Indian Supreme Court Finds 150-Day Internet Blackout In Kashmir Illegal

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Indian region of Kashmir has had most Internet service blacked out since August. The government of Narendra Modi says the online blackout is a necessary security measure in the face of growing unrest in the region triggered by a change in Kashmir's status under the Indian constitution. (Kashmir's status within India has been a topic of controversy for decades.) But on Friday, India's highest court rejected the government's rationale, arguing that the blackout violated Indian telecommunications laws. "Freedom of Internet access is a fundamental right," justice N. V. Ramana said. "The Supreme Court ruling won't lead to an immediate restoration of Internet access in Kashmir, however," the report adds. "Instead, India's highest court has given the government a week to revise its policies. The court also required the government to be more transparent about its Internet shutdown orders."

Further reading: Reuters

Indefinite suspension is illegal. not suspension

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Internet suspensions can be imposed only for “temporary duration” and an indefinite suspension violated India’s telecoms rules, the court said in an order published on its website.

Despite all that talk about "internet access is one of the fundamental rights" the actual illegal thing was not specifying the end data. All the government has to do is to specify an end date. Quick reading did not show any limit on how long it could be or whether it needs to be reasonable in duration, who determines it etc. It just outline two broad principles, "not indefinite", "not opaque". That is all.

Am I misreading this?

[AlexanderPatrakov]

"It's illegal according to the current laws. So you have one week to fix the laws."

Re: Am I misreading this?

[guruevi]

That is the prerogative of a government after all. Same applies in the US, things can be made legal or illegal by passing laws.

The thing here is the (in)dependence of Kashmir and unrest in the area. India is simply too big and diverse to be ruled by uniform government policy.

Kashmir and Pakistan are really Muslim areas and they do not want to be ruled by a secular government far away, they are demanding a theocracy to be established and China, Iran and even North Korea is aiding in the insurgency in order to destabilize India, each due to their own agenda.

Re: Am I misreading this?

[MrNaz]

Bullshit.
Indian government thugs are really active today.

Re:

[Gavagai80]

India is simply too big and diverse to be ruled by uniform government policy.

Exactly. That's why the people in Kashmir are so upset about losing autonomy.

Forcing them into ever-deeper poverty by cutting them off from being able to do any internet work, transactions or orders for half a year is not exactly likely to make them happier about it.

Re:

[PolygamousRanchKid]

"It's illegal according to the current laws. So you have one week to fix the laws."

"It's illegal according to the current Indian Supreme Court. So you have one week to fix the Indian Supreme Court."

From Wikipedia:

There are currently 33 judges (including the Chief Justice of India) against a maximum possible strength of 34. As per the Constitution of India, judges of the Supreme Court retire at age 65.

By a bizarre coincidence, Narendra Modi will announce that all 33 judges have their 65th birthdays next week.

Modi will name new judges to replace them.

Re:

[junglee_iitk]

Unlike the USA, the Indian judiciary is mostly independent of the government's control. This is because India's first female Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election was invalidated by a court in the 1980s and so she proceeded to announce a state of emergency and suspend democracy, so to say. She kept on it for a year before completely losing the election and basically triggering the eventual fall of her party. So when she went away, the judiciary reorganized to become more independent.

Also, there are a lot

Choose your pain

[ZombieCatInABox]

You can have tyranny;

Or you can have freedom, the rule of law... and bloodshed.

I'm oversimplifying of course, but basically, that's the choice indian authorities, and authorities of countries faced with similar social unrest, are faced with every day.

How many countries, in only the past few decades, have fought for democracy, and obtained it at an exhorbitant human price, only to freely and willfully choose in free elections a leader that was equal or worse than the one they had just booted out ?

It's not easy to to root the barbarian savage out of the human animal.

Re:

[Ryzilynt]

How many countries, in only the past few decades, have fought for democracy, and obtained it at an exhorbitant human price, only to freely and willfully choose in free elections a leader that was equal or worse than the one they had just booted out ?

The question is : How many of those countries had social unrest sowed by the United States government and an "elected" leader installed for the western glory that is democracy?

Don't get me wrong, democracy can be a good thing, i'm just not sure it should be thrust upon anyone against their will.

Besides that true democracy is a myth.

Those who would trade freedom for security

[aberglas]

Deserve neither and will lose both. (B Franklin, I think)

You present a false dichotomy. Once you lose freedoms, the government is what you fear. There is nothing to stop it quickly becoming (even more) corrupt.

Better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees.

Re:

[mobby_6kl]

You can have tyranny;

Or you can have freedom, the rule of law... and bloodshed.

Or you can also have... not escalated the tensions there for bullshit nationalism

RIP Nerds exclusive Internet

[ketomax]

I liked the Internet when it was just for the nerds