Prasanna S 
Advocate Vrinda Grover resumes her submissions challenging J&K telecom restrictions.
She begins by citing the orders under which the restrictions are placed.
Cites one of the orders which refers to shutting down on landline services on the apprehension of "data services" ... Bench is in agreement that this appears to have been without application of mind given data services shutdown requires no shut down of landlines.
Cites the next order that subject mentions reduction of speeds to 2G speeds, but instead actually has had a full shutdown of all mobile data services. The specific order seeks restriction only for "snapdown"
VG now taking through the Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017.
Refers to how there was no emergency in this case, the legislative changes were brought by the State and they had enough time to prepare, no occassion to bypass the Rules and have the IG authorise the shutdown as against a competent authority under the Rules.
VG refers to how there is no material to suggest that the IG has been authorised under the Rules to issue orders of shutdown.
Distinguishes these rules from proviso to Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules which authorise heads of security and law enforcement agencies for "interception" in remote areas in the case of emergency.
She argues the 2017 Rules therefore do not contemplate someone like an IG not to be a competent authority to suspend services and only a person such as a Home Secretary or a JS rank officer in Home Dept.
She says
1. No unavoidable circumstance.
2. No authorisation to IG produced.
3. IG cannot be a competent authority under the Rules, even if there is a letter of authorisation.
1. No unavoidable circumstance.
2. No authorisation to IG produced.
3. IG cannot be a competent authority under the Rules, even if there is a letter of authorisation.
VG making her next point. Refers to State Govt's ridiculous contention that reasons won't contain reasons in the shutdown orders.
VG reading the next ridiculous line where they say the sufficiency of reasons is not amenable to judicial review.
VG refers to the Rule says expressly that the order needs record reasons.
Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal also in court. He is there to argue for Ghulam Nabi Azad. Bench tells him VG will take some time. He is free to remain but he can consider coming back later. He says it is a pleasure to hear VG argue. Pleasant smiles all round.
VG next point: Review Committee to review these orders within five days is mandatory under the Rules. No averment in any affidavits that there has been any review of these shutdown orders.
So FRs of an entire State has been taken away by a process where orders are overbroad, vague, disproportionate, without reasons issued by an incompetent authority who is a police officer, and no review committee constituted or reviewed.
The Rules have been completely and comprehensively flouted. All orders have to be set aside immediately.
VG next referring to Constitutional provision of 19(2) and the categories mentioned there.
Points to all shutdown orders referring to "law and order" has no mention in 19(2).
Refers to Ram manohar Lohia case where Law and Order is distinct from public order or security of the State.
She submits therefore the orders are manifestly in violation of Article 19(2)
"Apprehension of a likely deterioration of law order" cannot be raised to a level affecting "public order"
VG refers to KK Saravana Babu v. State of Tamilnadu which quotes Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia's case.
VG buttresses her argument that there was only an apprehension of likelihood of deterioration of law and order referring to the govt's affidavit also reiterating that.
She submits the case law is clear on how this does not conform as a valid ground for restriction under 19(2)
VG reiterates how indian media have been crippled and debilitated because of these restrictions.
VG next wants to argue on the role of the media in a democracy and the internet's role in a democracy.
Internet is a basic necessity today for the freedom of press.
Recall that VG is for the main writ petitioner, Anuradha Bhasin, in her capacity as the editor of Kashmir Times.
VG reads Article 19 of ICCPR and a General Comment on Article 19 by the Human rights Committee
Generic Bans which are not content specific are incompatible with Article 19, she cites.
Cites how even with respect to counter terrorism measures, Article 19(3) of ICCPR have to be adhered to and media must be allowed to operate.
VG cites AHMET YILDIRIM v. TURKEY ECHR case para 48 to contend that access to internet is now an insegregable aspect of right to information and right to free expression.
Next reads Para 68 to support contention that these shutdowns which are arbitrary interference with the right to free expression.
Justice Reddy asks VG what is the circulation of the paper. She replies it is a reputed paper being published since 1950s and circilation is mentioned in the WP at Page 4.
He presses if these are certified numbers. There is a discussion on TRPs etc. Justice Ramana refers to TV debates and chasing TRPs.
Kapil Sibal joins in and says 'Because the Nation Wants to know' .. Laughter all round.
Justice Ramana wants to know why KS is not seen in TV debates these days.
KS replies that that is because he doesn't want to go uninformed.
Laughter all round
VG then refers to all insinuations against the Petitioner by the State including the motives behind filing the Petition.
VG refers to Govt stating that the Petitioner is not publishing on our own repeatedly in different affidavits despite the Petitioner stating so in rejoinder that she had been publishing a truncated version. She also produces the papers.
VG says these statements questioning motives of an ordinary citizen in filing an Article 32 petition is itself a chilling effect
VG rounds up her submissions by stating this this a collective punishment when order after order refers to antinational elements etc. and submissions here about terrorism but restrictions placed on the entire state!
Kapil Sibal starts his submissions.
Refers to Article 352 and there is no ground on which there could be an emergency in this case
Next says there is no concept of abrogation of a right under the Constitution. Only restrictions.
JuneymbIn the history of India, seven million lives have never been paralysed in one stroke..
This is never contemplated under this Constitution. Which is why this kind of matter has never come before this court.
It is today, Kashmir. Tomorrow it could be Nagaland.
State has to be citizen's benefactor. All restrictions on rights have to be for citizens' benefits. Cannot be abrogative of the rights.
KS smoothly moves to how Article 19 is not only a freedom to disseminate information. But also a right to receive information. Even for citizens outside K. Person sitting in Delhi has a right to know what is happening in J&K.
So this abrogation of right not only on persons in Kashmir but also people outside.
Some commotion as some lawyer in the crowd shouts that KS is misrepresenting acts of terrorists and truck drivers as acts of State.
Bench reprimands him.
KS says all the arguments are only on law and no politics should come in. The Bench vehemently agrees.
Bench rises for the day.
AdvManoj@prasanna_s One of the reasons for being on Twitter was - these threads from Prasanna & also Gautam. If i get it here & when even @Memeghnad is here- what else a poor lawyer could ask for ??
Rajaراجہ awaaz do hum ek hain@AdvManoj @prasanna_s @Memeghnad
True. Not just lawyers, but even lay people learn a lot from their threads.
Which, come to think of it, might just be a bit shorter, given 500 char allowed here. ;-)
True. Not just lawyers, but even lay people learn a lot from their threads.
Which, come to think of it, might just be a bit shorter, given 500 char allowed here. ;-)
varkychen
Leena Sharma@varkychen @AdvManoj @prasanna_s @Memeghnad umm sorry what? Does that breed exist in India? Apart from a small universe? Rest are anchors.
@lesharma @AdvManoj @prasanna_s @Memeghnad Their lights may have dimmed and many may have lost their way in the darkness. But those lights that remain are our beacons of hope...
@prasanna_s Justice Ramanna states not all the seven million people are terrorists .. it has to be categorised .. Restriction and Prohibition are different aspects ..
avndp@prasanna_s aren't the restrictions being eased? Are the fundamental rights abrogated there? How?
@prasanna_s KS argues if you want to Restrict my Right first you need to protect my right. .. RESTRICT MY RIGHT IN ORDER TO PROTECT MY RIGHT..!!
Mother of Mercy@prasanna_s Not even the separation of India and Pakistan?