this order is that it glorifies cow protection and elevates it to the stance of a fundamental right of ‘Hindus’. Needless to say, as the Hon’ble judge himself must be aware of the many incidents that have taken place across the country since cow vigilantism has erupted and gained traction leading to loss of many poor Muslims, who, in many cases were not even dealing in cow meat. Even if they were acting against the law by committing any offences under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, the law deals with the offender in a lawful manner and not a mob.

The order outright seems to declare cow protection as some birth right of Hindus they are meant to pursue, and making cow protection a part of Indian culture. The court needs to be reminded of the many cases where over zealous “cow protectors” who already have presumed cow protection to be their fundamental right, have lynched and attacked people hailing from economically weak, marginalised and minority communities, and that there is no specific law to deal with such lynching.

The court also called for laws to promote cow protection, when majority of the states already have laws for cow protection and against cow slaughter, while there is a clear void in criminal law for the offence of mob attacks and lynchings which have been on the rise.

Cow vigilantism

Cow vigilante violence has become an issue on its own and a Human Rights Watch report states that Between May 2015 and December 2018, at least 44 people—36 of them Muslims—were killed across 12 Indian states. Over that same period, around 280 people were injured in over 100 different incidents across 20 states.

In August 2015, Anas Qureshi, 17, Arif Qureshi, 26, and Nazim, 15, were beaten to death in Kaimrala village of Dadri town, UP after they were found transporting two buffaloes.

In September 2015, a mob killed Mohammad Akhlaq, 50, in Uttar Pradesh state, and critically injured his 22-year-old son, over allegations that the family had slaughtered a calf for beef.

In October 2015, Noman was beaten to death at Sarahan in Himachal Pradesh over suspicions that he was smuggling cows. Case was registered against the perpetrators 2 months later.

In April 2017, Pehlu Khan a dairy farmer, and his two sons  were attacked by a mob in Alwar, Rajasthan accusing them of smuggling cows. Pehlu Khan succumbed to his injuries two days later.

In November 2017, Umar Khan was allegedly shot by cow vigilantes while he was transporting cattle to his home in Bharatpur district with fellow villagers Tahir and Javed. The police instead of looking for the perpetrators lodged a case against the three for being cow smugglers. Finally in January 2018, the police arrested 8 people and charged them for robbing Umar Khan, killing him and throwing his body on railway tracks.

Mohammad Qasim, 45, was beaten to death on June 18, 2018, by a mob that accused him of attempting cow slaughter near Pilkhuwa village in Hapur district.

In July 2018, Akbar Khan, 28, was killed by a mob in Alwar, Rajasthan and succumbed to his injuries as the police delayed taking him to the hospital and allegedly took him to the police station first and beat him up, in his precarious condition.

These are only handful of such incidents where cow vigilantism has wreaked havoc and created a fear psychosis amongst the Muslim community, especially the poor and marginalised.

The Supreme Court, in Tehseen Poonawalla v. UOI (2018) 9 SCC 501, while ruling on issues like mob attacks, including cow vigilantism, said, “Hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest it results in a reign of terror. Extra judicial elements and non-State actors cannot be allowed to take the place of law or the law enforcing agency.”

Related:

Why is the Govt of India silent on the spurt of attacks on Muslims, Adivasis?
Serial hate crimes against Muslims spiral, first MP, now Rajasthan
Hate Watch: Muslim bangle seller thrashed, wares looted in Indore
West Bengal cops allegedly thrash Muslim contable, family

The post SHOCKING! Allahabad HC asks that Cow Protection be declared a Fundamental Right for Hindus! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Central Government has opposed same sex marriage in an affidavit before the Delhi High Court in a plea seeking recognition of same-sex marriages under various personal laws, reported LiveLaw. It said that there is a “legitimate state interest” in limiting recognition of marriage to persons of opposite sex only.

The affidavit reads, “The acceptance of the institution of marriage between two individuals of the same gender is neither recognised nor accepted in any uncodified personal laws or any codified statutory laws.”

The response also states that despite the decriminalisation of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, that held same sex relationships to be illegal, the petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage being recognised under the laws of the country. A report in Bar & Bench said that the affidavit further submitted, “Family issues are far beyond mere recognition and registration of marriage between persons belonging to the same gender. Living together as partners and having sexual relationship by same sex individuals (which is decriminalised now) is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children which necessarily presuppose a biological man as a ‘husband’, a biological woman as a ‘wife’ and the children born out of the union between the two.”

While asserting that legal recognition of same sex marriage is to be decided by the legislature and not through judicial adjudication, the affidavit states that, “Marriage is essentially a socially recognised union of two individuals which is governed either by uncodified personal laws or codified statutory laws.”

Further, the central government has also submitted that the considerations of social morality are relevant in considering the validity of legislation and it is only for the legislature to judge and enforce such social morality and public acceptance based on Indian ethos.

According to Bar & Bench, the Union Government further said that the fundamental right under Article 21 is subject to the procedure established by law and the same cannot be extended to include the fundamental right for same-sex marriage.

“The dictum of Navtej Singh Johar, does not extend the right to privacy to include a fundamental right in the nature of a right to marry by two individuals of the same gender in contravention of prevailing statutory laws”, said the affidavit. The Centre has also told the court that “western decisions” sans any basis in Indian Constitutional Law Jurisprudence cannot be imported in the Indian context.

Equal rights activist Harish Iyer, who was also one of the people who intervened in the 377 case in the Supreme Court, told SabrangIndia, “While I am grateful to the support of some politicians to the rainbow cause, they are exceptions rather than the norm. Today’s stance by the government reiterates that the LGBTQIA community won because of our own sustained campaign, and not because of some parties and politicians who scrambled to appropriate credit for it. In a nation that boasts of a Constitution where every single soul deserves all rights and dignity, our love and our lives will not be left to the whims and fancies of the majoritarian mindset. While the Parliament has been dodging key issues related to the community, and failed to pass empowering legislations, it is the courts that have taken us a step closer to life, freedom, love and humanity.”

The Delhi High Court has been seized with few petitions urging that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to the marriages of same-sex couples. In November last year, the Bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon had issued a notice to the Union Government in the matter.

The matter will now be taken up on April 20, 2021.

Related:

Delhi HC issues notice to Union in a plea to recognise same sex marriage
Punjab and Haryana HC comes to the rescue of lesbian couple
Protect same sex couple facing resistance: Allahabad HC

The post No fundamental right of same sex marriage in India: Centre tells Delhi HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The shutdown was imposed around the time the Central Government with Parliament’s approval made fundamental changes to J&K’s status under the Constitution of India. A few weeks ago, the media reported the Government’s claim that all landline services across the State and post-paid mobile telephone services in some parts of the Valley had been restored. Speaking at an event organised in New Delhi by the Former Civil Servants Forum, the Union Home Minister (HM) is reported to have said that the restrictions are only in some minds and not in J&K (perhaps he referred to the minds of those opposed to the changes being imposed on J&K including Opposition Parties).

The Union Home Ministry has now confirmed the HM’s statement. A few days ago the Home Ministry has given a reply under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) saying, they do not have any papers relating to the restrictions on telecommunications imposed in that State. It has also claimed innocence of knowledge vis-a-vis the widely reported arrests and detentions of politicians and social activists who are residents of J&K.

The Union Home Minister is also reported to have asked participants at that the New Delhi event, whether lack of telephone services is a violation of fundamental rights.  It appears that the Home Ministry officials slipped up in briefing him about the recent Kerala High Court’s finding that access to the Internet, especially through mobile telephone service providers, is a fundamental right deemed to be a part of the right to life under Article 21 and the right to education guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution.

As a result of this innocence of basic and crucial knowledge of rights, not only the several fundamental freedoms of Kashmiris, but also the rest of India’s right to know have taken a severe beating under the enforced policy of One Nation, One Constitution.

The RTI Intervention with the MHA

Three weeks after the Central Government successfully moved Parliament to take away the special protection given to J&K under the Constitution of India, on 30th August, 2019, I sought the following information from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs through an online RTI application:

“1) a clear photocopy of any order(s)/direction(s)/instruction(s) issued for suspending Internet and telecom services, in Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019;
2) a clear photocopy of any order(s)/direction(s)/instruction(s) issued for suspending radio broadcasts and satellite television services in Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019;
3) a clear photocopy of any order(s)/direction(s)/instruction(s)/advisory(ies) issued requiring the Amarnath Yatra pilgrims to leave Jammu and Kashmir in 2019;
4) a clear photocopy of any order(s)/direction(s)/instruction(s)/advisory(ies) issued requiring the departure of tourists from Jammu and Kashmir in 2019;
5) a clear photocopy of any order(s)/direction(s)/instruction(s) issued in July-August 2019 for detaining or arresting leaders and members of all political parties currently active in Jammu and Kashmir;
6) the names of political leaders and members of political parties belonging to Jammu and Kashmir currently under detention or being held in police or judicial custody along with the exact geographical address of the places of their lodgement as on date;
7) the title of the law, rule or regulation along with the text of the relevant provision under which such political leaders and members of political parties in Jammu and Kashmir who are placed under detention or being held in police or judicial custody as on date;
8) the names of Right to Information (RTI) activists in Jammu and Kashmir who have been placed under detention or are being held in police or judicial custody and their village/town/city of ordinary residence, along with the exact geographical address of the places of their lodgement as on date;
9) the title of the law, rule or regulation along with the text of the relevant provision under which such RTI activists in Jammu and Kashmir have been placed under detention or who are being held in police or judicial custody as on the date of this RTI application;
10) the names of other social activists in Jammu and Kashmir currently who have been held under detention or are being held in police or judicial custody and their village/ town/city of ordinary residence, along with the exact geographical address of the places of their lodgement as on date; and
11) the title of the law, rule or regulation along with the text of the relevant provision under which such social activists in Jammu and Kashmir have been placed under detention or who are being held in police or judicial custody as on date.”

The Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) in the MHA seem to have played soccer with the RTI application for a few of weeks, moving it from desk to desk within the J&K Division of the Ministry. Both CPIOs eventually replied that they did not have any of the information sought in my RTI application. The second CPIO went a couple of steps further ahead to tell me that he could not transfer the RTI application to J&K as it was not covered by the Central RTI Act (On 31 October, 2019 the Central RTI Act will become operational in J&K and Ladakh because of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019). He also said I could seek the same information from J&K if I were eligible to so do under the J&K’s own RTI Act of 2009 (which has been formally repealed by the J&K Reorganisation Act). Under the J&K’s RTI Act only local residents are eligible to file RTI applications with the State Government. Click here to read the RTI application and CPIOs’ replies.

What is wrong with the Home Ministry’s RTI replies?

There are multiple problems with the CPIOs’ replies which indicate lack of due application of mind to the issues involved:

1) Since 19 December, 2018, the State of J&K has been placed under President’s Rule imposed under Article 356 of the Constitution. All powers of the Governor and the State Legislature stand transferred to the President of India. The work of the State Government is being carried out under the guidance of the Central Government through the State’s Governor who has only babus to run the administration. Any order imposing curbs on travel and telecommunications will at least be copied to the Union Home Ministry in which the J&K Division is housed, if not actually directed by the MHA. So the CPIOs’ replies that they have no information about the curbs imposed and the arrests and detention of residents of J&K are not based on truth and reality.

2) The newly constituted Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs is reported to have sought extensive information about the situation in J&K including data about arrests and detenues of the very categories of people I mentioned in my RTI application. Ordinarily, the MHA has a duty to provide this information to the Parliamentary Committee unless it makes a compelling case to withhold it from the Committee in the interests of protecting national security. If MHA gives this information to the Committee, I will be entitled to receive it thanks to the proviso underlying Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. According to this proviso, information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature, shall not be denied to any person formally seeking it under the Act.

3) Further, orders imposing curbs on people’s movement and telecommunication services are decisions which affect the public at large. Not only people residing in J&K and their relatives and friends based outside but others like me who have friends and well wishers in J&K are affected by such curbs. So under Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of the Central RTI Act everybody has the right to know all relevant facts that led to the imposition of the curbs and the justification for such administrative decisions. Both provisions can be found in J&K’s RTI Act also.

Whichever Government that imposed such curbs in J&K has not only kept those orders away from the public gaze but also refused to explain why such curbs are necessary over such a long period of time. In fact this is the core issue in at least one of the petitions pending in the Supreme Court of India filed by a local mediaperson. The Apex Court’s lack of adequate speed in ruling on the legality of these curbs has come in to a lot of public criticism – too numerous to by cited here. In fact a cyber satyagraha was observed across the country on Gandhiji’s 150 birth anniversary (2nd October, 2019) to protest these curbs and express support to those deprived of telecom services in J&K.
4) Come 31st October, the Central Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) will replace J&K’s own criminal law. Section 41C of the Central CrPC requires every District Police Control Room to display prominently on a notice board information about people arrested including their names and other details and the details of the police officers effecting such arrest. This will apply to all districts in J&K. Under the same statutory provision the J&K Police Headquarters will be under an obligation to maintain a database of information about people arrested or detained, not for its records but primarily for the reference of the general public. So this is an obligation to be transparent about arrests and detentions by the time this matter goes into appeals. The CPIOs have ignored all these matters while drafting their replies to my RTI application.

Is there a fundamental right to telephone services?

The Union HM seemed to be in doubt as to whether “lack of telephone services is a human rights violation” (or else he might have asserted that there was no such human right) at the public event he addressed on the last day of September, 2019. Ten days earlier, the Kerala High Court had ruled that access to Internet is a fundamental right. It is unfortunate that the MHA officials had not updated him on this development or he could have spared himself the embarrassment of asking such a question.

On 19 September, 2019, in the matter of Faheema Shirin R. K. vs The State of Kerala & Ors., the Kerala High Court ruled that right to access Internet, particularly, through mobile telephone service providers is deemed to be a part of the rights to life and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner, an 18-year old girl student of a college affiliated to the University of Calicut, challenged the discriminatory rule imposed by a Warden of a Girls’ Hostel banning the use of Internet by inmates after sunset. This progressive judgement received only cursory attention in media circles whereas it should have been at the centre of the debate over the ongoing curbs on communication in J&K. The Court ruled that students have the right to access Internet through their mobile phones so long as they did not disturb other hostel inmates. The Court drew upon a slew of UN Human Rights Declarations and Resolutions of the Human Rights Council- both arenas where the Central Government has put in strenuous efforts to prevent and counter criticism of its actions in J&K.

While the Hostel authorities justified the curbs imposed on access to the internet in the name of “discipline”, the Court rejected that argument observing as follows:

“9…Though instructions are to be obeyed by the inmates, is there any justification in imposing such restrictions. However in this case the question to be examined is whether such enforcement of discipline by restricting the use of mobile phones would result in curtailing the right of the students to acquire knowledge by different means. Using of mobile phones by itself would not cause any harm to anyone. If a restriction is unreasonable and arbitrary and infringes the fundamental right of an inmate, it cannot be said that the student has to abide by such restriction, especially when the inmate is an adult…

18. Though it is true that the Principal of the college is the supreme authority to enforce discipline as held by this Court in Manu Wilson’s case, Sojan Francis‘ case, Indulekha Joseph‘s case (supra) and that there cannot be any dispute that rules and regulations lawfully framed are to be obeyed by the students and that teachers are like foster parents who are required to look after, cultivate and guide the students in their pursuit of education for maintaining excellence of education, the rules should be modified in tune with the modernisation of the technology so as to enable the students to acquire knowledge from all available sources. It would be open to the authorities in the hostel to supervise whether any distraction or disturbance is caused to other students on account of usage of mobile phone or take action when any such complaint is received. The total restriction on its use and the direction to surrender it during the study hours is absolutely unwarranted. When the Human Rights Council of the United Nations have found that right to access to Internet is a fundamental freedom and a tool to ensure right to education, a rule or instruction which impairs the said right of the students cannot be permitted to stand in the eye of law.

22. I am of the view that what is required is a counselling for the students, as well as parents in the colleges. The students in the hostels should be given counselling in order to inculcate in them self restraint in the usage of mobile phones, to make them capable of choosing the right path, to make them aware of the consequence of misuse as well as advantage of its proper use. It should be left to the students to choose the time for using mobile phone. The only restriction that can be imposed is that they should not cause any disturbance to other students. While acting in exercise of right to privacy, persons like the petitioner shall also see that such exercise does not invade the right to privacy of another student residing in the hostel especially in her room.” (emphasis supplied)

Although the judgement cited above has the force of law in Kerala only, it is a beacon of light to shine while testing the validity and constitutionality of excessive curbs imposed on telecom services not only in J&K but also other parts of the country. All eyes will be on what the Apex Court will do on Children’s Day, i.e., 14th November, 2019 when the two dozen petitions about J&K’s constitutional status and the state of affairs in that region will be taken up again. In all probability the the Central Government will justify the curbs on telecom services on grounds of protecting the defence and security interests of the State. How the Apex Court will test the proportionality of these curbs will be watched with great interest in all quarters.

Meanwhile, I will do the usual appeals in this case and report back.
—
*Programme Head, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi

Courtesy: Counter View
 

The post MHA confirms it has no papers to ‘shut down’ J&K: Kerala HC calls internet a fundamental right appeared first on SabrangIndia.