New Delhi: The ongoing, nearly-50-day, internet shutdown in Manipur, is contrary to a Supreme Court ruling that prohibits indefinite suspension of internet services, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) said Thursday.
Restrictions on internet access for the public were placed in most parts of Manipur in the wake of ethnic clashes which broke out in the state on 3 May. Since then there have been periodic extensions of the suspension order.
According to reports, the Manipur High Court in an interim order Tuesday, granted limited Internet access to the public in certain designated areas in the state, in response to a petition seeking the restoration of internet access. The order was passed to help people carry out “essential and urgent services”. The case is scheduled to be heard again Friday.
“IFF is deeply perturbed by these egregious violations of fundamental rights — the ongoing censorship of online content as well as the alarming non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and the interim order in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India,” the not-for-profit digital rights advocacy group has said in a statement.
In the ‘Anuradha Bhasin vs the Union of India’ case, the Supreme Court was called upon to determine the constitutionality of a communication shutdown imposed in Jammu & Kashmir on 5 August, 2019. In its judgment, the Court directed competent authorities to publish all orders for suspension of telecom services, including internet, while also noting that an “order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017”. Suspension can be utilised for temporary duration only, it had said.
The S.G. Vombatkere vs Union Of India case of 2022 pertained to charges under the law against sedition.
In a joint statement Thursday, IFF’s Tanmay Singh and Prateek Waghre wrote, “Today marks the 50th day of Manipur’s ongoing state-wide internet shutdown, which began on May 3, 2023. Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is deeply troubled by the indefinite character that the Manipur shutdown has acquired.”
The statement noted that initially, only mobile data services were suspended, however, since the second day of the shutdown, it has been extended to a blanket suspension of all internet services.
“The ongoing internet suspension is being enforced through templatised orders issued every five days. This is contrary to the Supreme Court of India’s (SC) ruling in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, which prohibits indefinite suspension of internet services,” the statement said.
Ethnic clashes between Manipur’s Kuki and Meitei communities erupted on 3 May, following a ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ taken out to oppose the demand for inclusion of Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, and have continued since. An estimated 100 people (at least) have lost their lives in the clashes, more than 300 injured and over 50,000 displaced from their homes.
The ban on internet followed the violence.
Also Read: No let-up in violence in Manipur as ethnic conflict enters 2nd month, more troops rushed in
On secrecy and sedition
In its statement Thursday, IFF further noted that news reports indicate that a first information report (FIR) was registered against Meitei politician, Jagat Thoudam, under section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The section pertains to the offence of sedition.
The FIR against him reportedly follows a column written by Thoudam last month, in which he had blamed the Assam Rifles unit based at Imphal’s Mantripukhri for the crisis in the state.
“Reportedly, the Chief Secretary of Manipur previously warned that individuals spreading ‘fake news, lies, rumours, or misinformation’ will be charged with sedition. This is despite the SC’s interim order dated May 11, 2022, in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, which put the operation of S.124-A of the IPC in abeyance,” said the IIF statement.
It added that in its order dated May 2022, the SC had directed state and Union governments to refrain from registering FIRs, conducting investigations, or taking any other coercive measures under Section 124(A) of the IPC (sedition), while the law was under consideration.
The Union government informed the Supreme Court last month that the review was in the “final stages”.
The statement further alleged that while according to news reports, Twitter accounts in India were being censored and withheld “under a legal demand’, public authorities have not released any such legal orders or demands, and were depriving individuals of knowledge regarding the reasons for censorship and the opportunity to legally challenge it.
A legal demand is a legal order to get Twitter to take down a tweet or content.
“Secrecy in online censorship and bans, which is a continuing administrative practice, undermines the individual’s fundamental right to expression and the collective fundamental right to receive information,” the statement said.
It added: “We will be sending representations to the appropriate public authorities, in continuation with our consistent efforts to raise awareness about the grave threats posed to the digital rights of over 2.7 million residents of Manipur.”
(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)
Also read: More than 6 weeks on, Manipur is still ablaze. It’s a saga of failures, from state govt to Centre