A.

WHTHER THE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF JAMBURIYAT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF
JAMBURIYAT IS MAINTAINABLE?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the present public interest litigation filed
under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Indiana is not maintainable before this court for the purpose of
hearing since the petitioner has failed to exercise all the alternative and efficacious remedies
available against violence which are provided under various provisions of CrPC or under the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 or under the writ jurisdiction of High Courts.

1. Other remedies
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court thaT A Writ Petition could have been
moved under Article 226 of the Constitution upon exhaustion of the above remedies. The
power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is one of the basic
essential features of the Constitution. 31 [¶25.] Article 226 empowers High Court to issue
prerogative writs. The said Article reads as under: “Article 226.Power of High Courts to issue
certain writs.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have power,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person
or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories
directions, orders or writs, including [writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.”32 [¶26.] Article 226 confers very wide
powers33 in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court34, the remedy of writ35 is
absolutely discretionary in character.36The Court, in extraordinary circumstances,37 may
exercise the power38 if it comes to the conclusion39 that there has been a breach of the
principles of natural justice40 or the procedure required for decision has not been adopted.41
[¶27.] It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the petitioners, in the present
case, in case of exhausting the remedies mentioned under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 should have moved to the High Court of Purva Pradesh under the jurisdiction of Article
226. [¶28.] The petitioners were to exercise the remedy provided to them after the said
unfortunate incident of the breakout of violence upon them as a collaborative offence of post
poll violence by registering a FIR under Section 154 of the CrPc, 1973. Alternatively, if the
police did not lodge their FIR or declined to conduct proper investigation then either an
application under Section 156(3) CrPC could have been moved before the Judicial Magistrate
or a Complaint could have been moved regarding the offences under Section 200 CrPC before
the Judicial Magistrate. Alternatively, if the affected persons were still aggrieved by the
Judicial Magistrate’s order, they still had a right to move the High Court by filing an
application under Section 482 CrPC, inter alia, invoking the inherent powers of the High
Court in order to direct the police to conduct proper, free and fair investigation in the matter.
A Writ Petition could have been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution upon
exhaustion of the above remedies.

2. last resort
The Indian judiciary is witnessing a spike in misappropriation at the hands of litigants, who
erroneously invoke this jurisdiction under Article 32 and thus, add to the mounting pile of pending
matters. Recently, the Hon’ble Court came down heavily on the Petitioner for erroneously invoking
such jurisdiction in the case of Umedsinh P Chavda v. Union of India and Ors.42 and imposed cost of
Rs. 5 lakhs upon him. [¶30.] Constitutional remedies such as Article 3243 encompass a wide ambit of
power and it has been regarded as a weapon to be used with great care and caution. Though the
Article upholds a person’s fundamental rights to their highest regards, there is a fine line which
prevents it from encroaching upon the constitutional duties of the State. The route of Art. 32 shall be
regarded as a speedy remedy for bona fide cause and not as a tool to cause unnecessary vexation
and delay justice in significant matters when the Supreme Court already faces a backlog of
69,956matters (as on September 04, 2021)44 and physical hearing being suspended to battle the
pandemic of COVID-19, the time of Judiciary demands utilisation in the most judicious manner
possible.

3. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs

4. It is contended that, the Supreme Court has specifically observed that there is value to be
placed on the time of courts and serpentine queues of genuine litigants should not be
overlooked on account of so called PILs, which results in wastage of precious judicial
time.46No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in
order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes.47 [¶32.] Highlighting the purpose
of a PIL, the Supreme Court in Himanshu v. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
&Ors.48 held that “Public interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs. It is
essentially meant to protect the basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged. Public
interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and
the Judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public
interest, ugly private malice, vested interest and/or public interest seeking is not lurking.”49
[¶33.] PIL is a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person50 files a
petition in effect on behalf of such person who on account of poverty, helplessness or
economic and social disabilities could not approach the Court for relief.51 However, in recent
times, there have been increasingly instances of abuse of. PIL.52 Therefore, there is a need to
re emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a Petitioner and
entertained by the Court. [¶34.] Whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process
of the Court is being abused,53

B. WHETHER THE INTERNET SHUTDOWN IN JAMRAJYA AND 3 OTHER

STATES MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE LAW OF JAMBURIYAT?
is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the restriction on the internet by the
Government has not violated any fundamental rights of the citizens. The protest led to violence and
also grievously injured police as well as individuals and it was against the law and order. The step
was taken considering the gravity of the security of the general public. Also, the restriction was not
of permanent nature. The Government has the immunity by the law to block any public access to the
internet under the IT Act.

5.1 That internet: a basic necessity

The fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is interpreted to include the
right to live with human dignity, which includes the right to food and other basic necessities.The
Supreme Court held that basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three—food,
clothing and shelter. The interpretations given by the court make it clear that the internet is not a
basic necessity as it is not the most important thing for survival of a person.

Moreover, an argument of one of the fathers of the internet, Mr. Vinton G. Cerf said “However well
meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high
bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as
humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of
conscience. “The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we want.
The United Nations acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an
end in itself.

5.2 Disturbing of public order and restrictions

 It is submitted before the honorable court that the government is competent to impose internet
shutdown under section 69A of IT Act21. Section 69A of Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000,
confers the power to the Central Government or any officer authorized by it to issue directions for
blocking of public access of any information through any computer resources in the interest of
sovereignty and integrity of Indica, defense of Indica and security of Indica etc. Romesh Thappar v.
State of Madras and Brij Bhusan and Anr. v. State of Delhi, the government was allowed to restrict
speech that ‘undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of
UP, the Court observed that if the State could show that there was some connection between the
law or order passed and public order, the restrictions will be constitutional. In the present case the
government was able to sense the alarming situation of the state and thus it restricted the internet
of the state. “ The phrase “reasonable restriction” connotes that the limitation on a person in
enjoyment of the right should not be excessive in nature, beyond what is deliberation or the choice
of a course which reason dictates. “ It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of
reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and
no abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all
cases.” The reasonableness of a restriction has to be determined from the point of the interests of
the public at large and not from the point of view of the persons upon whom the restrictions are
imposed or upon abstract considerations.

The SC said that a significant feature of a democracy is the space offered for legitimate right to
protest. However, the SC clarified that the right to peaceful protest, is not absolute in nature and can
be restricted on the ground of violation of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order as
well as public safety. It is humbly contended before the Hon'ble court that the legal legitimacy of a
legislation may be questioned only on the basis of two factors : lack of administrative competency
and infringement of any basic constitutional rights

The Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with the Information Technology
(Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 allows
blocking of access to information.if the government would not have imposed restrictions, it would
have escalated the situation and hence the restrictions were necessary.

Also, there is clear difference restriction and ban, the word ‘Restriction’ means that the thing,
activity is allowed but with some limitations, whereas the word ‘Ban’ means which is completely
prohibited in every sense. According to black’s law dictionary ban is an authoritative ecclesiastical
prohibition and restriction is a mere limitation on something

Moreover, the first step under Section 5(2) of the Act, therefore, is the occurrence of any public
emergency or the existence of a public safety interest. Thereafter, the competent authority under
Section 5(2) of the Act is empowered to pass an order of interception after recording its satisfaction
that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii)
the security of the State,

(iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv) public order or (v) for preventing incitement to the
commission of an offence. When any of the five situations mentioned above to the satisfaction of
the competent authority require then the said authority may pass the order for interception of
messages by recording reasons in writing for doing so.”

“Public emergency” or for it to be “in the interest of public safety” are the 2 cases in which the
government can restrict the internet. In exercise of powers conferred under sub rule 1 of Rule 2 of
the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety Rules 2017), and
in the interest of maintaining public safety and averting public emergency the internet ban can be
imposed, "One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information, all equally
create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of speech and expression
includes the right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions." In
the matter of Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India, the court clarified that ‘public emergency’
relates to situation when there is threat to “sovereignty, integrity of indica

5.3 What does misinformation and rumours lead to

Miss information rumours lead to deterioration of law and order so to maintain the peace the
government can stop the flow of information since internet is the fastest medium of transferring
information does certain people can misuse it to spread rumours can also lead to confusion and
further aggravate the situation the transfer of fake images and fake news’s can lead to violence.

According to Hohfield analysis, it has the power (ability to alter legal relation) to convert duty into
right into duty. The government has the power to pose restrictions in cases where it is necessary.
Government is here to fulfil the essential needs and necessary services not the services by choice,
because choice differs but necessity doesn’t.

Therefore, internet should not be a part of article 21 of the constitution as it is not the necessity of
the public at large.

A. DOES A NATION WIDE BAN ON JAM-TALK VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF JAMBURIYAT?