Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 30), regarding internet bans in the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir, the bench, while referring to the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India judgment, made a crucial observation about the publication of review orders. Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the petitioner, cited specific paragraphs from this landmark judgment to bolster his argument.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising justices, stated emphatically,
“The review orders are not to be kept in cupboard…”.
This statement underscores the court’s stance on the necessity of transparency in the administration of justice, particularly in matters involving internet restrictions and their implications on civil liberties.
Further elaborating on the nature of the information to be made public, the bench clarified,
“It may not be necessary to publish the deliberations, however, the orders passing the review would be required to be published.”
This distinction between the deliberations and the actual orders is critical, as it balances the need for transparency with the potential sensitivities involved in such deliberations.
Also read- Supreme Court Dismisses Lawyer’s Defamation Case Against Newspaper Owner (lawchakra.in)
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj, representing the UT of Jammu and Kashmir, was given two weeks by the bench to seek instructions and respond accordingly.
“Nataraj seeks two weeks’ time to take instructions in this regard,”
noted the bench in its order, following the submissions.
This directive from the Supreme Court is a significant step towards reinforcing the principles of open justice and the right to information, especially in scenarios where national security and civil liberties intersect. The court’s insistence on the publication of review orders, as highlighted in the Anuradha Bhasin judgment, reflects its commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability in governance.
The case, which has been adjourned for two weeks, is poised to set a precedent in how review orders related to internet bans are handled and disclosed to the public. This development is particularly noteworthy in the context of ongoing debates over internet restrictions and their impact on fundamental rights in India.
Also read-Gyanvapi Case: SC Petitioned To Resume Survey For ‘Shivling’ (lawchakra.in)
