Archive · 27 Jul 2026
Delhi High Court Withdraws PIL on Internet Shutdown
The Software Freedom Law Centre, India, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court against the government's decision to shut down mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi during a protest by the Cockroach Janta Party.
The protest was about the NEET paper leak and the resignation of the Union education minister.
The petition argued that the internet shutdown was illegal and violated fundamental rights.
However, after the protest was called off and the internet services were restored, the petitioner withdrew the case.
The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
The Software Freedom Law Centre, India, withdrew its PIL against the suspension of mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi.
The petition challenged the legality of the internet shutdown, arguing it violated fundamental rights under the Constitution.
The internet shutdown was in response to protests by the Cockroach Janta Party over the NEET paper leak and the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan.
The government justified the shutdown as necessary for public safety and averting a public emergency.
The petitioner argued that the suspension orders did not consider less restrictive alternatives and lacked an independent application of mind.
- Who
- Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC.In) and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs
- What
- Withdrawal of a PIL against the suspension of mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi
- When
- Monday (specific date not mentioned)
- Where
- Delhi High Court
- Why
- The internet shutdown was lifted following the withdrawal of the Cockroach Janta Party's protest, and the petitioner decided to withdraw the PIL.
Petitioner's Argument
Government's Stance
Legality of Internet Shutdown
Petitioner's Argument
The petitioner argued that the internet shutdown was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
Government's Stance
The government maintained that the shutdown was necessary for public safety and averting a public emergency, as per Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecom Act and the Suspension Rules, 2024.
Proportionality and Necessity
Petitioner's Argument
The petitioner claimed that the suspension orders did not consider less restrictive alternatives and lacked an independent application of mind, reflecting a mechanical exercise of statutory power.
Government's Stance
The government likely argued that the shutdown was a proportionate measure to address the public emergency and ensure public safety.
- Petitioner
- Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC.In)
- Respondent
- Union Ministry of Home Affairs
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of Withdrawal
- Monday (specific date not mentioned)
- Location of Internet Shutdown
- Parts of central Delhi, within a 1.5 km radius of Jantar Mantar
- Reason for Protest
- Accountability for NEET paper leak and resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan
- Legal Provisions
- Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecom Act and the Suspension Rules, 2024
- Constitutional Rights Violated
- Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(g), and 21