Internet shutdowns impact economic activity, there are other ways to prevent cheating in exams, Supreme Court told

Hearing a plea filed against internet shutdowns in different states to prevent cheating in exams, the Supreme Court was on Tuesday told that such moves affected economic activity.

During the hearing, senior advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that internet shutdowns were being imposed by multiple states to prevent cheating in exams and argued that there were other ways to prevent such malpractices in exams.

Grover argued that internet shutdowns affected economic activity through digital means. She added that as far as such shutdowns were concerned, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anuradha Bhasin’s case should be followed.

Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India was a landmark judgment passed in 2020 with regard to internet shutdowns. The Supreme Court had held that suspending internet services indefinitely was impermissible and any order suspending the internet must adhere to the principle of proportionality, and must not extend beyond the necessary duration.

Appearing for Centre in Tuesday’s hearing, advocate Kanu Agarwal said the government had issued letters to chief secretaries to follow the law laid down in the Anuradha Bhasin judgment.

He added that the Anuradha Bhasin judgment laid down parameters, but orders were being passed under a statutory regime and the said judgment itself stated that those were to be challenged before the High Courts.

“What they are seeking is an advance ruling,” he said.

The court recorded the request made on behalf of the Solicitor General for an adjournment since he was arguing before a different court and directed the matter to be listed in January next year. The court said that additional documents should be filed in the meantime.

In September 2022, the court issued a notice to the government, calling upon it to put in an affidavit in response indicating whether there was any standard protocol with respect to the grievance raised by the petitioner and, if so, to what extent and how the said protocol was adhered to and implemented.

The petitions made the governments of Gujarat, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Arunachal Pradesh respondents in the case. However, the court had issued a notice only to the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.