- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 5 August 2020
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 4181/2020
Judgment
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J. AUGUST 05, 2020 'gsr'..
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 5th August, 2020 + LT. COL. P.K. CHOUDHARY .... PETITIONER Through: Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shivank Pratap Singh & Ms. Sanandika Pratap Singh, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] 1. The petitioner, a Lieutenant Colonel with the Indian Army, has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (i) Union of India, (ii) Director General of Military Intelligence, and (iii) Chief of the Army Staff, to withdraw their policy dated 6th June, 2020 to the extent that it bans the petitioner and other members of the Indian Army from using social networking platforms like Facebook and Instagram and to the extent it orders the petitioner and other members of the Indian Army to delete their accounts from social networking platforms like Facebook and Instagram; declaration is also sought that the respondent no.2 Director General of Military Intelligence is not empowered under the Constitution of India or under any JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW other law, to modify, amend or abrogate the fundamental rights of the petitioner and other members of the Armed Forces. 2. The petition came up before us first on 14th July, 2020. It was found that though the petitioner had pleaded that on 9th July, 2020, the policy aforesaid was circulated to the members of the Indian Army but the policy had not been produced before the Court. It was the plea and contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, as a responsible officer, to maintain confidentiality, had not annexed the policy, which is for restricted circulation, to the petition or reproduced the contents thereof in the petition. Being of the view that the counsels should be heard only after we have had an occasion to peruse the policy and if the documents prescribing the policy did not record the reasons therefor, the documents containing the reasons for the policy, we directed the counsel for respondents, appearing on advance notice on 14th July, 2020, to circulate in a sealed cover the policy and / or the documents containing the reasons therefor and deferred the hearing to 21st July, 2020. 3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner on 14th July, 2020, that the petitioner till the next date be relieved from the mandate of being required to delete his existing social media accounts by 15th July, 2020, was rejected observing that till we had found a reason to entertain the petition and had entertained the petition, the question of granting any such interim relief did not arise especially when the matter had the potential of concerning the safety and security of the country. 4. The respondents, on 20th July, 2020 circulated to us in a sealed cover the documents as directed vide order dated 14th July, 2020 and we heard the senior counsel for the petitioner appearing on 21st July, 2020 and the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for the respondents and reserved orders. 5. The petition has been filed, pleading that (i) the petitioner is currently posted in Jammu & Kashmir and is an active user of Facebook and uses the said platform inter alia to connect with his friends and family; (ii) most of the petitioner's family members including his elder daughter are settled abroad; the younger daughter of the petitioner studies in a residential school and the wife of the petitioner works in Lucknow and the father of the petitioner also spends a lot of time outside India; in these circumstances, the petitioner finds social media platforms, particularly Facebook, an important tool to connect with his family; (iii) Facebook enables the petitioner to share knowledge and information on varied subjects, with his daughters, helping the petitioner to parent them even when he is posted in remote locations; (iv) th
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.