Submitted by: Disha Bhatia

Legal Intern
Email : dishabhatia207@gmail.com
Phone No : 8447853983

RAHUL & JAYSHRI ASSOCIATES Co.

CASE ANALYSIS
Anuradha Bhasin vs Union Of India

Citation: AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1308

INTRODUCTION
Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India is a landmark case involving the right to freedom of speech and
expression with respect to the internet and its regulation. The case was filed in the Supreme Court of
India by Anuradha Bhasin, the Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, a prominent English-language
daily published from Jammu and Kashmir. She challenged the government's decision to impose
restrictions on internet and mobile phone services in the region following the abrogation of Article
370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

The case revolves around the implications of government-imposed restrictions on internet usage and
mobile phone services under the garb of maintaining law and order in the region. The petitioners
contended that the ban violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution,
including the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to practice any profession,
trade or business. The issues raised in the case are of national importance, as the freedom of the
press and the right to access information are crucial pillars of a healthy democracy.

The case assumes significance as it addresses the larger question of balancing the competing
interests of the government's national security and the citizen's right to access information and
exercise their freedom of speech.
FACTS IN BRIEF

1. The case pertains to the imposition of Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. (Criminal Procedure Code)
in Jammu and Kashmir on August 4, 2019, which restricted people from assembling in public
places or any movement on the streets.
2. The petitioners argued that there were no disturbing facts warranting the imposition of such
restrictions on that day, and the government couldn't have passed such orders in anticipation
or on the basis of a mere possibility of breach of peace.
3. The state, on the other hand, cited the long history of terrorist insurgencies and violence in
the region as a basis for the imposition of restrictions.
4. The Supreme Court noted that while the state is in the best position to assess the threat to
public peace and tranquility, there must be sufficient material facts to justify the invocation of
this power. The orders imposing Section 144 must be published and made accessible to the
public; the state cannot refuse to produce them before the court or claim any privilege.

LEGAL ISSUES

● Whether the government can claim exemption from complying with the procedural
requirements for imposing restrictions under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and not produce the
orders imposing such restrictions?
● Whether the orders imposing restrictions under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. were passed
based on sufficient material facts justifying their invocation, considering the prevailing facts
and circumstances of the case?.
● Whether the impugned restrictions have affected the fundamental rights of the citizens and
warranted the invocation of restrictions?
● Whether such restrictions are in compliance with the restrictions on fundamental rights
provided in Part III of the Constitution?

JUDGEMENT
The judgment upheld the power of the state to impose restrictions under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C.
but held that such power must be exercised in compliance with the procedural requirements, with
valid reasons and facts provided for imposing the restrictions and the orders imposing such
restrictions produced before the court. The court emphasized that such restrictions must be
proportionate to the intended goal and must be imposed only after considering all relevant facts and
circumstances.

The judgment laid down the legal position on Section 144, Cr.P.C. and summarized the requirements
for exercising such power, including the necessity of an opinion formed after careful inquiry by the
Magistrate about the need to exercise the extraordinary power conferred under this provision, the
requirement of a written order for prohibiting or mandating action with respect to property, as well as
the principle that the Magistrate's action should be directed against the wrong-doer rather than the
wronged.

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that while the state has the power to impose restrictions on
fundamental rights of individuals under exceptional circumstances, such restrictions must be
proportionate to the intended goal and must be imposed only after considering all relevant material
facts and circumstances.

The government must provide valid reasons and facts for imposing such restrictions under Section
144 of the Cr.P.C., and the orders imposing such restrictions must be in writing, stating the reasons
and facts for imposing the restrictions. They must also be produced before the court for judicial
review and must not be mere formalities. The court also recognized the application of the doctrine of
proportionality in resolving conflicts between fundamental rights and the state's power to impose
reasonable restrictions, and emphasized that the court should normally not interfere with matters
relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of the administrative authorities concerned.

The court laid down the stages of proportionality that must be followed, including the determination
of the legitimate goal of imposing restrictions, the examination of the necessity and proportionality of
the restrictions, and the examination of the least restrictive measures before imposing such
restrictions.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the power of the state to impose restrictions under Section
144 of the Cr.P.C. but held that such power must be exercised in compliance with the procedural
requirements, with valid reasons and material facts provided for imposing the restrictions and the
orders imposing such restrictions produced before the court. The court emphasized that such
restrictions must be proportionate to the intended goal and must be imposed only after considering
all relevant facts and circumstances, and that the government measure should be the least
restrictive measure possible.

The judgment has significant implications for the exercise of power by the government, particularly in
circumstances where the state may need to impose restrictions to prevent an emergency situation,
such as public disorder, breach of peace, or terrorism. The court has made it clear that such
restrictions must be justified by valid reasons and material facts, must respect the fundamental rights
of individuals, and must be the least restrictive measure possible.