A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking judicial scrutiny of the suspension of mobile internet services within a four-kilometre radius of the Janpath–Kartavya Path crossing in Central Delhi on October 9 and 10, during protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The petition, filed by advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, seeks production of the original reasoned order authorising the suspension, the material relied upon to justify the restriction, records relating to publication of the order and details of the proceedings conducted by the statutory Review Committee.

According to the plea, mobile internet services were suspended from 10 PM on October 9 to 10 PM on October 10 under an authorisation attributed to the Union Home Secretary.

While acknowledging that the restriction was reportedly authorised by the competent authority, Goswami has submitted that the original suspension order and the supporting decision-making records must be examined to determine whether the applicable statutory requirements were fulfilled.

The petitioner has clarified that he is not seeking restoration of internet services under the reported suspension, as the restriction has already expired. Instead, the plea seeks judicial examination of the legality of the measure and directions to ensure compliance with the applicable statutory framework in future cases.

“What is not presently in the Petitioner's possession is the original operative signed suspension order, its recorded reasons, the material establishing a public emergency or public-safety necessity, the record showing why less restrictive lawful measures could not serve the same purpose, the publication particulars, the 24-hour transmission to the statutory Review Committee, and the ensuing review findings,” the petition states.

The plea specifically seeks records demonstrating the reasons for imposing the restriction, the necessity of suspending internet services and whether less restrictive measures could have achieved the stated objective.

It also seeks details of the publication of the suspension order and its transmission to the statutory Review Committee within the prescribed 24-hour period, along with the committee's findings.

The petitioner has clarified that the present proceedings concern the telecommunications-related measure and its statutory safeguards, rather than duplicating issues that may already be under consideration before another Bench.

“Should the connected Bench already assume that issue, the Petitioner seeks permission for appropriate coordinated consideration rather than duplicative orders,” the plea states.

Emphasising the need to balance public safety with constitutional freedoms, Goswami has argued that the invocation of public order or security concerns cannot exempt executive action from judicial scrutiny.

“Constitutional liberty is not a licence for disorder but neither is the vocabulary of public safety a charter of unreasoned power,” the petition states.

“A State worthy of constitutional confidence will prove necessity by its record, not demand immunity from scrutiny on the strength of its assertion,” it adds.

The Supreme Court will examine the issues raised in the petition in accordance with the applicable legal framework.