A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging a series of orders issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) directing the suspension of mobile internet services in and around Jantar Mantar during the ongoing student protests over alleged examination irregularities.
The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioner. Gonsalves submitted that the petition had not been listed due to certain office objections relating to formatting. Taking note of the submission, the Bench directed the petitioner to remove the defects so that the matter could be listed for hearing.
The PIL, filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC.in), assails six internet suspension orders issued between July 17 and July 23, 2026, contending that they are arbitrary, disproportionate, unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. Besides seeking quashing of the impugned orders, the petition also prays for directions mandating the contemporaneous publication of all future internet suspension orders to ensure transparency and enable effective judicial review.
According to the petition, the Union Government invoked its powers under Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, read with the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, to direct telecom service providers to suspend mobile internet services within a 1.5-kilometre radius of Jantar Mantar during the protests.
The plea contends that the suspension orders merely reproduce the statutory expressions “public emergency” and “public safety” without disclosing any objective material, recorded reasons or factual basis demonstrating the necessity of a blanket internet shutdown. It argues that the orders fail to satisfy the constitutional requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality and do not indicate whether less restrictive alternatives were considered before curtailing digital access.
The petitioner further submits that there have been several instances where reports of internet shutdowns surfaced before the corresponding suspension orders were placed in the public domain, creating uncertainty regarding the legal basis of the restrictions and depriving affected persons of an effective opportunity to challenge them while the restrictions remained in force.
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in *Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India*, the petition argues that transparency is an essential procedural safeguard governing internet suspension orders. It contends that the absence of a statutory obligation requiring contemporaneous publication of such orders undermines the principles of open governance, accountability and judicial scrutiny recognised by the Supreme Court, thereby impairing the enforcement of fundamental rights.
The petition also alleges that the authorities failed to consider less restrictive alternatives, including enhanced policing, crowd-management measures and targeted law enforcement, before resorting to a blanket suspension of mobile internet services. It further contends that the impugned orders were issued by an Under Secretary instead of the competent authority prescribed under the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, rendering the exercise of power procedurally defective and legally unsustainable.
In addition to challenging the validity of the shutdown orders, the petition seeks production of the original administrative records, including file notings, intelligence inputs, reasons recorded for invoking emergency powers and the proceedings of the statutory Review Committee, to facilitate judicial scrutiny of the decision-making process underlying the internet suspension orders.
The post Student protests: PIL in Delhi High Court challenges internet shutdown orders around Jantar Mantar appeared first on India Legal.