Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) | Internet Shutdowns & Section 163 B.N.S.S. Explained

Case 30 of 30 in Law Easy's Supreme Court criminal procedure series. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, decided January 2020. FACTS After the constitutional changes concerning Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, authorities suspended mobile and internet services and imposed restrictions on movement and assembly through prohibitory orders that were not made public. Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of a newspaper, and others challenged them. WHAT THE COURT HELD Freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practise a profession or carry on trade through the internet are protected under Article 19, and restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate. Indefinite suspension of the internet is not permissible and every order must be periodically reviewed by a review committee. For prohibitory orders, the power can be used for an emergency apprehension of danger, not to suppress legitimate expression of opinion, the magistrate must state material facts, choose the least intrusive measure, avoid repeated orders with the effect of continuing restriction, and publish the orders. The Court did not declare access to the internet itself a fundamental right. CURRENT LAW The prohibitory-order principles now apply to Section 163 B.N.S.S. (the old Section 144 of the Code). WATCH MORE All 30 cases in order (playlist): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYOVyhaD5Gdw Complete lecture with case-wise chapters (1 hr 52 min): https://youtu.be/xrBwaWooHmg Previous case (Case 29): Rajnesh v Neha (2020) - https://youtu.be/cXj8oOz2ukw Next: the complete 1 hr 52 min lecture on all 30 cases - https://youtu.be/xrBwaWooHmg Notes and resources: https://www.thelaweasy.com Useful for LL.B., CLAT PG, UGC NET Law and Judiciary exam preparation. This video is for education only and is not legal advice. #LawEasy #AnuradhaBhasin #Article19