Balancing security with rights

Striking a balance, the Supreme Court on Monday refused the restoration of 4G services in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir but provided for a high-powered panel to review grievances posed by petitioners regarding health services and education. While depriving J&K of 4G data services appears discriminatory when viewed from the lens of equality, the reasonable restrictions that the J&K administration asserted in its defence corroborate such action. The question before the Supreme Court was one of balance between national security and human rights. Even though its January 10 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India outlined access to the internet as a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution, Article 19 (2) curtails the right in the interest of national security. In light of security concern, the administration's curtailment of internet services thus becomes legitimate. What Anuradha Bhasin verdict assures is access to the internet which, following subsequent reviews as mandated by the same judgment, was restored but with regulations such as access to only 300 white-listed sites. A formal notification on March 26 restricted the internet speed to 2G. Thus, slow speed and limited access collectively become the pain point that petitioners set out to address and resolve. While arguments and counter-arguments over the viability of 2G data services were placed in front of the SC bench, the ultimate question was that of the law and the balance that needs to be struck. SC's dismissal of restoration is sourced from its consideration of imminent threat that certain districts of the Valley face from high-speed seamless internet connectivity. Recent events of militancy only underline the perpetual threat. In such circumstances, safeguards of reasonable restrictions placed on fundamental rights for the state to exercise in extreme situations becomes a necessary step that cannot be overlooked. The administration's apprehension that 4G could be misused also does not appear to be unfounded. It cited how terrorists could use 4G for proxy wars or to instigate young minds into terrorism. It could also be used for planning attacks and tracking troop movements. In a nutshell, the resounding argument that ultimately fuelled the Court's decision was the undisputed fact that internet, that too high-speed and unrestricted, can propagate terrorism, especially modern-day terrorism. Therefore, reasonable restrictions put in place were unavoidable given the peculiar geopolitical situation in question.

Since the Court had to strike a balance between human rights and national security, its dismissal of petitioners' plea carried a silver lining for the latter. The high-powered committee of secretaries that the SC has mandated to be formed would look into district-wise security concern and take a decision of lifting restrictions in the light of such review. This stems from the Court's view that the administration did not assess district-wise threat perception of the Union Territory when restricting data bandwidth to 2G. Militancy is not evenly spread across districts of the UT. Some are relatively free of such incursions and as such should not bear the brunt of a general restriction. There is no denying that restrictions placed bear a negative externality for the socio-economic development of the region. However, the repeated incursions by militants have only made India more cautious of the UT's security. It is true that the pandemic has further aggravated the situation with businesses shut and unable to yield much from slow internet. Businesses are shut and unable to yield much from slow and heavily regulated internet. At a time when classes are to be held online, the UT finds itself at a loss since 2G is not appropriate for holding online classes. Similar to SC, the committee ought to strike a balance between security and development. Therefore, a case by case analysis by the mandated committee is much anticipated, especially since J&K's development lies at the centre of Union's agenda.