Mobile Internet Restored in Assam Districts After Law and Order Review
Mobile internet services restored in Assam's Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao districts after a law and order review.
Photo by David Pupăză
Mobile internet services have been restored in Assam's Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao districts after a review of the law and order situation. The services were suspended following violence and protests related to a land dispute, with authorities invoking Section 144 of the CrPC and provisions of the Assam Maintenance of Public Order (Autonomous District) Act 1953.
The restoration signals a return to normalcy and highlights the delicate balance between maintaining public order and upholding digital rights. Internet shutdowns have become a contentious issue in India, often debated in the context of fundamental rights and their impact on daily life and economic activities.
मुख्य तथ्य
Mobile internet restored in Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao districts of Assam
Services suspended due to violence over land dispute
Section 144 CrPC and Assam Maintenance of Public Order (Autonomous District) Act 1953 invoked
UPSC परीक्षा के दृष्टिकोण
Constitutional provisions related to fundamental rights (Article 19, 21) and reasonable restrictions.
Legal framework for maintaining public order (CrPC Section 144, specific state acts, Telecom Suspension Rules).
Administration of tribal areas, especially under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
Role of the judiciary in upholding fundamental rights against executive actions (e.g., internet shutdowns).
Federal structure and distribution of powers regarding law and order and telecommunications.
दृश्य सामग्री
Mobile Internet Shutdowns in Assam's Autonomous Districts
This map highlights the specific districts in Assam where mobile internet services were suspended and subsequently restored. It provides a crucial geographic context to the news story, showing the location within the broader North-Eastern region.
Loading interactive map...
और जानकारी
पृष्ठभूमि
नवीनतम घटनाक्रम
बहुविकल्पीय प्रश्न (MCQ)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the legal provisions for maintaining public order in India: 1. Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue orders to prevent obstruction, annoyance, or danger to human life, health, or safety. 2. An order issued under Section 144 CrPC can remain in force for a maximum period of two months, which cannot be extended under any circumstances. 3. The Supreme Court, in the Anuradha Bhasin case, declared that indefinite internet shutdowns are unconstitutional and that the right to access the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: B
Statement 1 is correct. Section 144 CrPC indeed empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue orders in urgent cases of apprehended danger or nuisance. Statement 2 is incorrect. An order under Section 144 CrPC can remain in force for a maximum period of two months, but the State Government can extend it for a further period not exceeding six months from the date of expiry of the initial order, if it considers it necessary. Statement 3 is correct. The Supreme Court, in the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) case, held that freedom of speech and expression and freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the internet are constitutionally protected fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) respectively. It also ruled that any order for internet shutdown must be temporary, limited in scope, and subject to judicial review, making indefinite shutdowns unconstitutional.
2. In the context of Autonomous Districts in India, consider the following statements: 1. The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution provides for the administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. 2. Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) established under the Sixth Schedule have the power to make laws on subjects like land, forest, water, and inheritance of property. 3. The Governor of the respective state has the power to dissolve an Autonomous District Council if it is not functioning properly, without requiring the recommendation of the state legislature. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: B
Statement 1 is correct. The Sixth Schedule specifically deals with the administration of tribal areas in these four Northeastern states. Statement 2 is correct. ADCs have legislative, executive, and judicial powers, including the power to make laws on specified subjects like land, forest, water, shifting cultivation, village administration, inheritance, marriage, social customs, etc. Statement 3 is incorrect. While the Governor has significant powers regarding ADCs, including the power to dissolve them, such dissolution typically requires the recommendation or consultation with the state legislature or other due process, not unilaterally without any recommendation. The Governor can also suspend an ADC's resolution or order if it is likely to endanger the safety of India or public order, but dissolution is a more severe step with specific procedures.
3. Which of the following statements regarding the 'Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017' is NOT correct?
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: D
Statement A is correct. The rules were indeed framed under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Statement B is correct. The rules specify that orders can be issued by the Union Home Secretary or the Secretary to the State Government in charge of the Home Department, in cases of public emergency or public safety. Statement C is correct. The rules mandate the establishment of a Review Committee (comprising the Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary, and Telecom Secretary at the central level, and Chief Secretary, Law Secretary, and a Secretary other than the Home Secretary at the state level) to review such orders within five working days. Statement D is incorrect. The rules do not specify a maximum period of 15 days for the suspension order. While the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin case emphasized proportionality and necessity, the 2017 rules themselves do not impose a 15-day limit. Orders can be extended, though they are subject to review.