Delhi HC allows withdrawal of PIL challenging mobile internet shutdown during Jantar Mantar protests

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before the Bench that although the case was listed for hearing, the petitioner wished to withdraw the petition.

Taking note of the submission, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia permitted the petitioner to withdraw the PIL.

The petition had challenged the MHA orders dated July 17, 20, 22 and 23, 2026, issued under Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, suspending mobile internet services within approximately a 1.5-kilometre radius of Jantar Mantar during protests relating to alleged irregularities in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and broader issues concerning education and student welfare.

The PIL had sought quashing of the shutdown orders, a declaration that they were illegal and unconstitutional, production of the complete records relating to the suspension orders, and directions requiring contemporaneous publication of all future internet shutdown orders in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.

It had also sought directions requiring future suspension orders to disclose reasons, the material relied upon, and why less restrictive alternatives were not adopted.

The petition had contended that the Ministry of Home Affairs issued multiple orders between July 17 and July 23 suspending mobile internet services within an approximately 1.5-kilometre radius of Jantar Mantar during protests over alleged irregularities in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).

According to the petitioner, the shutdown orders merely reproduced the statutory expressions "public safety" and "public emergency" without disclosing the objective material or reasons demonstrating why the restrictions were necessary and proportionate.

Besides seeking quashing of the shutdown orders, the PIL had sought directions requiring authorities to publish all future internet suspension orders before, or simultaneously with, their coming into force to ensure effective judicial review.

It had also sought production of the complete records relating to the impugned orders, including approvals of the competent authority, intelligence inputs, review committee proceedings, file notings and records showing consideration of less restrictive alternatives. (ANI)