Let us make the space we share better and bring the change we desire. Author is Indian Muslim, a Public Figure, Social Activist, Blogger and Media Personality. On mission to build a givers world rather than takers.
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Tuesday upheld the state government’s decision to impose a week-long mobile internet ban last month when riots broke out on August 25 following the arrest of Hardik Patel, the leader of the Patidar reservation stir.
The court turned down a PIL filed by law student Gaurav Vyas, who had challenged the blocking of mobile internet services on the ground that it violated fundamental rights. Vyas had also questioned the city police commissioner’s invocation of CrPC’s Section 144 (power to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger) to restrain mobile internet services.
A clear failure of State Govt to control law and order. The Govt will face a challenge by the petitioner who is all set to challenge the HC order. So called Gujarat model of development and governance seems to be just Jumla of the BJP Govt in Gujarat and PM who came to power and reached the top seat of PM by projecting Gujarat as the role model of development and good governance exposed as just a false propaganda.
The petitioner contended the government should have blocked certain websites or services by applying Information Technology Act’s Section 69A (blocking content in case security of state is threatened). “Applying Section 144 of CrPC to block internet is arbitrary and beyond the scope of the provisions of the law,” he said.
In response, the government pleader submitted there was sufficient and valid ground to exercise CrPC’s Section 144 to block mobile internet services or else it would have been difficult to restore peace. The state government also submitted that the exercise of power was not extreme since internet could be accessed on broadband and Wi-Fi services.
After hearing the case, the court said Section 144 of the CrPC was exercised for preventive actions. In a given case, Section 69A of the IT Act might be exercised for blocking certain websites, whereas directions could be issued under CrPC provisions to service providers to block internet facilities.
The petitioner’s advocate said they planned to move the SC against the HC order.