In a previous one article for Hindustan’s timesHe had marked a series of concerns about the way in which the Supreme Court of India is handling the case of the YouTuber Ranvir Allahbadia, who currently faces police prosecution for breaking a rude channel, but decidedly non -criminal. While Allahbadia had approached the Supreme Court with a prayer for Discs of the FIRS against him so that he was not dragged from the State to the State that had to defend himself in identical procedures, the Court took the opportunity to asside it for its “immoral” content, it forbidden him to issue more shows on YouTube, and called a greater “regulation” or online content. In the article, I noticed that the last point, in particular, suggested that the adjustment of carrying out its constitutionally mandatory role as a guardian of fundamental rights, the court was in the opposite direction: that of preventively in the lack of breach invitation An online regime or censorship.
Today order – The second in the procedure – accentuates thesis groups. On the one hand, the court raises the prohibition of the activity of YouTube in Allahbadia, on the condition that the program “accumulates the desired standards of decency and morality so that the spectators of any age group can see it”. While it was not clear to which legal basis had imposed its initial prohibition, it is not clearer what basic legal is “conditionally” raises this prohibition and forces Allahbadia to house only U/A content in its channel. Unfortunately, we do not have the privilege of reading and participating with the legal reasons of the Court at this point, propagating that does not provide us with any. There are few profits, then, by analyzing this beyond, beyond what I have Already written.
However, this leads us to the point of significant concern, which is the court that goes through the way of preventively inviting on the online spelling of speech. In today’s order, the Court establishes that it is “inclined to expand the scope of the hearing”, and asks the State Law officers to present “regulatory measures” to prevent A. “moral standards offensive to well -known from society.” Then he points out that such drafts of regulatory measures would “be taken to the public domain to invite suggestions of all interested parties before taking legislative or judicial measures.”
In doing so, however, the court seeks to alter its role from a judicial Organ to a Super-regulator Or online speech. This is extremely problematic, because the carefully elaborate constitutional scheme is essential is designed to protect the individual rights of the State. According to the Constitution, as is clear in the design of article 19, for example, to regulate or restrict the right to freedom of expression, in the first instance, there must be a Law (That is, a promulgated statute of Parliament). In the second case, if this law is a challenge, the Judiciary exercises the power of Judicial review On the law, duration of the course of what examines whether the law complies with the Constitution. These two internships are clearly different, the bodies that involve are clearly different and the tasks they perform are also clearly different. And this is for very good reason: the Constitution provides for a two -level protection structure for fundamental rights, where firstPeople’s representatives discuss and promulg a law, and then in second placeThe Court applies constitutional standards to review this law.
The Court’s Order, However, proposals to process that is entirely alien to the constitution: a set of regulations that will be bought into force force under this “expanded scope” of judicial proceedings Parliament in All This Is Unclear, But Other Than That, as we can see, It Entirely Blurs The Distinct Steps Set out in the Constitution.
Leaving constitutional problems aside, it is easy to see how this will be: let’s say that the State provides a set of regulations, to which the Court, which continues to act under this “extended scope”, gives its approval. Now these regulations will have judicial Sanction. This, in turn, means that the ability of citizens to set up a constitutional challenge to these regulations will be blocked to perpetuity. What happens if I want to challenge the thesis regulations before a superior court? That the Superior Court will admit a challenge to the regulations that have been granted a seal of approval by the Supreme Court, regardless of the fact that said approval stamp was granted in the procedures that were No Constitutional challenges? And what sense would it have to challenge the regulations before the Supreme Court, giving a bench of two journal of that same court closer to them? Therefore, not only the Court blies, not only adopts a role that the Constitution does not foresee, not only acts outside its jurisdiction, but by doing so, but effectively deprives citizens of any meoningfulful judicial Remedy for any way that these regulations are possible.
In this blog, For most of a decadeAnd in multiple contexts, we have argued that the Supreme Court continued the propensity to act as a “super regulator” or “supercensor” or speech is extractive and beyond their jurisdiction. Today’s order continues that unfortunate propensity. It is an order that manifestly lacks a legal or constitutional basis, and constitutes an abuse of the jurisdiction of the court.