An Internet ban will not restore peace in Manipur (GS Paper 2, Governance)
Context:
- The violence in the Manipur State began on May 3, 2023. It took a video clip of sexual violence by a mob to surface and go viral on social media that day and 78 days for the Prime Minister of India to break his silence.
- During this period an Internet shutdown has continued in the northeast State.
Blanket ban:
- Data from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India show that the people of Manipur access the Internet primarily through their smartphones; and wired Internet users primarily constitute institutional, commercial and higher socio-economic groups.
- Out of a total pie of 0.05 million wireline and 2.36 wireless million users, about 2.2 million connect to the Internet.
- The Internet shutdown in Manipur, first enforced on May 3, is a case of blanket prohibition. The entire State is affected, and it is not a case of some of a total of 16 districts being affected; it covers all web traffic and mediums of connectivity.
Vagueness:
- The orders issued by the Commissioner (Home) of Manipur under the Telecom Suspension Rules use vague language in order to “thwart the design and activities of anti-national and anti-social elements… by stopping the spread of disinformation and false rumours, through various social media platforms”.
- There is an absence of data or specific instances of violence being prevented due to the jamming of Internet connectivity.
Breach of Supreme Court directions:
- In this period, reports have filtered in that document the injury being caused to the people of Manipur. The news is of extremes from students from Manipur pursuing their education in the metropolitan cities running out of money to residents being unable to apply for their evacuation to relief camps.
- The petitions challenging these orders such as Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma vs State of Manipur, were filed in the High Court of Manipur. This case in particular is vital to understand evolving jurisprudence of “limited internet shutdowns” not only in Manipur but also the rest of India.
- After 10 dates of hearing, a direction was issued for partial restoration. The primary objective as framed by the High Court has been to assess “whether it is possible to provide limited usage of internet service to the public”.
- This is constitutionally incongruent to judicial review for it avoids determining the legality of impugned orders.
Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India:
- In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, the Supreme Court failed to adjudicate on even one Internet shutdown order. The decision by itself did not result in restoration of access but for “State/competent authorities to review all orders suspending internet services”.
- Its directions for transparency (such as publication of orders) have not been implemented as yet.
- Bringing lasting damage, this case carved out greater flexibility for, “limited internet shutdowns”, with the possibility of access only to, “government websites, localized/limited e-banking facilities, hospitals services and other essential services, in those regions, wherein the internet services are not likely to be restored immediately.”
Judicial avoidance by Supreme Court:
- The response of the Supreme Court has been one of judicial avoidance. It had an opportunity twice to adjudicate when a petitioner challenged the Internet shutdown and later when the State government itself appealed the order of the High Court for partial restoration.
- Even otherwise, it is peculiar as the Supreme Court is examining a broader issue regarding violence in Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei. In this case, Internet shutdowns are an inherent element.
Conclusion &Way Forward:
- In an Internet ban, misinformation spreads rather than abates. The disinformation served as a pretext for the perpetration of sexual violence against Kuki-Zo women.
- For Manipur, the video clip is a vital moment for a national awakening that must be achieved without any reputational and social harm to survivors of sexual violence and communal hatred.
- Information flows are also necessary to ensure the accountability of the State and central governments in taking steps to ensure truth, justice and reconciliation.
- Accountability can only come when the courts improve on the precedent of the Anuradha Bhasin case and demand it from the State and central executive.
