State can ban Mobile Internet to maintain law and order: Supreme Court

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

New Delhi: Honourable Supreme Court of India, while deciding the appeal where a challenge against the judgement of the High Court of Gujarat was preferred, upheld the decision of said High Court.

It was seen in the month of September, last year, that the High Court of Gujarat had rejected the Public Interest Litigation- PIL, where the Ban imposed by Government was challenged. The HC had stated in its decision that the State Government’s decision was ‘Just and Proper’.

The said judgement of the High Court of Gujarat was challenged before the Supreme Court of India. And on Thursday i.e. 11th day of February, this year, the Apex Court has also dismissed the challenged and upheld the decision taken by High Court of Gujarat.

Thus, the State Government’s ban under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is consequently upheld by both the higher Courts. And the said PIL which was preferred before the High Court of Gujarat was filed by SureshBhai Vyas.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

The ban is actually imposed against the mobile Internet by the State Government of Gujarat for around Ten days. And this was in connection with the Ptidar agitation in the year 2015 and the said Ten days ban was imposed during such agitation. Also, in the States like Jammu and Kashmir, the similar ban has been imposed.

As such, the matter as an appeal against the judgement of High Court of Gujarat on the said Public Interest Litigation was rejected by the Bench of Supreme Court of India, where it was comprising of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice R. Banumathi.

While denying the challenge, the Apex court’s respected Bench said that such ban can be imposed for law and order maintenance.

In the contentions preferred for the appellant, the representing Advocate sought to mention that the Ban is not tenable as there is a provision under Telegraph Act, which is being a special law for dealing the similar matters. However, this contention was also rejected by the court saying that there can be concurrent powers.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="4" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

Adv. Faim Khalilkhan Pathan