Ein Antrag gegen die Internetunterbrechung in der Umgebung von Jantar Mantar wurde vom Obersten Gerichtshof von Delhi zurückgezogen

Delhi’s High Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the government’s decision to suspend mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi, as the petitioner withdrew the case. The petition, filed by the legal services organization Software Freedom Law Centre (SLFC), India, was directed by its counsel to be withdrawn, leading to the court’s dismissal of the plea. The court bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia noted the withdrawal and accordingly dismissed the petition. The petition had challenged the Union Ministry of Home Affairs’ orders dated July 17, 20, 22 and 23, which imposed a temporary suspension of mobile internet services in areas near Jantar Mantar, a prominent protest site in central Delhi. These measures were taken during a prolonged agitation led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which had been demanding accountability from the government over the alleged leakage of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) paper and the subsequent resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan as Union education minister. The protests began in early June and continued for over a month, drawing large crowds to the area. The CJP’s campaign gained momentum as it sought transparency and action regarding the NEET incident, which sparked widespread public outrage. The movement culminated in Pradhan’s resignation on Saturday, following which the party claimed its key demands were met. In response, the government reportedly agreed to address the concerns raised by the protesters, leading to the restoration of mobile internet services in central Delhi shortly thereafter. In its petition, SLFC argued that the suspension of mobile internet services constituted an abuse of executive power, interfering with constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21. It contended that the government failed to provide adequate justification for the blanket suspension, particularly in the absence of a declared public emergency. The petition emphasized that the authorities relied on Section 20 of the Telecom Act, along with the Suspension Rules, 2024, to justify the measure, but did not explore less restrictive alternatives. The legal team representing SLFC highlighted that the repeated issuance of six distinct orders over a seven-day period raised questions about the independence of each decision-making process. They argued that these actions lacked the “apparent independent application of mind” required under administrative law, suggesting a mechanical rather than thoughtful exercise of authority. The petition also criticized the lack of transparency surrounding the rationale behind the suspensions, noting that the government did not specify the nature of the perceived threat or how the measures were proportionate to the situation. This omission, according to the petitioners, undermined the legitimacy of the actions taken by the ministry. As the government moved to restore internet services in central Delhi, the resolution of the petition marked the end of a contentious chapter involving civil liberties and state authority. The outcome reflects both the evolving dynamics of public dissent and the mechanisms through which such disputes are resolved within the legal framework.