Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 147 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing Anuradha Bhasin vs Union Of India on 10 January, 2020

Software Freedom Law Center vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 11 September, 2023

4. We dispose of this Writ Petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation by taking note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anuradha Bhasin versus Union of India [(2020) 3 SCC 637] as well as in the case of Foundation for Media Professions versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Another [(2020) 5 SCC 746] with a direction to the State Government to follow the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court -: 3 :- in the aforesaid cases in future in case they take a decision to suspend internet services. It is also directed that all previous orders suspending internet services be uploaded within 48 hours in the official website of the State Government.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S K Mishra - Full Document

Mohammed Zubair vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others on 22 May, 2025

36. Learned AAG also relied upon the judgment of Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 637 and submitted that it had to be seen as to whether the right to freedom and speech was a threat to public peace, tranquility and law & order. This could be looked into only by the State and that the Court, in such circumstance, should not interfere. He further submitted that the accused-petitioner had been consistently making tweets and, therefore, the tweets for which the instant FIR had been lodged would be looked into by the State/Investigating Agency and no interference be made by this Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S Varma - Full Document

Navdeep Mathur vs State Of Gujarat on 4 December, 2025

9. In furtherance of these objects, if the Notifications impugned in the present petition are perused, they do not give any impression that the situation Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:38:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10872/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined prevalent at the relevant time required the authorities concerned to take recourse to the power under S.144 of the Code. As per the settled legal position, these powers being amenable to the judicial review and scrutiny, exercise of it, requires to appear reasonable and therefore, the authorities exercising these powers are also required to give their reasons for the same. The Notifications questioned in the present petition do not bear any reasons given by the authorities for issuing the same. When, by exercise of powers under S.144 of the Code, the fundamental rights or constitutional rights of a class of citizens are being affected, the exercise needs to be transparent. The scheme of the provision of S.144 of the Code itself makes it clear that the authority exercising these powers is required to come to a conclusion that it is necessary to exercise these powers to prevent disturbance to public peace and tranquility. The Apex Court in its judgment in case of Anuradha Bhasin V/S Union of India & Others [2020 (3) SCC 637], has observed that the provision provides for certain safeguards for ensuring that the power is not abused. As per these safeguards, the authority, so as to come to conclusion that it is necessary to exercise these powers, is required to undertake a prior inquiry. No such inquiry appears to have been undertaken by the Respondent authorities prior to issuance of the impugned Notifications.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next