The Supreme Court on Tuesday urged the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir to publicise review committee orders related to internet bans in the region. [Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr].A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol observed,"Review (committee) orders are not meant to be put in the cupboard. You publish! You have to.".The Court was hearing a miscellaneous application filed in a petition against frequent internet shutdowns across the country. The application sought publication of the review committee orders passed by the J&K administration in accordance with the apex court's 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India..Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, representing the UT, told the Court that he would seek instructions in the matter. However, he argued that the deliberations need not be made public.Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the petitioner along with Advocate Natasha Maheshwari, highlighted the non-compliance of review orders with the Anuradha Bhasin judgment..The Bench took the prima facie view that orders, and not deliberations, have to be made public, and adjourned the matter by two weeks.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday urged the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir to publicise review committee orders related to internet bans in the region. [Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr].A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol observed,"Review (committee) orders are not meant to be put in the cupboard. You publish! You have to.".The Court was hearing a miscellaneous application filed in a petition against frequent internet shutdowns across the country. The application sought publication of the review committee orders passed by the J&K administration in accordance with the apex court's 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India..Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, representing the UT, told the Court that he would seek instructions in the matter. However, he argued that the deliberations need not be made public.Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the petitioner along with Advocate Natasha Maheshwari, highlighted the non-compliance of review orders with the Anuradha Bhasin judgment..The Bench took the prima facie view that orders, and not deliberations, have to be made public, and adjourned the matter by two weeks.