The Supreme Court recently declined to reinstate 4G services in Jammu and Kashmir, opting instead to establish a high-powered committee to examine the arguments made by petitioners against the existing 2G services in the Union Territory. This situation arose due to restrictions placed by the Central government in August 2019 following the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370. Although some services were reintroduced later, internet speed remained limited to 2G levels. The Foundation for Media Professionals filed an appeal for the restoration of high-speed internet in this region due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Trade-off Between Human Rights and National Security
The Supreme Court recognized the unique challenges present within the Union Territory, requiring careful consideration of national security matters alongside human rights issues. The court made reference to a previous ruling in the Anuradha Bhasin case (2020), directing a review of restrictions enforced in this area during the termination of Article 370.
Formation of Special Committee
The Supreme Court called for the creation of a Special Committee, led by the Union Home Secretary, to assess the need for maintaining the restriction of mobile Internet to 2G speeds in the region. The committee is anticipated to recommend alternatives relating to reducing restrictions to those areas where it is deemed necessary and exploring potential ways to permit faster Internet speeds (potentially 3G or 4G) on a trial basis in specific regions.
The Necessity of 4G and National Security Concerns
The Covid-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of 4G services. Having reliable and high-speed connectivity is crucial for healthcare professionals and patients to access up-to-date information, advisories, and guidelines. The lack of 4G access is especially crippling for students in Jammu and Kashmir, as the nationwide shift to online classes can’t be effectively implemented in areas with lower internet speeds. The slower internet speed also negatively impacts businesses that rely on online operations.
National security concerns associated with high-speed internet, however, remain a major issue. Potential border infiltration from external sources and concerns regarding national integrity were raised during the hearing. The J&K administration voiced fears that the availability of high-speed internet could facilitate the spread of false news and rumors. Additionally, the ease of transferring large data files could be exploited by terrorist groups for incitement or planning attacks.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
This landmark judgement affirmed the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression, including the right to engage in any profession, trade, business or other activities over the internet, under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) respectively. However, the ruling also noted that such freedoms are not absolute. Any restrictions placed on them must align with Article 19(2) and Article 19(6) stipulations.
Geographical Limitations on Internet Suspensions
The court further directed that Internet suspension orders should only apply to areas where such restrictions are absolutely necessary. It also instructed the government to form a review committee to assess orders leading to the suspension and discontinuation of internet, mobile, and fixed-line telecommunication services.
Review Committee Establishment
All orders suspending or terminating internet, mobile, and fixed-line telecommunication services are issued under Rule 2 (2) of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services [Public Emergency or Public Service] Rules, 2017. These rules are followed when the government intends to temporarily suspend telecom services in any part of the country. They were established by the government using powers conferred by section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The review committee will be composed of both state and central level officials due it impacting not only Jammu and Kashmir, but the entire country.
