The Supreme Court on Friday rejected to urgently list a petition challenging the internet shutdown currently in force in the State of Manipur.
The vacation bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal, opined that the matter is already under consideration before the Manipur High Court, thereby no need to duplicate proceedings.
Justice Bose, while making an observation, remarked, “The High Court is actively seized of the matter, hence No need to duplicate proceedings.”
Therefore, the Court, asked counsel for the petitioners, advocate Shadan Farasat, to mention the matter before the Manipur High Court regular bench.
Notably, an indefinite internet ban has been enforced in Manipur since May 3, subsequent to the eruption of violent incidents in the State.
This development ensued subsequent to the directive issued by the Manipur High Court, urging the State government to consider the inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list.
The said directive consequently resulted in the wide-ranging confrontations between the tribal and non-tribal communities, leading to loss of lives.
The latest internet suspension order was issued by the State government on May 26.
The petitioners, namely lawyer Chongtham Victor Singh & businessman Mayengbam James, who have approached the apex court, have underscored that despite a “clear and admitted de-escalation” of the situation, the Manipur government has persistently issued state-wide internet shutdown orders.
The petition stated that these blocking orders attribute reasons of law & order and anti-social elements rather than public order, and the recent extensions have been implemented without due oversight from the Review Committee, as as necessary in law.
Moreover, it has been contended that the orders are disproportionately excessive as they impede residents from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and freedom to engage in trade & occupation.
The petition further asserts that the internet ban fails to serve any legitimate objective and lacks a direct nexus with the purpose of maintaining law & order, considering the prevailing circumstances.
Furthermore, it has been submitted that the notifications pertaining to the internet ban have not been duly published on any website/social media platform, thereby depriving residents of the opportunity to seek alternative arrangements or challenge the imposition of such a ban.
