NAME: ARUSHI JAIN

BATCH: BA LLB (Hons.), 1ST SEMESTER

SCHOOL: SCHOOL OF LAW

TOPIC: TWO CASE ANALYSIS ON RECENT JUDGMENTS OF

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CASE ANALYSIS: ANURADHA BHASIN V. UNION OF INDIA

CASE DETAILS

Full name of the Case: Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Subhash Reddy

Citation: AIR 2020 SC 13081

Date of Decision: 10 January, 2020

INTRODUCTION

The judgment in the case of Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India impacted Constitutional Law in
India to a large extant. This judgment became prominent due to its curious and notable subject
matter. Its decision was given by the Hon. Supreme Court of India.

FACTS

In August 2019, certain guidelines were issued in public interest by the Civil Secretariat of the
Home Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir for the tourists to cut short their stay and

1
Full Judgment- https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/28817/28817_2019_2_1501_19350_Judgement_10-Jan-
2020.pdf
make their arrangements to return from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, also the educational
institutions and offices were asked to shut their operations till further orders.

On August 5th, 2019, a Constitutional Order No. 272 issued by the President of India
applying every provisions of the Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and
modifying article 360 of Indian Constitution in its application in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir. Following this, the District Magistrate (DM) of Jammu and Kashmir imposed
restrictions under section 1442, restricting the public gathering and movement apprehending
breach of peace and tranquility in the state. Movements of journalists were restricted and this
was challenged under article 19 of Indian Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and
expression and freedom to carry any trade or occupation. Also the legality of shutting down the
internet connection and restricting movements in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was
challenged in the Hon. Supreme Court of India under article 32 of the Constitution of India.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Government can claim exemption from producing all the orders passed
under section 144 3 and others under suspension rules?4
2. Whether imposing restrictions under section 144 5 are valid?
3. Whether the freedom of speech and expression, freedom to practice any profession or to
carry out any trade, occupation or business over the internet is a part of Fundamental
Rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India?
4. Whether the action of Government to prohibit internet access in the state is valid?

ANALYSIS

PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS

The Petitioner - Ms. Anuradha Bhasin, the Executive Editor of the Kashmir Times Srinagar
Edition, contended that internet is crucial for modern press, without which print media has come

2
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
3
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
4
https://legalbonanza.com/leading-cases-judgements/anuradha-bhasin-v-union-of-india-case-study/
cid5283727.htm#:~:text=The%20petition%20was%20filed%20by,the%20newspaper%20since%20August%206.
5
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
to “grinding halt”. 6
She submitted that since August 6th, 2019, she was unable to publish her
newspaper. Following arguments were contended by the petitioner:

1. That some trades are completely dependent on internet. This Right to trade through
internet also fosters consumerism and provides wide availability to choose different
goods and services.
2. That the Freedom of Trade and Commerce via the medium of internet is protected under
Article 19 (1) (g) of Indian Constitution, which is subject to certain restrictions provided
under Article 19 (6) of Indian Constitution.
3. That the restrictions imposed in the state under section 144 7 were neither reasonable nor
proportional with the aim of the public policy. It was asserted that “public order” is
different from “law and order”. The restrictions were imposed as argued by the
respondents was due to a threat to law and order.
4. That, neither of those two expressions was at risk before passing the order of restriction
under section 1448. It was also pleaded by the respondents that these restrictions were
temporary in nature, but they have been enforced for more than 100 days.

In another Writ Petition, the petitioner- Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, a Member of Parliament (MP)
from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, argued the following:

1. That the extent of the restriction under section 144 9 must be imposed to a specific group
of people, it cannot be applied to the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir.
2. The government should impose less restrictive measures and must balance the
Fundamental Rights of the citizens of India as well as maintain the security of people.
3. That imposing restrictions on the internet in the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir
impacts both Freedom of Speech and Expression10 and Freedom to carry any Trade,
Profession or Occupation11.

RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
6
https://legalbonanza.com/leading-cases-judgements/anuradha-bhasin-v-union-of-india-case-study/
cid5283727.htm#:~:text=The%20petition%20was%20filed%20by,the%20newspaper%20since%20August%206.
7
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
8
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
9
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
10
Article 19 (1) (a) of Indian Constitution
11
Article 19 (1) (g) of Indian Constitution
Following arguments were made by the Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Attorney General for
Union of India and Mr. Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of the State of Jammu and Kashmir:

1. That restrictions on internet in the State of Jammu and Kashmir were essential in order to
combat terrorism.

2. That the standard of free speech and expression cannot be applied to the internet in the view of
the fact that internet is boundless as it opens up for a two-way communication through the
engagement on social media and the dangers of the dark web is also present.

3. That particular websites could not be targeted, but instead, the internet as a whole was
supposed to be shut down in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

4. That the claims made by plaintiff on the stringency of the restrictions on internet were grossly
exaggerated.

JUDGMENT

Following was held by the judges:

1. That the orders for restrictions as mentioned under section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 and orders for internet suspension for a temporary period of time must be published and
made available for general public at the earliest.

2. That section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 cannot be used to suppress the legitimate
exercise of fundamental rights. Such powers should be directed to deal with emergencies that are
likely to cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury to persons. And they are subject to scrutiny by
the judiciary.

3. That Freedom of Speech and Expression as mentioned under article 19(1 (a) of the
Constitution of India enjoys constitutional protection over the medium of the internet too.

CONCLUSION

The judgment in the case of Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India, delivered by the Hon. Supreme
Court of India, is related to Fundamental Rights mentioned in Indian Constitution. The judgment
was well put together and has successfully sets a benchmark to consider that Freedom of Speech
and Expression and Freedom to Practice any Profession or carry on any Trade, Business or
Occupation through medium of internet is a Fundamental Right which is guaranteed as well as
protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

REFERENCES

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/anuradha-bhasin-v-union-of-india-case-analysis/#Conclusion
 https://ijlra.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Ananya-Sharma.pdf
 https://legalbonanza.com/leading-cases-judgements/anuradha-bhasin-v-union-of-india-case-
study/cid5283727.htm#:~:text=The%20petition%20was%20filed%20by,the%20newspaper
%20since%20August%206
 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/
2019/28817/28817_2019_2_1501_19350_Judgement_10-Jan-2020.pdf
 https://www.legalbites.in/case-analysis-anuradha-bhasin-v-union-of-india/#_ftn1
 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3164-anuradha-bhasin-v-s-union-of-
india.html