New Delhi: The Supreme Court, while ruling that the communication restrictions imposed by the central government in Jammu and Kashmir need to be reviewed immediately, said the lockdown did not have a “chilling effect” on journalists as contended by editor of Kashmir Times Anuradha Bhasin.
Bhasin, the executive editor of the newspaper, had challenged the communication lockdown in J&K, while also stating in her affidavit that due to the restrictions imposed by the central government after scrapping of Article 370, she was not able to publish her newspaper from 6 August 2019 to 11 October 2019 and, thus, it was a violation of her fundamental right of practising her profession.
The three-judge bench of Justices N.V. Ramana, B.R. Gavai and Subhash Reddy, however, said there wasn’t any “evidence put forth by” Bhasin about other newspapers not being able to publish their editions due to the lockdown.
The court ruled that since there was no evidence placed on record, Bhasin’s claim of having a chilling effect was a “mere emotive argument for self-serving purpose”, rather than a “legitimate claim”.
The court also noted the argument of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who had earlier said that other newspapers were able to publish their editions in the period during which Bhasin was not able to publish Kashmir Times.
But the top court also noted that governments were “required to respect the freedom of the press at all times”.
“Journalists are to be accommodated in reporting and there is no justification for allowing a Sword of Damocles to hang over the press indefinitely,” noted the SC verdict.
‘Chilling effect derives basis from foreign precedents’
In an affidavit filed on 4 September last year in the apex court, Bhasin had said constant monitoring of news reports sent through a “makeshift media centre” in Srinagar, disregard for press cards and movement passes, and deletion of photos and videos shot by journalists is “causing fear and anxiety”, among them.
“This fear is generating a chilling effect on journalists who have to be very careful not to annoy the authorities and security forces with their reportage, even though the same constitutes honest and impartial reporting,” the affidavit stated.
The top court noted that the doctrine of “chilling effect”, mentioned in Bhasin’s affidavit, is a fairly recent phenomenon in Indian jurisprudence and that it majorly derives basis from foreign precedents.
Bhasin had argued that editor-in-chief of Kashmir Times Prabodh Jamwal had travelled to Srinagar from Jammu on 28 August last year and returned on 31 August, and he had informed Bhasin about the status of communication shutdown and information blackout in Kashmir.
“Movement of journalists, including photo and video journalists, in Srinagar, continues to be restricted by security forces who man the check posts, barricades and concertina wires that are erected across the city,” the affidavit said.
“Journalists are not being allowed to enter certain parts of Srinagar, especially the downtown area, which is considered as a sensitive locality. Despite having movement passes issued by the divisional commissioner, journalists are not allowed to enter downtown by the security forces,” it said.
The SC ruling
On Friday, the SC ruled that any suspension of internet services for an indefinite period would be subjected to judicial scrutiny.
The ruling comes as Kashmir enters the fifth month of communication lockdown after the Narendra Modi government scrapped Article 370, which granted special status to the erstwhile state, on 5 August and announced its bifurcation into two union territories.
The court said whenever the government decides to suspend internet, it must give detailed reason for the decision to allow aggrieved persons to challenge it in appropriate courts. A complete shutdown of internet is a drastic measure, and the government can resort to this only when there is no other alternative to deal with a situation, the judges ruled.
Also read: Internet not fully restored, but J&K Police to connect with people on social media
I personally talked to many kashmiris as they r coming for bussiness purpose in our area. They r saying ,phones lines r open even post paid mobile is working but internet restrictions r there. But they r testifying situation is better as there is sudden fall in terrorism. Internet restrictions r contributing for peace as there no medium of spreading hatred messages. But there r complaining about rude behaviour of security forces in some cases.
Mixed reviews on social media over the verdict. It reaffirms certain valuable principles, including access to the internet being a fundamental right, it cannot be open ended or indefinite, the orders should not be secret, since they are justiciable, notes the adverse effect on e Commerce, undermining the right to business / profession. Allows the government a period of seven days to review the orders presently in force. However, it stops far short of applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, granting immediate relief. 2. A generous view would be that the apex of one branch of governance is deferring to another, allowing it to read gracefully between the lines, take necessary remedial action almost immediately. It is a matter of judgment whether the time require such gentleness or a more decisive intervention. For its part, the executive too should display sagacity, read the underlying message / admonition and act accordingly. 3. My personal view is that the honourable apex court is being overly respectful of the sensitivities of the executive.