CJI Lalit also noted that the petitioners had moved the Calcutta High Court and a few other High Courts with the same prayers and asked why they couldn’t seek relief from one of the High Courts itself.
However, advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioners said that the orders on shutdown of internet are not in the public domain and it requires a lot of work to get them.
To this, the CJI said,
“This organization’s annual income is 50 to 70 lakhs so you keep filing PILs. You can ask the HC to follow the Anuradha bhasin judgment“
“State of Rajasthan told the High Court that there will be no shutdown. But immediately after that they imposed that. Will there be a threshold….will proportionality be maintained? They can even frisk (candidates before exam).. now internet is need to access basic services also like MNREGA benefits etc this is pan-India,” Grover replied.
However, the CJI pointed out that having jammers in every district examination centre may have cost implications.
To this, Grover pointed out that even the parliamentary committee has said that it cannot be done for cheating.
The bench which also comprised Justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha then proceeded to issue notice to the Central government alone.
Source: Barandbench
