Author name: Nitish, b.com LLB, final year, St. soldier law college.

INTRODUCTION:  

In an increasing digital world, access to the internet has become an inevitable tool for education. Internet plays pivotal role for the academic growth of a student in this present world. For self-development, a person needs to connected to the world, but without access to the internet, It is quite difficult.  The restriction on students for using mobile phones could become a cause of limitations and deprivations of opportunities. It is a violation of the liberty and freedom right of an individual.

This case involves a similar form of restriction on usage of mobile phone in hostel on the ground of discipline. In this case, the petitioner was restricted to use mobile phone in a hostel premises in evening, which led to limit her sources for information and studies. She went to the charge of that hostel with her mates but asked to vacate the hostel for not obeying the rules. She challenged that act of college through writ petition in Kerala High court. 

DETAILS OF THE CASE:

Case name: Faheema Shirin v. state of Kerala

Parties to the case: 

• Petitioner(s):  Faheema Shirin
• Respondent(s): State of Kerala; University of Calicut; University Grants Commission (UGC); Principal, Sree Narayana Guru College, Deputy Warden, Women’s Hostel, Sree Narayana Guru College, Matron, Women’s Hostel, Sree Narayana Guru College, Additional Respondent (Executive Director of Software)

Case No. W.P. 19716/2019

Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 Ker 35, 2019 SCC Online Ker 2976

Court: Kerala High Court

Bench: Justice. P.V. Asha

Judgement date: September 19, 2019

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

• Faheema Shirin, a student of B.A (3^rd semester) of Sree Narayana guru College, Kozhikode. 
• She was residing in a women’s hostel that imposed a restriction on using mobile phones from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
• she met the chargers of the hostel with her inmates and asked for reconsider the restriction. But they were asked to vacate the hostel for not obeying the restriction rules.
•  Faheema challenged these restrictions through writ petition. She claimed that they interfered with her education and access to information, particularly through the internet. 

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether access to the internet is an essential component of the right to education and right to privacy? 
• Whether restriction on mobile phone usage in the hostel was valid?
• Whether the usage of mobile phone from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. could be indiscipline in the hostel? 

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER:

The petitioner stated that UGC (Promotion in Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) regulations, 2012 gives instructions to college authorities to take appropriate measures to safeguard the interest of the students without subjecting them to discriminate them on the basis of caste, gender and religion etc. but such restrictions was only imposed on girl’s hostel, not on boy’s hostel. They were exempted from it, which is led to gender discriminations. 

It was her contention that such restriction are also becoming the barrier, where state government is promoting the digital learning by providing QR codes in the text books to scan and learn lessons online by their digital means. Therefore, the restriction on female students cause to violate their freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a).

Petitioner argued that the restrictions have only imposed on the girls hostel and it invaded the fundamental right to privacy provided under article 21 of the constitution of India. 

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENT:  

The respondent stated that the students and their parents have submitted their declaration while admitting in the hostel to obey the rules and regulations of the hostel. It is upon a student to stay in hostel or not, it is not compulsory to stay there. It was contended that the purpose behind it was to make students utilise their time for study purpose alone.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:  

This case centred around discussions and arguments concerning the interpretation of several individual rights, including right to access the internet, right to freedom of speech and expression, right to equality, right to privacy and right to education. It also involved debates regarding fundamental rights guaranteed under Indian constitution. Some discussed below: 

Article 14:

Article 14 of the Indian constitution guarantees the right to equality to every individual of India. which gives equal treatment to every individual without any discrimination on the basis of caste, gender, or any basis. 

Article 15:

This article prohibits discrimination on any ground, such as caste, race, place of birth, religion, etc, against any citizen.  

Article 19: 

article 19 of the Indian constitution gives right to freedom, such as freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly, freedom of movement etc. in a case of Anuradha Bhasin v. union of India (2020). The right to internet considered a part of right to speech and expression. 

Article 21: 

these are the most significant fundamental rights provided in the Indian constitution. Article 21 provides the right to life and personal liberty. Which is in its broad scope embodies various other rights as fundamental right under the ambit of expression “life and personal liberty”. 

Article 21A: 

This article guarantees the right to education as a fundamental right. The children from 6 to 14 years have provided free education. In 2009, the right to education act introduced and effected the provision of article 21A. 

Article 226: 

This article empowers high court to issue writs. A person can approach the high court to issue the writs for enforcement of their fundamental rights. The hight court under this article can issue writs against any authority, individual or government to perform their duty properly.

UGC regulations 2012: 

The UGC (promotion of equity in high educations) regulations, 2012 provides provisions to the colleges and universities for their regulations. Section 26 of university grants commission act provides that there should not any discrimination on behalf of gender, caste, religion, language etc. regulation 3 also provides the measures to take action against any discrimination regarding caste, religion, gender, etc. 

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT:  

The question was, whether there is need to interfere in the right to privacy of the students. Specially an adult is capable to think about his favour. They have capacity to understand the difference between good and bad for them. Therefore, it is necessary to examine that, is there any indiscipline created through using mobile phone during 6.pm to 10.pm. the respondent did not stated any cause by which indiscipline occurs through using mobile phones by the petitioner or her inmates. If students are not engaging in any form of indiscipline, there is no need to interfere in their right to privacy.

The other question arises that, whether the restriction on using mobile phones in evening become hurdle to acquire knowledge for the petitioner or her inmates. It arises that the college students are adults and have capability to take their own minor decisions. Taking mobile phones from them can’t stop them to misuse the internet. Because there was no restriction on using their laptops, They can misuse of it. One more thing is, if students want to misuse the internet and mobile phones, they do it before 6 p.m. and after 10 p.m. so, there is no sense to take their phones in evening.

In today’s time, internet is having equal importance as books to get any information. What requires is to counselling the students time to time and provide them guidance to follow the right path about using the mobile phones. Then it should be left to students to choose their time according to their convenience and make check on it.  

ANALYSIS: 

In the case of Faheema Shirin RK v. State of Kerala. There, it was ruled that indeed access to the Internet is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. All the aspects and issues in respect of modern day challenge of the Internet with education, self-improvement, and exercising of fundamental rights are brought out in this judgment.

The controversy in the incident was, the convenience or otherwise of an order being made to the students from the girls’ hostel not to use their cell phones. The issue was aggravated by the fact that such an issue raises question of gender discrimination and denial of access to very essential educational resources. This was the contention made by the petitioner across fundamental rights, especially Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression), and Article 21 (Right to Privacy). Counselling made adult students not bereft of capacity to know their needs in welfare and that restriction measures had deprived them of getting access to information or digital learning. The said decision reinforced the absolute indispensability of the internet in contemporary education with the notable initiative on the part of the government with QR-coded textbooks for digital learning. Going a step further, the court connected the right to internet access with a fundamental right a la Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India in 2020 where it understood the importance of using the web in extending the rights concerning freedom of speech and expression. 

Incidentally, the gender bias highlighted in the regulations of institutions emerged from restriction disproportionately placed on female students. The court underscored that it was necessary to cultivate behaviour with responsibility around digital education and counselling rather than an exaggerated ban.

CONCLUSION: 

 This case stands as a milestone in advancing the recognition of digital rights in India. By declaring access to the internet as an essential component of fundamental rights, the Kerala High Court has affirmed its significance in education, personal development, and the exercise of constitutional freedoms. The case also highlighted the need for equitable and inclusive policies that do not disproportionately burden or discriminate against specific groups, such as female students. Instead of imposing arbitrary restrictions, the judgment advocates for promoting responsible internet usage through guidance and counselling. This decision not only upholds the principles of equality and privacy but also sets a progressive precedent for addressing the evolving challenges of a digital era. It is a testament to the judiciary’s role in ensuring that rights remain relevant and robust in an increasingly interconnected world.