On Friday the Supreme Court of India has mandated the Jammu and Kashmir administration to disclose the review orders concerning the restoration of internet services within the Union Territory. 

A three-judge bench including Justices B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Sandeep Mehta, asserted that these reviews must not be mere formalities but rather transparent processes with tangible outcomes.

While upholding the importance of confidentiality regarding the committee's deliberations, the court emphasized the necessity of making the resulting review orders available to the public. This decision underscores the court's commitment to accountability and transparency in governance.

The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, representing the Jammu and Kashmir administration, affirmed that there is no impediment to publishing these review orders. This move aligns with the court's earlier directive in May 2020, where it instructed the establishment of a special committee to evaluate the necessity of internet restrictions in the region.

Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the petitioner, Foundation for Media Professionals, highlighted the discrepancy in transparency practices, noting that other states had made such review orders public. He stressed that this practice was not only mandated by law but also essential to uphold the principles of justice and accountability.

The genesis of this case dates back to the Union government's imposition of internet restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 following the abrogation of Article 370. Journalist Anuradha Bhasin's petition in 2020 sought a review of these restrictions, leading to the Supreme Court's intervention.

In its landmark verdict on January 10, 2020, in the case of Anuradha Bhasin versus Union of India, the Supreme Court underscored the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and business conduct on the internet. It urged the Jammu and Kashmir administration to promptly reassess the restrictions imposed.

The court's recent directive resonates with its earlier stance that review orders are not meant to be concealed but should be made accessible to the public. This move not only promotes transparency but also upholds the constitutional principles of freedom of expression and the right to access information.

Moreover, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent national lockdowns, the necessity of reliable internet services for communication, education, and business operations has become more pronounced. 

Therefore, the court's insistence on reviewing and potentially lifting internet restrictions underscores the importance of balancing national security concerns with fundamental rights.