Police crackdown, section 144 and Internet shutdown trigger parallels with Hong Kong

Following imposition of prohibitory orders on cities and states, which is illegal and unconstitutional according to legal experts, and orders to shut down the Internet, the Information & Broadcasting Ministry on Friday issued an advisory to TV channels to effectively prevent them from airing criticism of the government by protesters and/or showing police action ( violence) on the small screen.

All this even as Government supporters continue to mock the protesters and union ministers continue to contradict the Union Home Minister on the National Register of Citizens. Pleas that the Prime Minister address the nation and declare categorically that there will be no NRC—as anonymous sources within the Government have started propagating---have so far evoked no response.

International reaction to the Indian Government’s crackdown on protesters has invariably sought to draw a parallel with street protests in Hong Kong. As a Twitter user noted, “ Indian government advises TV networks not to broadcast anything that "promotes anti-national attitudes." In less than a week, India’s government and security forces have already killed more protesters and taken more restrictive measures than Hong Kong and Beijing did in 6 months.”

An editor from Bhutan also noted, “India’s Information Ministry effectively asking channels not to cover the #CAA_NRC_Protests or interview people in the protests. The question to ask is if an effective emergency has been declared by a ban on protests and media content.

The BBC has already reported that India has earned the dubious distinction of having the longest Internet shutdowns in the world. “It is always worth remembering that the longest internet shut-down in any democratic country, ever, is still ongoing in Kashmir. Its legality is pending judgment in the SC,” concurred an Indian commentator.

On Section 144 and Internet shut-downs - the two weapons the government is using to silence and criminalise dissent—constitutional expert Gautam Bhatia, writing in The Hindustan Times on Saturday morning, noted the absurdity and the illegality of the decisions:

• Section 144 was imposed in the entire city of Bengaluru — covering 8.6 million people —without any indication that there existed a well-founded fear of violence in Bengaluru. Indeed, the Bengaluru police cited disorder in other parts of the country, and the potential “inconvenience” that protests might cause, to justify the Section 144 order. Neither of those arguments, however, are permissible under our Constitution.
• In other parts of the country, the problem has been even starker. For example, Section 144 was imposed in all of Uttar Pradesh –— thus denying a state of two hundred million people their constitutional right to protest. This is an extremely disturbing trend, as the purpose of Section 144 was always to prevent imminent and localised threats to public order.

Another lawyer Apar Gupta tweeted, “ In no unclear terms an, “advisory” issued to television channels and broadcast networks is extra-legal. It has no statutory basis and does not arise under any power under the Cable Television Regulation Act. Here is a RTI response on it. Since an, “advisory” does not have any basis in law hence it cannot carry any penalty. However the reality is different because TV is a highly regulated area with disproportionate and arbitrary penalties under a vague law.”