Skip to main content

RIGHT TO INTERNET AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

 


             RIGHT TO INTERNET AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT


INTRODUCTION

All of the people are now facing a big pandemic which is greatly influencing the economy worldwide. Due to covid 19 more than 50% of the world is communicating through online resources. The shift of the world from offline to online made internet access as an essential part of life. Dr.B.R. Ambedkar said that constitution is the soul of the nation, it not only protect the rights of the citizen but also guide the government to make public welfare policies. In covid 19 emergency situation right to internet access become an important human right. The world changed to online on every platform. So without internet access we cannot fulfil the daily goals, the education system itself changed to internet platform so it is clear about the importance of internet access. United Nations Human Right Council (UNHRC) in 2016 said that Right to internet should be made as a fundamental right. In August 2012, the internet society did a survey among 20 countries and 83% believed that right to internet should be given as a fundamental right and 13% opposed the opinion. In past 10 years there were around 400 internet shutdowns in India.

4TH AUGUST 2019

On 4th August 2019 when Indian parliament revoked Article 370 from the constitution and separated the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories that is Jammu and Kashmir and ladakh and for maintaining the security the government imposed Section 144 which prohibits the assembly of more than 5 people along with this they did internet shutdown and this shutdown become the longest internet shutdown of India. On 4th August 2019 due to security reasons internet is shut down in Jammu and Kashmir and it takes 213 days to restore it (4th march 2020). 

ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF CASE LAWS

  1. FAHEEMA SHIRIN VS. STATE OF KERALA (SEPTEMBER 2019) – in this case faheema shirin who is a college student, in their college hotel there was a rule that they are not allowed to use cell phones between 6 to10. Opposing this restriction of the hostel this case was filed in front of justice P V Asha single judge bench of the Kerala high court, keeping in mind the learning process and development of the students the court took an important judgement. The court in this case said that Right to access internet is a fundamental right and it was added with Right to privacy under article 21 of the constitution and also with right to education.

  2. ANURADHA BHASIN VS. UNION OF INDIA (10TH JANUARY 2020) – This case directly connects to Jammu and Kashmir and it is filed on 10th January 2020. In this case the internet ban imposed on 4th august was challenged. They said that restricting physical movement along with shut downing all the mediums of online communication violates fundamental right Article 19 of the constitution as right to internet is a part of Article 19(1) (a).supreme court in this case held that due to immediate threat or security concern a temporary ban on service is permissible but ban of internet services for an indefinite time is not right, the balance between national security and human rights should be maintained. Because of the case 2G services was restored in Jammu and Kashmir.

  3. FOUNDATION OF MEDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA – This case was widely known as 4G case. In this case the ban on 3G and 4G internet service in Jammu and Kashmir was challenged. In this case they said that such ban on internet services completely violates right to education, right to profession, right to health and many fundamental rights. Supreme Court issued directions to resume 4G services and also setup a committee along this after much discussion, centre directed to resume 4G services as a trial basis on limited areas of Jammu and Kashmir after 15th August.

CONCLUSION

The pandemic paved ways to ensure a seat for internet access as a fundamental right. Now internet access become very essential part of everyone’s life. Under Article 21, 19 and 14 of the Indian constitution if one part is restricted to access internet that violates the fundamental right. The time proved the important of internet in the daily life of human’s and now in everywhere we are using the help to internet.


By,

Asha Sebastian.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree