A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the prolonged internet suspension imposed in Manipur since May 3, subsequent to the outbreak of violence.
Lawyer Chongtham Victor Singh and businessman Mayengbam James, the petitioners, highlighted the recurring issuance of statewide internet shutdown orders by the Manipur government, despite the evident reduction in the intensity of the situation.
“Not only have they [residents of the State] experienced feelings of fear, anxiety, helplessness, and frustration as a result of the shutdown, but they have also been unable to communicate with their loved ones or office colleagues, straining personal, professional, and social relationships. Additionally, they have been unable to send their children to school, access their bank accounts, receive or send payments, obtain essential supplies and medicines, and more, bringing their lives and livelihoods to a standstill,” the plea stated.
In March 2023, Justice MV Muralidharan of the Manipur High Court had directed the Manipur government to promptly consider the inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list, preferably within four weeks from the date of the order. As a result, violent clashes erupted between tribal and non-tribal communities, leading to loss of lives.
A division bench of the High Court had issued notice in a writ appeal against Justice Muralidharan’s order, and the hearing for the same is scheduled for June 6, 2023.
The most recent order to suspend internet services was issued by the State government on May 31, 2023. According to the petition, the blocking orders reference law and order concerns and anti-social elements, rather than public order. It was also pointed out that the recent extensions of the ban did not undergo the necessary oversight of the Review Committee, as required by law. The petition further argued that these orders are highly disproportionate as they impede residents from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and the freedom to engage in trade and occupation.
“The suspension orders do not explicitly mention reasons that fall within the contours of Article 19(2) of the Constitution; therefore, they violate Rule 2(2) of the Telecom Suspension Rules, and do not pass constitutional muster. For this reason alone, they must be declared unconstitutional and illegal,” the plea pointed out.
According to the plea, the internet ban lacks a legitimate objective and fails to establish a direct connection with the current ground situation concerning law and order. The petition further highlighted that the notifications regarding the internet suspension have not been made available on any website or social media platform, depriving residents of the opportunity to seek alternatives or challenge the ban.
The petitioners, represented by advocate Natasha Maheshwari and filed through advocate Shadan Farasat, urged the court to direct the State to restore internet services in all districts and to publish the orders of suspension along with the findings of the Review Committee.
