Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Against Mobile Internet Shutdown

Petition Withdrawn Following Protests

New Delhi, July 27 - The legal aid organization 'Software Freedom Law Center, India' has withdrawn its public interest litigation against the suspension of mobile internet services in and around Jantar Mantar at the Delhi High Court on Monday. Internet services in these areas have been restored following the conclusion of protests by the Cockroach Public Party (CJP).

The bench, comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia, stated, “The petitioner's lawyer has indicated instructions to withdraw the petition.” Consequently, the petition is considered dismissed.

In the petition, the 'Software Freedom Law Center, India' sought the annulment of orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on July 17, 20, 22, and 23, which temporarily halted mobile internet services in certain parts of central Delhi. The Cockroach Public Party had initiated protests at Jantar Mantar on June 20, demanding accountability from the government regarding the NEET question paper leak and the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

This movement, which lasted over a month, concluded on Saturday when Dharmendra Pradhan resigned from his position, and the government accepted other demands from the CJP.

Following this, mobile internet services were restored in central Delhi. The petition argued that the temporary suspension of telecommunications services, including mobile internet, represents one of the most extraordinary oppressive powers available to the executive, as it impacts fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression), 19(1)(b) (right to peaceful assembly), 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

The petitioner described the orders to shut down the internet as 'illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional,' asserting that they did not clearly mention any public emergency nor justified the necessity of shutting down mobile internet services across the entire area.

Furthermore, the petitioner alleged that the suspension orders did not indicate whether officials had independently considered the facts. Instead, it appeared to be a mechanical use of legal powers, which does not align with the requirements of administrative law.