PIL Challenging Delhi Internet Blackouts Dropped as Jantar Mantar Protests End

Legal Action Ends Following Ministerial Resignation

On July 27, 2026, the Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC.In) formalised the withdrawal of its Public Interest Litigation from the Delhi High Court. A judicial bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the petition after counsel confirmed instructions to cease the legal action. This development marks the end of a conflict sparked by the suspension of mobile data services surrounding the Jantar Mantar protest site.

Connectivity returned to central Delhi after the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) ended a demonstration that began on June 20. The group had demanded accountability regarding the NEET paper leak and the exit of Dharmendra Pradhan from his post as Union Education Minister. Following Mr. Pradhan’s resignation on Saturday, July 25, and the government's acceptance of further demands, the agitation was dissolved.

Challenging the Use of Section 20(2)(b)

The legal challenge targeted several orders issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on July 17, 20, 22, and 23. These directives had silenced mobile internet technologies within a 1.5-kilometre radius of the protest hub. The petitioner argued that these actions represented a misuse of the Telecom Act and the 2024 Suspension Rules, which require a demonstrated state of public emergency for such measures.

SFLC.In contended that the ministry exercised statutory powers in a mechanical fashion, issuing six separate orders in one week without proving that such drastic measures were proportionate to any specific threat. The petition characterised the blackouts as an overreach of executive power that bypassed less restrictive alternatives.

Constitutional Implications of Digital Silence

The core of the legal argument rested on the interference with fundamental rights. The petitioner alleged that the blanket suspension violated several articles of the Constitution, including:

• Article 19(1)(a): The right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 19(1)(b): The right to assemble peacefully.
• Article 19(1)(g): The liberty to practice trade or profession.
• Article 21: The fundamental right to life and liberty.

The legal team for SFLC.In described the suspension as an extraordinary coercive power that lacked a transparent basis in administrative law. While the case is now closed, the arguments raised questions about whether the authorities demonstrated an independent application of mind before imposing the communications blackout.

Source: The Hindu — Cities