This case summary provides an analysis of the case Faheema Shirin.R.K vs State Of Kerala (AIR 2020 KERALA 35).
[1] Faheema Shirin, a student, was expelled from her college for violating a hostel rule restricting mobile phone use from 6-10pm. [2] Faheema argued this hindered her education by restricting internet access. [3] The court ruled the mobile restriction violated her constitutional right to freedom of expression and access to the internet, which is integral to the right to education.
This case summary provides an analysis of the case Faheema Shirin.R.K vs State Of Kerala (AIR 2020 KERALA 35).
[1] Faheema Shirin, a student, was expelled from her college for violating a hostel rule restricting mobile phone use from 6-10pm. [2] Faheema argued this hindered her education by restricting internet access. [3] The court ruled the mobile restriction violated her constitutional right to freedom of expression and access to the internet, which is integral to the right to education.
Original Title
Case Analysis - Faheema Shirin.R.K vs State of Kerala
This case summary provides an analysis of the case Faheema Shirin.R.K vs State Of Kerala (AIR 2020 KERALA 35).
[1] Faheema Shirin, a student, was expelled from her college for violating a hostel rule restricting mobile phone use from 6-10pm. [2] Faheema argued this hindered her education by restricting internet access. [3] The court ruled the mobile restriction violated her constitutional right to freedom of expression and access to the internet, which is integral to the right to education.
This case summary provides an analysis of the case Faheema Shirin.R.K vs State Of Kerala (AIR 2020 KERALA 35).
[1] Faheema Shirin, a student, was expelled from her college for violating a hostel rule restricting mobile phone use from 6-10pm. [2] Faheema argued this hindered her education by restricting internet access. [3] The court ruled the mobile restriction violated her constitutional right to freedom of expression and access to the internet, which is integral to the right to education.
Legal Intern Email : dishabhatia207@gmail.com Phone No : 8447853983
RAHUL & JAYSHRI ASSOCIATES Co.
CASE ANALYSIS Faheema Shirin.R.K vs State Of Kerala
Citation: AIR 2020 KERALA 35
INTRODUCTION The recent judgment by the High Court of Kerala has sparked a debate on the extent of the right to internet as a fundamental right. The court decision in the case of Faheema Sherin v. State of Kerala has emphasized that the right to access the internet is not only a fundamental right but also an integral part of realizing the right to education guaranteed in the Indian Constitution.
The case revolves around Faheema Sherin, a student who was expelled from her college for not abiding by restrictions on mobile phone usage imposed by the college authorities. The court deemed the restriction on mobile phone usage as a violation of the fundamental rights to freedom of expression. The judgment further highlights the significance of recognizing the role of technology, specifically the internet, in facilitating the right to education.
The court's decision emphasizes the importance of internet access and digital resources for acquiring knowledge, particularly for students. Overall, this case raises important questions about the right to access the internet as a fundamental right and its connection to education in India.
FACTS IN BRIEF
1. Faheema Shirin, a student of Sree Narayanaguru College, Chelannur, Kozhikode, was
expelled from her college for not complying with the restrictions on mobile phone usage imposed by the college authorities. 2. The hostel rules prohibited the use of mobile phones from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm. 3. Faheema argued that this restriction hindered her learning process as it denied her access to information. 4. She and other inmates had tried to discuss the inconvenience caused by this rule with the warden but no action was taken. 5. The case raised questions regarding the violation of fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. 6. The court deliberated on the importance of recognizing the role of technology, specifically the internet, in facilitating the exercise of fundamental rights and education.
LEGAL ISSUES
● Whether the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution is violated due to the restriction on mobile phone usage in the college hostel? ● Whether there is discrimination in imposing the restriction only on female students? ● What is the extent of the right to access the internet as a fundamental right?
JUDGEMENT
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala in the case of Faheema Sherin v. State of Kerala has sparked a debate on the extent of the right to the internet as a fundamental right in India. The court declared that the right to access the internet is not only a fundamental right but also an integral part of realizing the right to education guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court concluded that the restriction on mobile phone usage imposed by the college authorities violated the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1) of the Constitutio. The court also noted that the restriction was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it was not imposed on male students.
In the judgment, the court referred to international instruments, such as the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Human Rights Council, which recognize the role of the internet in promoting inclusivity in education and facilitating the right to education.
The court emphasized the autonomy of college students in making decisions for themselves and using their time wisely. It cited the observations made in the Anuj Garg case to highlight the importance of considering constitutional principles, statutes, and social interdicts when evaluating restrictions on student rights. The court also recognized the obligation of the state to provide free education to children, and the role of the internet in facilitating the right to education.
The judgment established that internet access is not just a matter of choice but a necessity, particularly in a developing country like India. It emphasized the need to bridge the urban-rural divide in internet access, as only 27% of urban areas and 5% of rural areas have access to the internet. Overall, the judgment recognized the fundamental right to access the internet, linked it with the right to education, and stressed the importance of inclusivity and autonomy in decision-making for college students.
CONCLUSION The court's decision highlights the violation of fundamental rights, specifically the right to freedom of expression, when restrictions on mobile phone usage are imposed without a valid basis. It emphasizes that such restrictions are arbitrary and discriminatory when applied selectively, as observed in this case.
The judgment highlighted the need to bridge the digital divide and make internet access available to all sections of society. It emphasized that the restriction on mobile phone usage in the hostel infringed upon the right to acquire knowledge through digital resources, and it deemed such restriction as arbitrary and discriminatory. The court's decision reaffirmed the importance of internet access as a fundamental right and an integral part of realizing the right to education.
To conclude, this judgment has reignited the debate on the extent of the right to the internet as a fundamental right in India and emphasizes the necessity of making the internet accessible for all citizens.
