The Delhi HC in, LT. COL. P.K. CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. upheld the policy of the government which provided for a ban on social networking platforms for the army personnel and observed that it was not in violation of the fundamental rights as Article 19 provided for reasonable restriction to free speech that included interests of sovereignty and integrity of India.
Petitioner’s Contention
The petitioner, who was posted in Jammu and Kashmir, here contended that it was inevitable for him and other army personnel posted at different parts of India, living in extreme and adverse conditions to use such social networking platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and 87 others to be in touch with their families. Such extreme conditions take a toll on the mental health of the army men. Social media, he contended worked as a socializing mechanism for them. He further contended that he used his Facebook account responsibly, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Indian Army from time to time. The petitioner even claimed that the policy violated the fundamental rights like the right to freedom of speech and expression and right to privacy and went on to say that the same can’t be violated by the executive authority under Article 33 of the Constitution of India and Section 21 of the Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954. Lastly, he concluded by saying that in the 15 years of existence of Facebook, there have been hardly any cases of honey trapping of army officials.
Respondent’s Contention
With the issue concerning the ‘Army Act’, the counsel for respondents placed their reliance on 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. Vs. Union of India to contend that the same lays down the test of judicial interference with the subjective satisfaction of the government. They further relied on Defence Services Regulations, Special Army OrderIII issued on 9th April 2001 to show that the expression “service information and service subject” in Rule 21 of Army Rules is all-embracing and would encompass within its meaning any information relating to the services and to show that the expression “press” includes all non-military audiovisual, visual print electronic media, internet, non-military e-mail, non-military Wide / Local Area Networks and the general public. Furthermore, with the growing national security threat, such a ban was consequential. Also, some apps like Whatsapp, etc are allowed with restricted usage, the respondents said.
Court’s Observation
The Court observed the following:-
- Safeguards are essential owing to national security threats.
- The policy served as a protection to cyberinfrastructure
- The policy is an outcome of the paradigm shift in the intelligence activities of hostile nations
- The policy is necessitated by the evolving guidelines
- It is not possible to keep a check on lacs of accounts
- The policy is an outcome of the assessment of the different modes adopted to honey trap
- The policy is not issued impulsively but is preceded by a prolonged study of different aspects and data collated in this regard
The court in one of the earlier cases had mentioned, “What is in the interest of national security is not a question of law – it is a matter of policy and it is not for the Court to decide whether something is in the interest of State or not”. Furthermore, Article 19(2) of the Constitution mentions reasonable restriction which included ‘interests of sovereignty and integrity of India’. Thus the court thus rejected the petitioner’s contentions.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
