“CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO INTERNET SHUTDOWNS

IN INDIA: A STUDY OF ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) AND ARTICLE 21 "

DISSERTATION

Submitted to

CHHATRAPATI SHAHU JI MAHARAJ UNIVERSITY.

KANPUR
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the award of the degree of

MASTER OF LAWS
(SESSION 2023-2025)

Submitted by:
DIVYANSHU SHUKLA

Roll No. 30942390990

Under Guidance & Supervision of

DR. SMRITI ROY

Assistant Professor

ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

CHHATRAPATI SHAHU JI MAHARAJ UNIVERSITY, KANPUR

 CHHATRAPATI SAHU JI MAHARAJ UNIVERSITY, KANPUR

(Formerly Kanpur University, Kanpur)

ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

FORWARDING CERTIFICATE

WHEREAS

As per the LL.M. Degree Programme, a Candidate is required to write a dissertation

carrying 100 marks on the subject approved by the Director, in the partial fulfilment of
the requirement for the award of the degree of Master of Laws of the Chhatrapati
Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur.

AND WHEREAS,

Mr. DIVYANSHU SHUKLA has been permitted to write a dissertation entitled

“CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO INTERNET SHUTDOWNS
IN INDIA: A STUDY OF ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) AND ARTICLE 21" for
LL.M. Examination of Session 2023-2025 of the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj
University, Kanpur.

NOWTHEREUPON,

Mr. DIVYANSHU SHUKLA has submitted the above-entitled dissertation which is

forwarded to the Controller of Examination, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University,
Kanpur for necessary action.

Date: (Director)
Place: Kanpur A.B.V. School of Legal Studies
C.S.J.M. University, Kanpur

i
 CHHATRAPATI SAHU JI MAHARAJ UNIVERSITY,

KANPUR (Formerly Kanpur University, Kanpur)

ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

SUPERVISOR'S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that MR. DIVYANSHU SHUKLA has completed his dissertation work
on “CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO INTERNET SHUTDOWNS IN
INDIA: A STUDY OF ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) AND ARTICLE 21" in the partial
fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master of Laws of Session of
the Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj
University, Kanpur.

The candidate has worked under my supervision.

Date: (DR. SMRITI ROY)

Place: Kanpur Assistant Professor

A.B.V. School of Legal Studies

CSJM. University, Kanpur

ii
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled “CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

TO INTERNET SHUTDOWNS IN INDIA: A STUDY OF ARTICLE 19 (1) (A)
AND ARTICLE 21"submitted to the "Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University,
Kanpur" is a record of original work done by me under guidance of DR. SMRITI ROY
(Assistant Professor), Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, Chhatrapati Shahu
Ji Maharaj University. Kanpur and this dissertation has been performed the basics for the
award of any degree or diploma/associateship/fellowship and other similar work if any.

1 further declare that this dissertation or any part of it has not been previously submitted
for any other degree, diploma or such other similar title.

Date: DIVYANSHU SHUKLA

Place: Kanpur Roll No.- 30942390990

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives me a great sense of pleasure to present the dissertation on

“CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO INTERNET SHUTDOWNS IN
INDIA: A STUDY OF ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) AND ARTICLE 21" undertaken during
LL.M. Final Semester.

I am sincerely grateful to DR. SMRITI ROY, Assitant Professor, Atal Bihari Vajpayee
School of Legal Studies, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, under who's
learned and scholarly guidance the present work has been completed. She helped me in a
passive way, gave me moral support and guided me in different matters regarding the
topic. She had been very kind and patient while suggesting me the outlines of this
dissertation and correcting my doubts. I also express my sincere thanks for her constant
guidance and timely suggestions.

I hereby express my deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness to Dr. Pankaj Diwedi
Director, Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj
University. Kanpur for his valuable guidance, encouragement and co-operation in
completing this dissertation.

I also do not like to miss the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of

Dr.Samiuddin Sir, Mrs Mayuri Ma‟am and other faculty members of Atal Bihari
Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur for
their kind assistance and co-operation during my dissertation work. These respected
faculty members have always inspired, encouraged and helped me in my dissertation
work whenever required and clarified things on the topic of my dissertation work without
whom the dissertation work would not have been completed in an efficient manner.

Last but not the least, I acknowledge my friends for their contribution in the completion
of this dissertation. This dissertation work is completed due to their constant moral
support.

DIVYANSHU SHUKLA

Roll No.- 30942390990

iv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

2. UDHR - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

3. UN - United Nations

4. MHA - Ministry of Home Affairs

5. SCC - Supreme Court Cases

6. IT Act - Information Technology Act

7. WHO - World Health Organization

8. HRW - Human Rights Watch

9. FREEDOM HOUSE - Freedom House Report

10. HRC - Human Rights Council

11. UNHRC - United Nations Human Rights Council

12. SWAYAM - Study Webs of Active Learning for Young Aspiring Minds

13. PUCL - People’s Union for Civil Liberties

14. NSO - National Security Order

15. J&K - Jammu and Kashmir

16. GOI - Government of India

17. NGO - Non-Governmental Organization

18. BPO - Business Process Outsourcing

19. CIT - Central Information Technology

20. RTI - Right to Information

21. IPC - Indian Penal Code

22. ITR - Internet Traffic Regulation

v
23. RBI - Reserve Bank of India

24. ACTA - Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

25. SIT - Special Investigation Team

26. UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

27. TRAI - Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

28. NRIs - Non-Resident Indians

29. SAARC - South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

30. PRC - Public Relations Committee

vi
 LIST OF CASES

1. AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637

2. ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1

3. People‟s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2019)

4. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India (2019)

5. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 6 SCC 312

6. Binod Kumar v. Union of India (2019)

7. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

8. Odisha State Pollution Control Board v. Orient Paper Mills (1999) 5 SCC 772

9. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2019)

10. Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCC 178

11. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632

12. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2020)

13. Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2015)

14. State of Punjab v. Ramesh Kumar (2001) 1 SCC 280

15. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. Union of India (2018)

16. K.K. Verma v. State of Delhi (2020)

17. Zee News Ltd. v. Union of India (2012)

18. Dilip Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2020)

19. Techno-Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2018)

20. India v. Bharati Cellular Ltd. (2017)

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1-21

1.1 Background of Internet Shutdowns in India 1

1.2 Introduction to Internet Shutdowns in India 4

1.3 Significance of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 5

1.4 Statement of Problem 11

1.5 Research Questions 12

1.6 Research Objectives 13

1.7 Hypothesis 14

1.8 Limitations of the Study 14

1.9 Literature Review 15

1.10 Research Methodology 18

1.11 Tentative Cauterization 19

2 Chapter 2: Impact of Internet Shutdown on Society 22-32

and Governance

2.1 Economic Consequences: Loss of Livelihood and 22

Business Opportunities

2.2 Social and Psychological Effects on Citizens 25

2.3 Necessity of Internet Shutdowns for Public Safety 28

2.4 Assessing the Adequacy and Effectiveness of 30

Shutdown Measures

viii
 2.5 Balancing Public Order and Individual Rights 32

3 Chapter 3: Internet Shutdowns in India: Legal and 33-58

Administrative Framework

3.1 Legislative Framework For Internet Shutdowns In

India 33

3.2 The Indian Telegraph Act,1885 38

3.3 Temporary Suspension Of Telecom Services Public

Emergency or Public Safety Rules,2017 43

3.4 Role Of Government and State Authorities In

Implementing Shutdowns 48

3.5 International Legal Standards and India Obligstions 53

4 Chapter 4: Constitutional Dimensions: Freedom of

Expression And Personal Liberty 59-69

4.1 Constitutional Provisions: Article 19(1)(a) and Article

21 59

4.2 Impact Of Education And Access to Information 60

4.3 Impact Of Internet Shutdown On Fundamental Rights 65

4.4 Internet Shutdowns in India: Digital Censorship And

Its Impact On Personal Liberty 66

4.5 Principle Of Proportionality In Constitutional Law 68

ix
5 Chapter 5: Judicial Scrutiny And Emerging

Jurisprudence 70-76

5.1 Landmark Case: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India

(2020) 70

5.2 Case Law Analysis: Judicial Responses to Internet

Shutdowns 71

5.3 The Doctrine of Proportionality in Judicial Decisions 72

5.4 Emerging Jurisprudence: Principles And Challenge 73

5.5 Challenges in the Emerging Jurisprudence of Internet

Shutdowns 73

6 Chapter 6: Comparative Analysis of Internet

Shutdowns 77-82

6.1 International Examples of Internet Shutdowns 77

6.2 Best Practices and Lessons from Other Democracies 78

6.3 Comparative Legal Analysis: India vs. Global

Standards 80
6.4 The Role of International Human Rights Law in

Shaping Policy 81
6.5 Global Advocacy for Internet Freedom and Access 82

7 Chapter 7: Recommendations &Conclusion 83-90

7.1 Recommendations 83

7.2 Conclusion 86

8 Bibliography i-v

x
 ABSTRACT

This dissertation critically examines the constitutional challenges posed by the increasing
use of internet shutdowns in India, focusing on their impact on the fundamental rights
enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to
life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The research highlights the tension
between the state's interest in maintaining public order and national security, and the
individual's right to access information, communicate freely, and live with dignity in the
digital age.

The study traces the legal basis of internet shutdowns in India through colonial-era
legislation such as the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Temporary Suspension of
Telecom Services Rules, 2017. It assesses the adequacy, legality, and proportionality of
these provisions in light of constitutional mandates and judicial scrutiny, particularly
referencing landmark cases like Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and Shreya Singhal
v. Union of India.

The dissertation adopts a doctrinal and analytical approach, evaluating national laws
alongside international legal standards and human rights frameworks. It delves into the
socio-economic consequences of shutdowns, especially on marginalized communities,
students, small businesses, and gig economy workers, who disproportionately suffer
during such suspensions.

The research concludes that most internet shutdowns in India fail to meet the
constitutional tests of necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality. It emphasizes the
urgent need for legal reform, recommending clearer guidelines, judicial oversight, and the
exploration of alternative, less intrusive methods to address public safety concerns
without infringing on fundamental rights.

Through a comparative analysis of global practices, the dissertation calls for a more
balanced and rights-oriented framework that protects national interests while
safeguarding individual liberties in the digital era.

xi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Internet Shutdowns in India

The rapid evolution of the internet has fundamentally reshaped how individuals
communicate, access information, and participate in the economy and society at large. As
the internet becomes more deeply integrated into all aspects of life, it has also emerged as
a critical platform for freedom of speech, expression, and association. In India, where the
internet has permeated into the social, economic, and political fabric of the nation, access
to the internet is considered a fundamental right essential for the exercise of various other
rights, including the right to information, education, and healthcare. However, in recent
years, India has witnessed a rising trend in the use of internet shutdowns, often invoked
by government authorities in the name of maintaining law and order or national security.

This phenomenon has brought to the forefront several significant legal, constitutional,
and human rights concerns, especially with regard to the balance between the state's
powers and individual freedoms. As internet shutdowns directly impact citizens' rights, it
is imperative to explore the legislative, judicial, and socio-political implications of this
practice within the context of India's constitutional framework. The imposition of internet
shutdowns raises critical questions, particularly about the violation of constitutional
provisions, such as Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression,
and Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

India has witnessed an increasing number of internet shutdowns in recent years. The
government has frequently resorted to suspending internet services during periods of civil
unrest, political protests, or in the aftermath of communal violence. According to Access
Now, a global digital rights organization, India has consistently been the world leader in
internet shutdowns. In fact, reports suggest that in 2020 alone, India accounted for over
100 internet shutdowns, making it the country with the highest number of shutdowns
globally. This trend has raised questions about the justification, legality, and implications
of such widespread disruptions to the internet.

1
Internet shutdowns are typically imposed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the
Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety)
Rules, 2017. These legal provisions provide the government with the power to suspend
telecommunications services, including the internet, during public emergencies or when
required to maintain public safety. However, the lack of clear and transparent procedures,
along with the frequently broad and indefinite nature of these shutdowns, has sparked
debates about the proportionality and necessity of such measures.

The justification for internet shutdowns by the Indian government often stems from the
need to control the flow of information during periods of unrest. The authorities argue
that shutting down the internet is essential to curb the spread of rumors, prevent the
incitement of violence, and protect national security. These shutdowns are perceived as a
tool to prevent communal riots, terrorism, and the dissemination of false or provocative
content. The use of social media and other online platforms during protests has also been
cited as a reason for such measures, with the government arguing that these platforms can
amplify tensions and disrupt public order.

For instance, the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests saw widespread
internet shutdowns across various states, particularly in areas like Jammu and Kashmir,
where the shutdown lasted for several months. Similarly, during the farmers' protests in
2020-2021, internet services were suspended in several regions to prevent the
organization of large protests and the spreading of content deemed sensitive by the
government. In both cases, the authorities cited national security and public order as the
primary reasons for the shutdowns.

Internet shutdowns have a significant socio-economic impact, particularly in a country

like India, where millions of people rely on the internet for communication, education,
business, and access to public services. The economic costs of internet shutdowns in
India are staggering. According to a report by Cost of Shutdowns in India, the country
lost billions of dollars due to internet shutdowns over the past few years. The impact on

2
businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs), is profound, as they rely
heavily on the internet for operations, transactions, and marketing 1.

The education sector is also severely impacted by internet shutdowns, especially during
the COVID-19 pandemic, where online education became a necessity. Students in
regions where internet shutdowns were imposed faced significant barriers to learning,
further exacerbating educational inequality. Moreover, access to government services,
such as healthcare, social welfare programs, and financial services, is often disrupted
during internet shutdowns, leaving citizens unable to access essential resources.

In India, the legal framework for internet shutdowns is primarily governed by the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public
Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.2 These laws empower the government to
suspend internet services during times of public emergency or to maintain public safety.
However, these laws have been criticized for their vague and broad provisions, which
allow for arbitrary and excessive shutdowns.

The Supreme Court of India has been called upon to adjudicate on the legality of
internet shutdowns, with several landmark rulings addressing the constitutional issues
involved. In AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020)3, the Court recognized the
importance of internet access for the exercise of fundamental rights and held that internet
shutdowns must be subject to strict scrutiny. The Court emphasized that any restrictions
on the internet must comply with the constitutional principles of proportionality and
necessity4.

The practice of internet shutdowns in India has become a contentious issue, with
significant legal, constitutional, and human rights implications. While the government
justifies such measures on the grounds of maintaining public order and national security,
the suspension of internet services raises serious concerns regarding the violation of
fundamental rights, particularly the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article

1
"Access to Information and Human Rights."Access Now, 2020.
2
"Internet Shutdowns in India."Cost of Shutdowns in India Report, 2020.
3
AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
4
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

3
19(1)(a)) and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). The legal framework
governing internet shutdowns remains vague, and there is a growing need for clearer
guidelines and judicial oversight to ensure that such measures are implemented in a
manner that respects constitutional principles 5.

In the subsequent chapters, this dissertation will delve deeper into the constitutional,
legal, and socio-economic implications of internet shutdowns in India, critically
analyzing judicial responses, the impact on citizens, and proposing recommendations for
policy reforms. As internet shutdowns continue to pose challenges to the exercise of
fundamental rights, it is essential to strike a balance between ensuring national security
and protecting individual freedoms.

1.2 Introduction to Internet Shutdowns in India

Internet shutdowns have become a frequent and controversial phenomenon in India over
the past few decades. What initially began as a rare occurrence in the early 2000s has
evolved into a regular practice that is often used to address issues related to national
security, public safety, political unrest, and civil disorder. In India, internet shutdowns
can be seen as a response by the government to manage or mitigate situations where it
perceives that internet services might exacerbate or escalate certain public disturbances.
However, the legal, political, and social implications of this practice have raised concerns
both within India and on the global stage.

The practice of internet shutdowns involves the intentional suspension of internet access
in specific areas for a defined period of time. This can range from temporary disruptions,
such as a few hours, to prolonged suspensions lasting weeks or months. The government
typically cites reasons such as the prevention of the spread of rumors, controlling public
order, ensuring national security, or curbing the use of social media to incite violence or
terrorism. This method has been used in a variety of situations, ranging from political
protests to elections, riots, and communal violence. The increasing use of internet
shutdowns has attracted attention from human rights organizations, the judiciary, media,
and citizens themselves.

5
Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.

4
This section provides an introduction to the context, causes, legal framework, and
prevalence of internet shutdowns in India. It aims to explore the origins of the
phenomenon, how the government uses it as a tool for maintaining control, and the
social, economic, and legal consequences it entails.

India’s experience with internet shutdowns can be traced back to the early 2000s, though
it was initially sporadic. The first known instance of a government-mandated internet
shutdown occurred in 2000 in the northeastern state of Assam, where the authorities
suspended internet services due to escalating violence between separatist groups and the
Indian government. While this was a localized incident, the seeds of internet control in
times of unrest were sown.

The real turning point came in 2012, when internet shutdowns began to gain prominence
as a tool used by the Indian state to control the narrative surrounding political unrest.
During the 2012 Assam riots, the government ordered an internet shutdown in the region
to prevent the spread of inflammatory material that could further escalate violence. By
the time of 2013, the practice was becoming a common response during communal riots,
such as the violence in Muzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh), and large-scale protests,
including student protests in various parts of the country.

However, it was in 2016, during the unrest in Kashmir, following the killing of militant
leader BurhanWani, that internet shutdowns were used on a mass scale for the first time.
In this case, the Jammu and Kashmir state government imposed a complete internet
shutdown, which lasted for over five months, sparking national and international concern
over the disproportionate restriction of fundamental rights. This incident marked the
beginning of a more systematic and widespread use of internet shutdowns across India.

1.3 Significance of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21

In the context of internet shutdowns in India, the interpretation and significance of

constitutional provisions like Article 19(1)(a)6 and Article 21 have become crucial to
understanding the legality and constitutionality of such measures. The practice of
suspending internet access by the government, particularly in the name of maintaining
6
Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a).

5
law and order or national security, raises significant questions regarding the balance
between state authority and individual freedoms. In this chapter, we explore the
significance of two fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution—Article 19(1)(a),
which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21, which guarantees
the right to life and personal liberty. These rights are foundational to the protection of
human dignity and freedoms, and their violation through internet shutdowns necessitates
a critical analysis.

Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 represent the core of individual liberty and autonomy in
India. These provisions offer a framework for safeguarding personal freedoms and
ensuring that any restriction imposed on these freedoms is justifiable within the
boundaries set by the Constitution. As internet shutdowns have a profound impact on
both speech and personal liberty, it is essential to examine how these two rights intersect
and how their protection plays a pivotal role in the judicial scrutiny of government
actions.

Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech and Expression

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to all citizens the fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes the freedom to seek, receive,
and impart information by any means, such as orally, in writing, or through the medium
of press, radio, television, or the internet. The provision embodies a central democratic
value—the freedom to express one’s opinions without fear of retribution from the state.
The right to freedom of speech is not only a fundamental political right but also a means
for individuals to participate in the social, cultural, and economic life of a nation.

The Constitution, however, does not provide this right unconditionally. It allows for
reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, but these restrictions
must be in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly
relations with foreign countries, public order, decency, or morality (Article 19(2)) 7. These
restrictions must be proportionate and necessary, and the state must demonstrate a
justifiable need for such actions.

7
Constitution of India, Article 21.

6
In the context of internet shutdowns, the issue arises as to whether the suspension of
internet services by the government constitutes a reasonable restriction under these
permissible grounds. Internet shutdowns directly interfere with the right to free speech by
blocking access to social media platforms, websites, and other digital media, which serve
as essential outlets for public discourse, political expression, and sharing information.

The Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 19(1)(a) expansively to include
new modes of communication. In the landmark case of ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India
(2015)8, the Court emphasized that the internet is a medium for free expression that is
indispensable in the modern age. The right to freedom of speech, the Court noted,
includes the right to communicate and access information through digital platforms. An
internet shutdown, therefore, directly infringes upon this fundamental right and must
meet the criteria of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness.

Furthermore, ShreyaSinghal affirmed that any restrictions imposed on speech should not
be based on vague or overbroad laws and should be specific, well-defined, and
proportionate to the threat posed. As such, any government action that results in the
complete or widespread disruption of internet services risks violating the very core of
free speech under Article 19(1)(a).

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their
life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. While this
provision is widely understood to be the foundation of the right to personal autonomy and
dignity, its scope has evolved significantly over time. The Supreme Court has
broadened the interpretation of Article 21, holding that it not only protects the right to
life in a physical sense but also encompasses a wide array of personal freedoms essential
to living with dignity.

In the context of internet shutdowns, Article 21 has been invoked to argue that the right
to access the internet is an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty. Access to
the internet has become indispensable for individuals to engage in society, access
8
ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.

7
essential services, communicate with others, and pursue educational and economic
opportunities. The inability to access the internet can thus be seen as an infringement on
an individual’s right to live with dignity.

The Supreme Court has recognized the intersection between Article 21 and internet
access in the case of AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020)9. In this case, the Court
noted that the suspension of internet services, particularly in a region like Jammu and
Kashmir, severely impacted the daily lives of residents, affecting their ability to access
healthcare, education, business services, and other vital aspects of life. The Court held
that such an infringement of the right to access information and participate in social,
economic, and political activities is unconstitutional unless it meets the test of necessity
and proportionality.

The judgment in AnuradhaBhasin further established that Article 21 extends beyond

mere survival and includes the right to live a life of dignity. By restricting access to the
internet, the government impedes citizens' ability to fully participate in modern society,
which interferes with their right to live with dignity. Therefore, internet shutdowns must
be carefully scrutinized to determine whether they are justified by a legitimate public
interest or whether they excessively violate individuals' rights under Article 21.

The Relationship Between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 in the Context of Internet
Shutdowns

Both Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 play a vital role in the protection of citizens' rights
in the digital age. These provisions intersect when it comes to issues such as internet
shutdowns, as such measures often violate both the right to freedom of speech and the
right to personal liberty.

The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for a holistic approach to interpreting
fundamental rights, particularly in cases involving the internet. In AnuradhaBhasin, the
Court linked the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) with Article 21,

9
AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.

8
acknowledging that the exercise of free speech through the internet is an integral part of
an individual's right to personal liberty. By blocking access to the internet, the
government limits not only the ability to communicate but also the ability to access
crucial services, which has a profound impact on an individual's life and liberty.

Moreover, the Court recognized that internet shutdowns are a restriction on both speech
and personal autonomy, and therefore must be subject to the constitutional principle of
proportionality. Any restriction on fundamental rights must be justified by a legitimate
aim, and the means employed to achieve that aim must be the least restrictive option
available. This principle is crucial in evaluating whether internet shutdowns are
constitutionally permissible.

The Proportionality Test and Judicial Oversight

The Supreme Court's approach to Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 in the context of
internet shutdowns emphasizes the importance of the proportionality test. The
proportionality test is a key principle in constitutional law, requiring that any restriction
on fundamental rights be reasonable, necessary, and balanced against the harm caused by
the restriction10.

In the context of internet shutdowns, the Court has applied this test to assess whether the
imposition of such measures is justified. Proportionality involves a multi-step inquiry:

1. Legitimate Aim: The government must demonstrate that the internet shutdown
serves a legitimate objective, such as protecting national security, maintaining
public order, or preventing violence.

2. Necessity: The government must show that the restriction is necessary to achieve
the aim and that no less intrusive measures would suffice. For example, blocking
specific websites or platforms may be more targeted than imposing a blanket
shutdown.

10
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 5(2).

9
 3. Proportionality: The restriction must be proportionate to the threat. A complete
shutdown of internet services may be disproportionate if the aim can be achieved
through less restrictive means.

4. Duration and Scope: The measure must be limited in duration and scope.
Prolonged or indefinite shutdowns are more likely to be deemed excessive and
unjustifiable.

In AnuradhaBhasin, the Court emphasized that the government must conduct regular
reviews to assess whether the internet shutdown is still necessary and proportional. It also
stressed the need for transparency and public accountability in the decision-making
process regarding internet shutdowns11.

„The Significance of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 in Safeguarding Fundamental

Rights

The significance of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 cannot be overstated in the context of
internet shutdowns in India. Article 19(1)(a) ensures the right to free speech, which is
crucial for the exercise of democratic rights and participation in public life. The internet,
as a medium for communication and expression, plays a vital role in the exercise of this
right. Article 21, on the other hand, safeguards personal liberty and dignity,
encompassing the right to access information, communicate, and participate in the digital
economy. When the government imposes internet shutdowns, it directly interferes with
these fundamental rights, and any such restriction must be justified under the
constitutional principles of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness 12.

The judicial scrutiny provided by the Supreme Court ensures that the state does not
overstep its bounds in restricting these rights. As internet shutdowns continue to be used
as a tool for controlling public order, the need for robust legal frameworks and judicial
oversight remains critical to ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected in an era
where digital communication is indispensable.

11
Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.
12
Freedom of Expression and Proportionality in India: A Constitutional Perspective, Journal of Indian
Constitutional Law, 2021.

10
1.4 Statement of Problem

The increasing use of internet shutdowns by the Indian government, particularly in

response to civil unrest, protests, and political instability, has raised profound
constitutional, legal, and human rights concerns. While the government justifies these
measures on the grounds of national security, public order, and the prevention of
violence, the widespread and prolonged suspension of internet services significantly
impacts citizens’ fundamental rights, especially the rights to freedom of speech and
expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and personal liberty (Article 21). The crux of the problem
lies in the tension between the state’s desire to maintain order and the citizens' right to
access information, communicate, and live with dignity.

The constitutional challenge to internet shutdowns centers on whether such measures

violate the core rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Article 19(1)(a), which
safeguards the freedom of speech and expression, is severely impacted by internet
shutdowns, as citizens are prevented from expressing their views and accessing
information online. The shutdowns also violate Article 21, which protects the right to life
and personal liberty, as individuals’ ability to perform essential activities like accessing
education, healthcare, and economic opportunities is impeded.

Despite these challenges, the legal framework governing internet shutdowns in India
remains vague and prone to misuse. While the Indian government is empowered by the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services
(Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, to impose shutdowns in the interest
of national security or public safety, there is insufficient oversight, accountability, and
transparency in the implementation of such measures. The lack of a clear and robust legal
framework has led to arbitrary decisions, with internet shutdowns being imposed without
adequate judicial review, public scrutiny, or consideration of the disproportionate
consequences for the affected population.

The problematic nature of internet shutdowns is compounded by their socio-economic

implications. In a country like India, where millions of people rely on the internet for
education, healthcare, business, and communication, the imposition of such shutdowns

11
results in severe disruptions to daily life. Shutdowns not only hinder the exercise of
fundamental rights but also cause economic losses, disrupt academic learning, and deny
access to critical services, particularly during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic or
periods of political unrest.

Additionally, the lack of judicial intervention and oversight has led to the perpetuation
of internet shutdowns without adequate legal scrutiny. While the Supreme Court has
recognized the significance of the right to access the internet as part of Article 19(1)(a)
and Article 21, the Court has not consistently imposed clear guidelines or limits on the
government’s power to shut down the internet. The absence of a definitive judicial
framework for balancing the state’s interest in maintaining law and order with the
protection of individual rights has left room for abuse of power.

Thus, the central problem explored in this dissertation is whether the use of internet
shutdowns as a tool by the government aligns with constitutional principles, specifically
Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
This study also examines whether the existing legal framework governing internet
shutdowns is adequate or requires reform to ensure that such measures are reasonable,
proportionate, and aligned with the protection of fundamental rights.

This problem, therefore, necessitates a comprehensive investigation into the

constitutional legitimacy of internet shutdowns, the impact of these measures on
fundamental rights, and the recommendations for legal and policy reforms that can
better protect citizens’ rights while maintaining national security and public order.

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS :-

1. How do the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act and the Temporary Suspension of
Telecom Services Rules relate to the constitutional guarantees available under
Articles 19(1)(a) and 21?

2. What judicial precedents have arisen from Supreme Court judgments on the
constitutionality of internet shutdowns, and how do these precedents affect the
application of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21?

12
 3. To what extent do Indian Internet shutdowns violate the right to freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21, especially in the light of access to essential services like health and
education?

4. What alternative measures could be implemented to maintain public order without

resorting to internet shutdowns, and how effective are these alternatives?

5. Ways of reform in the legal framework concerning internet shutdowns to increase

protection of fundamental rights while attaining security concern?

1.6 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:-

Based on the research questions provided regarding the constitutional challenges to

internet shutdowns in India, here are corresponding research objectives that can guide
your study:

1. To analyze the alignment of the Indian Telegraph Act and the Temporary Suspension
of Telecom Services Rules with the constitutional guarantees of Articles 19(1)(a) and
21, assessing their implications for individual rights.

2. To examine judicial interpretations from Supreme Court rulings concerning the

constitutionality of internet shutdowns and their impact on the application of Articles
19(1)(a) and 21.

3. To investigate the ways in which internet shutdowns infringe upon the Article
19(1)(a) and Article 21, particularly in relation to access to essential services such as
healthcare and education. including the effects on public discourse and access to
information.

4. To identify and propose alternative measures that could be employed to maintain

public order without resorting to internet shutdowns, assessing their effectiveness and
feasibility.

13
 5. To investigate the disproportionate impact of internet shutdowns on marginalized
groups in India, examining the implications for social justice, equality, and human
rights.

6.To recommend reforms to the legal framework governing internet shutdowns that
would enhance the protection of fundamental rights while addressing legitimate security
concerns.

1.7 HYPOTHESIS:-

1. The application of the Indian Telegraph Act and the Temporary Suspension of
Telecom Services Rules frequently leads to violations of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, as
these laws are often interpreted in a manner that prioritizes state security over
individual rights.

2. The majority of internet shutdowns implemented in India do not satisfy the legal
standards of necessity and proportionality, as they are often disproportionate to the
actual threats posed by civil unrest or security concerns.

3. Marginalized communities in India experience a disproportionately negative impact

from internet shutdowns, resulting in greater social and economic inequalities
compared to more privileged groups..

4. Implementing reforms to the legal framework governing internet shutdowns will lead
to enhanced protection of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, while
still allowing for necessary state actions to maintain public order.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

1. Geographical Limitation: The study primarily focuses on internet shutdowns

within India and does not extend to other countries, which may limit the ability to
compare international legal frameworks and practices in detail.
2. Scope of Legal Analysis: While the study examines the legal framework
governing internet shutdowns, it does not provide an exhaustive analysis of all
legal mechanisms related to digital rights or technology governance in India.

14
 3. Judicial Case Law: The research is limited to available case law, primarily
focusing on key decisions like AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020),
which may not cover all cases or the full spectrum of judicial interpretations on
the subject.
4. Lack of Primary Data: The study primarily relies on secondary sources, such as
legal documents, case law, and reports. It does not include original surveys,
interviews, or primary data collection from affected individuals or stakeholders.
5. Focus on Constitutional Provisions: The research mainly examines the
constitutional implications of internet shutdowns and does not explore the broader
political or social dynamics that contribute to the use of such measures.
6. Impact on Marginalized Groups: Although the study touches on socio-
economic impacts, it does not provide an in-depth exploration of the specific
impacts on marginalized or vulnerable groups in India who are disproportionately
affected by internet shutdowns.
7. Time Frame: The research focuses on internet shutdowns within the last decade
and may not account for the historical evolution of digital rights or shutdowns in
India prior to the early 2000s.
8. Legal Reform Focus: The study proposes reforms based on existing legal
frameworks and may not fully explore alternative governance models or
technologies that could help mitigate the need for internet shutdowns.

1.9 Literature Review

The growing significance of the internet in shaping contemporary societies has given rise
to significant discussions on legal, constitutional, and human rights issues. In India, this
has been particularly relevant in the context of internet shutdowns and access to justice,
freedom of speech, and personal liberty. Several scholarly works have contributed to the
understanding of these issues, providing insights into the legal framework, governance,
and human rights implications surrounding internet regulation.

UpendraBaxi'sAccess to Justice in India offers an in-depth analysis of the challenges

individuals face in accessing justice in India. While not directly addressing internet

15
shutdowns, Baxi’s work highlights the importance of constitutional justice and the need
for legal reforms to ensure that rights, including the right to information and
communication, are upheld for all citizens, particularly in the digital realm. Baxi’s focus
on access to justice in India is pivotal in understanding the role of the judiciary in
enforcing fundamental rights, including the right to free speech in the face of restrictive
government actions such as internet shutdowns 13.

Susan S. F. Chen's Human Rights and the Internetexplores the relationship between
human rights and the digital space. Chen argues that the internet has become an essential
tool for the exercise of many fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, access
to information, and participation in public life. Chen’s work provides a global perspective
on how internet governance and restrictions intersect with international human rights
frameworks, which is critical for analyzing the constitutional challenges to internet
shutdowns in India14.

M.P. Jain‟s Constitutional Law of India is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law

literature. Jain’s work serves as an essential resource for understanding the theoretical
foundations and practical applications of constitutional provisions such as Article
19(1)(A) and Article 21. His detailed examination of the scope of these rights and the
permissible restrictions under Indian law forms the basis for analyzing the legality and
constitutionality of internet shutdowns in India 15.

Granville Austin‟s The Rule of Law in India emphasizes the significance of the rule of
law in the Indian context. Austin argues that the rule of law is a vital principle for
ensuring that government actions, including restrictions on rights like free speech, are
subjected to legal scrutiny. Austin’s analysis is important in understanding the
constitutional challenges posed by internet shutdowns, as these actions must align with
the rule of law to avoid undermining democratic values 16.

13
UpendraBaxi, Access to Justice in India (OUP, 2008).
14
Susan S. F. Chen, Human Rights and the Internet (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
15
M.P. Jain, Constitutional Law of India (LexisNexis, 2014).
16
Granville Austin, The Rule of Law in India (Oxford University Press, 2000).

16
S.L. Goel‟sDemocracy and Governance in India addresses the intersection of
governance, democratic values, and the functioning of institutions in India. Goel’s work
is essential for understanding how the state’s actions, including internet shutdowns, affect
democratic principles and the balance of power between the government and citizens.
This text provides the broader framework within which the constitutional implications of
internet shutdowns are situated17.

William H. Dutton’s Internet Governance: The New Frontier of Global Power examines
the global dynamics of internet governance, highlighting the role of both state and non-
state actors in shaping internet policies. Dutton’s work is valuable for analyzing how
international norms, combined with national policies, impact internet freedom and
governance. This is crucial in understanding the constitutional challenges to internet
shutdowns in India, where national security concerns often clash with the fundamental
rights of citizens18.

M. Sridhar Acharyulu‟sThe Right to Information Act in India discusses the legal

frameworks that ensure transparency and accountability in India, particularly through the
Right to Information (RTI) Act. Although focused on the right to access government
information, Acharyulu’s work is relevant in the context of internet shutdowns, as these
actions directly impact the flow of information and transparency in governance.
Acharyulu’s arguments about the need for access to information in a democratic society
contribute to the debate on internet shutdowns in India 19.

Robin Mansell‟sDigital Rights: The Changing Landscape explores the evolving nature
of digital rights, including privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information in
the context of rapidly advancing digital technologies. Mansell’s work offers a
comprehensive view of how digital rights are evolving in response to technological

17
S.L. Goel, Democracy and Governance in India (Vikas Publishing House, 2005).
18
William H. Dutton, Internet Governance: The New Frontier of Global Power (Oxford University Press,
2010).
19
M. Sridhar Acharyulu, The Right to Information Act in India (Oxford University Press, 2011).

17
developments, providing a framework for understanding the constitutional implications
of internet shutdowns and their impact on personal liberties in India 20.

Robert A. Scholes' The Law of the Internet provides a thorough analysis of legal
principles related to internet governance and regulation. Scholes discusses the challenges
that arise when balancing internet regulation with the protection of fundamental rights,
which is central to understanding the constitutional challenges to internet shutdowns in
India21.

Laura DeNardis‟ Global Internet Governance investigates the complex global

governance structure that influences the regulation of the internet. DeNardis offers
insights into how international legal frameworks and global governance structures impact
national internet policies, providing a broader perspective for analyzing India’s approach
to internet shutdowns and its constitutional challenges22.

1.10 Research Methodology

The research methodology for this dissertation on "Constitutional Challenges to Internet

This study employs a qualitative research methodology to explore the constitutional
challenges to internet shutdowns in India, particularly focusing on Articles 19(1)(A) and
21 of the Indian Constitution. The research is primarily based on an in-depth analysis of
judicial interpretations, legal frameworks, and scholarly literature. It examines key court
cases, such as AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020), to understand how the judiciary
has interpreted and balanced the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression,
and the right to life and personal liberty in the context of internet shutdowns. A doctrinal
approach is adopted to analyze statutory provisions, case laws, and legal principles
related to internet governance and constitutional rights. Additionally, secondary data
from books, academic journals, reports, and government publications are used to
understand the broader implications of internet shutdowns on human rights, democracy,
and governance in India. This qualitative approach allows for a comprehensive
understanding of the legal, constitutional, and social dimensions of internet shutdowns.

20
Robin Mansell, Digital Rights: The Changing Landscape (MIT Press, 2017).
21
Robert A. Scholes, The Law of the Internet (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
22
Laura DeNardis, Global Internet Governance (Yale University Press, 2015).

18
The research aims to offer an analytical perspective on how Indian courts navigate the
tensions between national security concerns and the protection of fundamental rights in
the digital age.

1.11 Tentative Chapterisation

1. Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter will provide an overview of the topic, introducing the concept of internet
shutdowns in India, their rise in recent years, and their implications on fundamental
rights. It will outline the key objectives, research questions, and the significance of
the study. The chapter will also present the background and context for the
dissertation, offering insights into the socio-political landscape in which internet
shutdowns are being implemented.

2. Chapter 2 : Impact Of Internet Shutdowns on Scrutiny And Governance

This chapter will assess the broader socio-economic impact of internet shutdowns,
focusing on their effects on businesses, education, healthcare, and marginalized
communities.
This chapter will delve into the concepts of proportionality and necessity as applied
to internet shutdowns in India. It will critically examine whether the government’s
measures are justified, necessary, and proportionate to the risks they aim to address.

3. Chapter 3: : Impact of Internet Shutdown on Society and Governance

This chapter will examine the legal framework that allows for internet shutdowns
in India, including the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Temporary
Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules,
2017. The chapter will analyze the powers vested in the government to suspend
internet services, focusing on the legal justifications provided by the state and the
implications for citizens’ rights. It will also critique the adequacy and
transparency of these legal provisions.

19
4. Chapter 4: Constitutional Dimensions: Freedom Of Expression And
Personal Liberty
This chapter will explore the judicial interpretations of Article 19(1)(a) and
Article 21 in relation to internet shutdowns, with a focus on landmark cases like
ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India (2015) and AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of
India (2020). The chapter will analyze how the Supreme Court of India has
addressed the constitutional challenges posed by internet shutdowns and the
application of the proportionality and necessity tests.

5. Chapter 5: Judicial Scrutiny And Emerging Jurisprudence

This chapter will explore the judicial interpretations of Article 19(1)(a) and
Article 21 in relation to internet shutdowns, with a focus on landmark cases like
ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India (2015) and AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India
(2020). The chapter will analyze how the Supreme Court of India has addressed
the constitutional challenges posed by internet shutdowns and the application of
the proportionality and necessity tests

6. Chapter 6: Comparative Perspectives on Internet Shutdowns

This chapter will offer a comparative analysis of internet shutdowns in India and
other countries, including examples from China, Iran, Turkey, and other
democratic nations. It will provide insights into how internet shutdowns are
managed in different legal and political contexts and examine international
standards on internet freedom, such as those set by the United Nations and
human rights organizations. This comparison will help contextualize India’s
approach and identify best practices from other jurisdictions.

7. Chapter 7: Recommendations and Policy Implications

This chapter will propose recommendations for reforming the legal and policy
frameworks governing internet shutdowns in India. It will suggest ways to ensure
that shutdowns are imposed in a more transparent, accountable, and
constitutionally sound manner. The chapter will emphasize the need for judicial

20
 oversight, clear guidelines, and alternative measures to address national security
concerns without unduly infringing on fundamental rights.

8. Chapter 8: Conclusion
This final chapter will summarize the key findings of the research, revisiting the
constitutional challenges of internet shutdowns in India. It will reflect on the
implications of these challenges for the protection of fundamental rights and offer
concluding thoughts on how the legal and policy frameworks can be reformed to
better balance security and individual freedoms. The chapter will also discuss
future research directions on the topic of digital rights and internet governance in
India.

21
 CHAPTER 2

IMPACT OF INTERNET SHUTDOWN ON SOCIETY AND GOVERNANCE

2.1 Economic Consequences: Loss of Livelihood and Business Opportunities

Internet shutdowns have far-reaching economic consequences, particularly in an

increasingly digital world where businesses, workers, and consumers are heavily reliant
on internet access for their daily activities. The economic impact of internet shutdowns
goes beyond temporary disruptions, with loss of livelihoods, business closures, and
delays in critical economic activities creating long-lasting effects. The disruptions to
businesses, especially small enterprises and startups, exacerbate existing vulnerabilities,
while workers in the gig economy, online platforms, and digital services experience
severe financial losses.

Impact on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are among the most affected by internet
shutdowns, particularly in India, where a significant portion of businesses are digital or
rely heavily on digital tools for their operations. These businesses often use the internet
for online sales, marketing, communication with clients, and managing logistics.
Shutdowns disrupt all of these activities, leading to immediate financial losses, and in
many cases, to business closure. E-commerce businesses, freelancers, and those in
digital marketing or advertising experience the most severe effects.

For instance, during internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir in 2019-2020, many
local e-commerce businesses were unable to process transactions, leading to losses in
sales and disrupted customer relationships. Similarly, small businesses in states like
Uttar Pradesh and Assam that rely on social media and online marketing platforms,
such as Facebook, Instagram, or WhatsApp, were unable to promote their products or
reach customers. Without internet access, they found it nearly impossible to continue
operations or communicate with their suppliers, clients, and customers.

22
The digital divide also exacerbates the situation, with small businesses in rural areas
particularly hard-hit. While large enterprises have the financial muscle to rely on offline
operations or alternative communication tools during shutdowns, small businesses
typically do not have the resources or infrastructure to pivot quickly. According to
Access Now, a global human rights organization, internet shutdowns cost India billions
of dollars each year in lost economic activity due to interruptions in online trade and
communication.

Impact on the Gig Economy and Freelancers

Gig economy workers, particularly those engaged in online freelancing, face direct
economic hardship during internet shutdowns. Workers in fields such as graphic
design, content writing, data analysis, and virtual assistance rely heavily on internet
access to connect with clients, submit work, and receive payments. Shutdowns disrupt
their ability to fulfill these tasks, leading to loss of income, delays in payment, and
financial uncertainty.

For example, freelancers in digital platforms like Upwork, Fiverr, and Freelancer.com
often work with international clients who require timely communication and project
updates. During shutdowns, they are unable to engage with clients or meet deadlines,
affecting their reputation and future work opportunities. Virtual assistants who
manage administrative tasks for businesses can be rendered ineffective without access to
the internet, causing delays in services provided to clients.

In rural areas, where internet access may already be limited, the impact of internet
shutdowns is even more severe. The shutdowns limit the ability of workers in the gig
economy to secure work or deliver completed tasks. Workers who are already facing
economic insecurity and low-paying jobs in rural India are left without viable
alternatives, exacerbating their financial instability.

Impact on Digital Payment Systems and Financial Transactions

In recent years, India has seen a massive shift toward digital payments, with platforms
such as Paytm, Google Pay, and PhonePe facilitating everyday transactions for millions

23
of people. These platforms have become indispensable, particularly for small traders,
street vendors, and individuals in rural areas. The financial inclusion facilitated by
digital payment systems has been critical in promoting economic growth and reducing
poverty in rural and underserved communities23.

During internet shutdowns, these digital payment platforms become inaccessible,

making it impossible for businesses and individuals to carry out transactions. Street
vendors, who rely on cashless payments from customers, face significant losses in sales
during shutdowns. Farmers, who are increasingly using digital platforms to access
government schemes or sell produce online, are also adversely affected by the lack of
internet access.

Additionally, financial markets and stock trading are also impacted during internet
shutdowns. Many traders, brokers, and investors in India conduct transactions through
online platforms. The suspension of internet services causes delays in transactions and
loss of financial opportunities due to the inability to access market data, buy/sell
orders, or investment updates.

Economic Costs of Internet Shutdowns

According to the Cost of Shutdowns in India Report, prepared by Access Now, India
leads the world in the number of internet shutdowns. These shutdowns cost the Indian
economy billions of dollars annually in lost productivity. In 2019, India incurred an
estimated economic loss of $1.3 billion due to internet shutdowns, affecting various
sectors, including business, education, and public services.

The report notes that small businesses and startups are particularly vulnerable to these
disruptions, with digital businesses facing more severe consequences. Furthermore, the
costs of internet shutdowns are disproportionately borne by those who rely most on the
internet for their livelihoods. These include freelancers, remote workers, and small-
scale entrepreneurs, who find themselves with no income or customers during a
shutdown.

23
Cost of Shutdowns in India Report, Access Now, 2020.

24
2.2 Social and Psychological Effects on Citizens

While the economic consequences of internet shutdowns are widely recognized, the
social and psychological effects of these disruptions on citizens are equally profound.
The internet is an essential tool for communication, social interaction, and mental well-
being in the modern world. Internet shutdowns affect people’s ability to maintain
relationships, access healthcare, and even deal with everyday challenges. The
psychological toll of being disconnected from the internet during a shutdown can lead to
stress, anxiety, and feelings of isolation, especially in the age of digital
communication.

Social Isolation and Communication Breakdown

The internet is an essential medium for social interaction in today’s world. Social media
platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp serve as the primary
means of connecting with friends and family, particularly in urban and rural areas.
During an internet shutdown, individuals lose the ability to communicate and stay
connected with others. This creates a sense of social isolation, especially for individuals
living in areas where face-to-face communication may be limited.

For instance, during the Jammu and Kashmir internet shutdown in 2019-2020,
residents were cut off from communication with relatives, friends, and the outside world.
This isolation led to significant psychological stress and a sense of disempowerment.
Families were unable to access emergency services or communicate with loved ones
living in other parts of the country. The situation became even more critical for students,
who relied on the internet for educational resources, and professionals, who relied on it
for work-related communication.

The loss of access to communication channels not only disrupts daily life but also
exacerbates mental health issues. The inability to connect with others during periods of
crisis can intensify feelings of loneliness, helplessness, and depression. In regions
affected by prolonged internet shutdowns, the social and psychological well-being of
residents is severely compromised, leading to increased mental health concerns.

25
Access to Healthcare and Emergency Services

The internet has become a critical resource for accessing healthcare information,
scheduling medical appointments, and receiving telemedicine services. Telemedicine and
online consultations have gained prominence in recent years, especially during the
COVID-19 pandemic, where physical consultations were limited. Internet shutdowns
disrupt access to medical services, particularly in areas where there is limited access to
physical healthcare facilities.

During internet shutdowns, individuals are unable to consult doctors, access mental
health resources, or even get updates about public health crises, such as the COVID-19
pandemic. In areas where public health information is disseminated primarily through
the internet, citizens are left without access to vital information about healthcare
services, government health schemes, or emergency contacts.

The mental health effects of internet shutdowns are compounded in situations of

political unrest, where people may already be dealing with trauma, stress, or
uncertainty. The loss of internet access adds to the psychological burden, as people are
disconnected from sources of support, information, and reassurance.

Increased Vulnerability for Marginalized Communities

The social and psychological effects of internet shutdowns are especially harsh on
marginalized communities, including rural populations, women, and low-income
groups. For many of these groups, the internet is an essential tool for accessing services,
gaining information, and connecting with support networks. Rural communities, in
particular, often rely on the internet to access government schemes, job opportunities,
and emergency alerts.

In regions with internet shutdowns, these communities face a greater risk of exclusion,
as they are already at a disadvantage when it comes to access to services and information.
Shutdowns prevent these groups from participating in the digital economy, from
obtaining critical public information, and from communicating with the broader world.
For women, in particular, the internet provides a critical avenue for empowerment,

26
allowing them to engage with educational resources, connect with peers, and seek help in
cases of domestic violence. Internet shutdowns limit these opportunities, further
entrenching social inequality.

Psychological Effects: Stress, Anxiety, and Loss of Agency

Internet shutdowns are also linked to psychological stress and anxiety. The loss of
access to the internet, particularly in times of political unrest or economic hardship, can
lead to a sense of helplessness and loss of control. This is particularly true in cases
where citizens feel disempowered in the face of state-imposed restrictions. The
uncertainty surrounding the duration of a shutdown contributes to increased anxiety, as
individuals do not know when they will regain access to critical services or how long
they will remain disconnected from the outside world 24.

Moreover, internet shutdowns can lead to a loss of agency for citizens, who are used to
relying on the internet for daily tasks such as accessing news, government services,
educational resources, and healthcare information. The inability to perform these tasks
creates a sense of vulnerability, as individuals feel disconnected from the tools they rely
on for self-empowerment and social participation.

The socio-economic and psychological impact of internet shutdowns is significant,

particularly when it comes to education, access to information, and mental well-being.
These shutdowns disrupt educational progress, increase inequalities, hinder economic
opportunities, and contribute to psychological distress. The mental health effects of
being disconnected from essential services, social networks, and informational resources
cannot be understated, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Internet shutdowns represent a serious public policy issue that requires greater
consideration of human rights, socio-economic consequences, and long-term impacts
on citizens. It is critical that the government adopts more transparent, proportionate, and
accountable approaches to such measures, ensuring that citizens’ access to vital
resources is not unduly interrupted.

24
Mental Health and Digital Disconnect: Effects of Internet Shutdowns on Well-being, Mental Health
Journal, 2021.

27
2.3 Necessity of Internet Shutdowns for Public Safety

The necessity of internet shutdowns in maintaining public safety is often invoked by

the government during periods of political unrest, civil unrest, or in response to
perceived national security threats. Governments argue that internet shutdowns are
necessary tools to curb the spread of misinformation, prevent the mobilization of
protests, and maintain public order. While these concerns may be valid in some cases,
the principle of necessity requires that such measures are used only when absolutely
essential and that less restrictive alternatives have been considered and rejected.

The Supreme Court of India in AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India underscored the

necessity test in the context of internet shutdowns, stating that the government must
prove that the restriction on internet access is necessary to achieve the legitimate aim of
public safety or public order. The Court emphasized that internet shutdowns should
only be employed as a last resort, after exhausting all less restrictive measures. The
Court also highlighted that shutdowns should be time-bound and subject to regular
reviews to assess their continued necessity25.

In determining the necessity of internet shutdowns, several factors must be considered:

1. Nature and Scale of Threat: The shutdown must be based on a legitimate threat
to public safety or national security. If the threat is local or specific to certain
areas, a targeted shutdown may be more appropriate than a blanket suspension
of services.

2. Availability of Alternatives: The government must consider alternative

measures to achieve the same objectives without resorting to a complete
shutdown. For instance, blocking specific websites, social media platforms, or
individual accounts suspected of inciting violence may be more effective and
less harmful than shutting down internet access entirely.

25
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19.

28
 3. Effectiveness of the Measure: The government must demonstrate that an internet
shutdown is an effective measure for maintaining public safety. The shutdown
must be able to achieve the desired outcome, such as preventing violence or the
spread of false information, in a manner that is commensurate with the threat.

4. Temporal Limitation: The shutdown must be time-bound and lifted as soon as

the threat has subsided. Prolonged shutdowns, particularly without clear
justification, can undermine public trust, hinder access to critical services, and
cause unnecessary hardship.

The necessity of internet shutdowns in India is a contentious issue. While the state has a
responsibility to maintain public order and safeguard national security, it must balance
this duty with its obligation to protect fundamental rights. In many instances, internet
shutdowns have been imposed without sufficient evidence of their necessity or
effectiveness. Critics argue that these shutdowns are often disproportionate and
punitive, targeting whole communities without adequate justification.

The right to access information and participate in public discourse is a core tenet of
democracy, and any restrictions on these rights must be rigorously examined to ensure
that they are truly necessary. Thus, the necessity test should serve as a means of ensuring
that internet shutdowns are not imposed arbitrarily or used to suppress dissent, but only
in circumstances where the public interest truly demands it 26.

2.3 Balancing Public Order and Individual Rights

One of the key challenges in the judicial review of internet shutdowns is finding a

balance between public order and individual rights. The government’s responsibility to

maintain law and order must be weighed against its duty to protect individual freedoms,

including the right to freedom of speech and the right to access information. Prolonged

26
Access Now, "The Economic and Social Impact of Internet Shutdowns", 2020.

29
internet shutdowns can interfere with these rights, limiting people’s ability to

communicate, access news, and participate in democratic processes.

The principle of proportionality provides a framework for balancing these competing

interests. While public safety is a legitimate concern for the government, any restriction

on individual rights must be necessary, proportional, and least restrictive. This means that

internet shutdowns should not be used as a blanket response to public disturbances or

political protests, but should be targeted to specific threats.

In the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized the

need to balance public order and individual rights when implementing internet

shutdowns. The Court observed that while the government is entitled to take steps to

preserve public safety and prevent violence, these measures must not unduly infringe

upon the right to freedom of expression and the right to access information. The Court’s

decision underscored the importance of judicial scrutiny in ensuring that the

government’s actions do not exceed the bounds of necessity and proportionality.

The Court’s ruling in Anuradha Bhasin highlights the importance of ensuring

transparency in the decision-making process. Government action that limits individual
rights must be justified and subject to review to ensure that it is not disproportionate to
the threat at hand. This balance between public order and individual rights is a delicate
one, and judicial oversight is necessary to maintain this equilibrium.

2.4 Assessing the Adequacy and Effectiveness of Shutdown Measures

The effectiveness and adequacy of internet shutdown measures are critical components
in assessing their proportionality. To be justified under constitutional law, an internet
shutdown must not only be necessary but also effective in achieving its intended

30
purpose. The government must demonstrate that the shutdown addresses the threat at
hand and that there are no alternative measures that would be less restrictive but equally
effective.

In the context of public safety or national security, the government may argue that a
complete internet shutdown is the most effective way to prevent violence,
disinformation, or the escalation of unrest. However, a shutdown must be scrutinized
for its real-world effectiveness in achieving the desired outcomes, particularly when the
costs to individuals and society are significant.

Several questions should be asked when assessing the effectiveness of an internet

shutdown:

1. Has the Shutdown Achieved its Purpose?: The government must demonstrate
that the shutdown has effectively prevented the threat, whether it be the spread of
violence, misinformation, or organized protests. If a shutdown does not have the
intended effect, it may be deemed excessive and unjustified.

2. Proportionality of the Shutdown: The impact of the shutdown on the general

public, businesses, and vulnerable groups must be considered relative to the
benefits it brings in terms of public safety. If the harm caused by the shutdown
outweighs the benefits, the measure may be deemed disproportionate and
ineffective.

3. Alternatives to Internet Shutdowns: The government should assess whether

there are other measures that can be implemented to achieve the same outcome
without resorting to a full internet shutdown. For example, targeting specific
online platforms, limiting access to specific content, or issuing public
advisories may be effective alternatives to shutting down internet services.

4. Duration of the Shutdown: The duration of an internet shutdown must be

commensurate with the scale of the threat. A prolonged shutdown, especially
without clear justification, may lose its effectiveness and result in unnecessary
harm to individuals and businesses.

31
Given the significant social and economic consequences of internet shutdowns, it is
essential that they be carefully assessed for their effectiveness and timeliness. If a
shutdown is not achieving its intended purpose or if it is unnecessarily prolonged, it
should be lifted or replaced with less intrusive measures.

2.5 Balancing Public Order and Individual Rights

One of the key challenges in the judicial review of internet shutdowns is finding a
balance between public order and individual rights. The government’s responsibility to
maintain law and order must be weighed against its duty to protect individual
freedoms, including the right to freedom of speech and the right to access
information. Prolonged internet shutdowns can interfere with these rights, limiting
people’s ability to communicate, access news, and participate in democratic processes.

The principle of proportionality provides a framework for balancing these competing

interests. While public safety is a legitimate concern for the government, any restriction
on individual rights must be necessary, proportional, and least restrictive. This means
that internet shutdowns should not be used as a blanket response to public disturbances
or political protests, but should be targeted to specific threats.

In the case of AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized the
need to balance public order and individual rights when implementing internet
shutdowns. The Court observed that while the government is entitled to take steps to
preserve public safety and prevent violence, these measures must not unduly infringe
upon the right to freedom of expression and the right to access information. The
Court’s decision underscored the importance of judicial scrutiny in ensuring that the
government’s actions do not exceed the bounds of necessity and proportionality.

The Court’s ruling in AnuradhaBhasin highlights the importance of ensuring

transparency in the decision-making process. Government action that limits individual
rights must be justified and subject to review to ensure that it is not disproportionate to
the threat at hand. This balance between public order and individual rights is a delicate
one, and judicial oversight is necessary to maintain this equilibrium.

32
 CHAPTER 3

INTERNET SHUTDOWNS IN INDIA: LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE

FRAMEWORK

3.1 Legislative Framework for Internet Shutdowns in India

The legal framework governing internet shutdowns in India is rooted in a combination of

old colonial-era legislation and modern rules introduced to address emerging challenges
in telecommunications and national security. Internet shutdowns, particularly those
invoked during periods of unrest, conflict, or national security threats, are primarily
regulated under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Temporary Suspension of
Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017. Together, these
legal instruments empower the government to suspend internet services, but they also
raise critical questions regarding the balance between national security and the protection
of fundamental rights, especially freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a))
and right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) of citizens. This section delves into
the legislative framework governing internet shutdowns in India, analyzing the relevant
provisions of these laws, their interpretation, and the implications they have on civil
liberties.

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

The Indian Telegraph Act, 188527, is one of the oldest laws still in force in India.
Originally enacted during British rule, the Act was designed to regulate
telecommunication services, including telegraphs, telephones, and later, the internet.
Section 5(2) of the Act is the key provision that allows the government to suspend or
intercept telecommunication services, including the internet, during a public emergency
or in the interest of public safety. The relevant section reads:

―In the event of any public emergency, or in the interest of public safety, the government
may, by order in writing, authorize the interception or suspension of any message or
communication through a telegraph, including the internet.‖

27
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 5(2).

33
This provision has been the cornerstone for the imposition of internet shutdowns in India.
The language of Section 5(2) is vague, broad, and discretionary, giving the government
considerable leeway in determining when to suspend internet services. The law does not
specify clear parameters for determining what constitutes a public emergency or public
safety concern. This lack of specificity raises concerns about arbitrary state action, as it
leaves room for governments to impose shutdowns in a disproportionate manner, often
without judicial oversight or accountability.

In practice, Section 5(2) has been invoked frequently to justify the suspension of internet
services during times of unrest, communal violence, or political protests. For instance,
during the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests, internet services were
suspended in multiple regions, with authorities citing the need to control the spread of
misinformation and prevent violence. Similarly, after the revocation of Article 370 in
Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, the government imposed a complete internet
shutdown in the region, which lasted for months, severely impacting the daily lives of
residents.

While Section 5(2) provides a legal basis for internet shutdowns, its broad and vague
language has led to significant criticisms. Scholars, legal experts, and human rights
organizations have argued that the Act’s provisions are outdated and insufficiently
nuanced to address the complexities of internet governance in the modern age. Critics
argue that the law fails to provide adequate safeguards to prevent abuse, leading to
arbitrary imposition of internet shutdowns.

Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety)

Rules, 2017

Recognizing the growing use of the internet and the increasing frequency of internet
shutdowns, the Indian government introduced the Temporary Suspension of Telecom
Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 28. These rules were framed
under the powers conferred by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and specifically address
the suspension of telecom services, including the internet, during periods of public

28
Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.

34
emergency or in the interest of public safety. The 2017 rules were aimed at providing a
more structured and transparent framework for the imposition of internet shutdowns.

The key provisions of the 2017 Rules include the following:

1. Authorization for Suspension: The rules specify that any suspension of telecom
services, including internet shutdowns, must be authorized by a State Home
Secretary or a Union Home Secretary in the case of central government
interventions. In emergency situations, the decision can be made at the district
level, but it must be reviewed within 24 hours by a higher authority to ensure its
legitimacy.

2. Duration and Scope: The rules mandate that internet shutdowns should be for a
limited duration and that the suspension should be reviewed periodically. While
the rules do not specify a maximum duration for a shutdown, they require that the
suspension of services should be subject to periodic reviews to assess whether it is
still necessary. If the shutdown exceeds 15 days, it must be referred to the Review
Committee appointed by the government.

3. Specificity of Suspension: The rules also require that internet shutdowns be

targeted and proportional. Authorities must specify the areas or geographic
regions where internet services will be suspended. This prevents nationwide
shutdowns and ensures that only the affected areas experience service disruptions.
The government must also provide a clear explanation for the shutdown to ensure
transparency.

4. Communication and Transparency: Under the rules, the government is required

to inform the public about the reasons for the internet shutdown. Authorities must
ensure that the communication is clear and accessible to the general public,
explaining why the suspension was necessary and how long it is expected to last.

While the 2017 Rules provide more structured guidance on how internet shutdowns
should be implemented, they still suffer from several shortcomings. One of the primary

35
concerns is that the rules grant significant power to the government, especially at the
district and state levels, to impose and review internet shutdowns without adequate
judicial oversight or public accountability. In addition, the rules do not specify the
precise criteria for determining when a shutdown is necessary or proportional, which
leaves room for arbitrary and excessive restrictions on internet access.

Another significant issue is the lack of a clear and independent review mechanism.
Although the rules require that a Review Committee be formed to evaluate the necessity
of a shutdown after 15 days, the membership and functioning of this Committee remain
opaque, and its decisions are not subject to judicial review. This creates a scenario where
the executive branch of government retains substantial control over internet shutdowns
without meaningful checks and balances.

Judicial Oversight and the Role of the Judiciary

The issue of judicial oversight in internet shutdowns has been a point of contention in
India. The Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized the importance of
judicial scrutiny in cases where the government restricts fundamental rights, especially
the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to
personal liberty under Article 21.

In the landmark case of AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020)29, the Supreme

Court ruled that internet shutdowns must comply with constitutional principles, including
the principles of necessity and proportionality. The Court recognized that while the
government has the authority to impose restrictions on the internet, these restrictions
must be justified and should not be excessive or arbitrary. The Court emphasized that the
Indian Constitution requires that such measures be subject to judicial review and that
they should not infringe disproportionately on citizens' rights.

The Court also directed the government to periodically review internet shutdowns and
provide justification for their continuation. It further ruled that shutdowns must be time-
bound and that they must be imposed only for specific, legitimate reasons, such as
preventing public unrest or violence. This judgment reinforced the necessity of clear legal
29
AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.

36
standards for the imposition of internet shutdowns and emphasized the importance of
accountability and transparency.

While the AnuradhaBhasin case marked a significant step towards ensuring judicial
oversight, the broader question of how the Indian judiciary can play a more active role
in regulating internet shutdowns remains an ongoing concern. The absence of a
standardized judicial review mechanism for internet shutdowns continues to leave room
for arbitrary decisions and the excessive use of state power.

Challenges to the Legislative Framework

The current legislative framework governing internet shutdowns in India, primarily the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the 2017 Rules, has been criticized for several reasons.
First, as noted earlier, the Indian Telegraph Act provides excessive discretion to the
government without sufficient checks and balances. The law’s vague language allows
authorities to impose broad internet shutdowns, often with little transparency or
justification.

Second, the 2017 Rules, while offering more guidance, still rely heavily on executive
discretion and fail to provide a robust mechanism for judicial review or accountability.
The absence of an independent, transparent process for assessing the necessity and
proportionality of internet shutdowns makes it difficult to ensure that such measures are
not misused or excessively imposed.

Lastly, the lack of clarity regarding the socio-economic impact of internet shutdowns,
particularly on businesses, education, and marginalized communities, calls for a more
nuanced and evidence-based approach in policymaking. Existing frameworks fail to
adequately address the socio-economic consequences of shutdowns, which often result in
significant economic losses and disruption of essential services.

The legislative framework governing internet shutdowns in India, consisting primarily of

the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services
Rules, 2017, provides the legal authority for imposing restrictions on internet services in
times of public emergency or public safety concerns. However, the framework is far from

37
perfect. The broad, discretionary powers granted to the government under these laws
raise concerns about arbitrary restrictions and the lack of judicial oversight.

The Supreme Court‟s rulings, particularly in AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India,

highlight the need for greater judicial scrutiny and adherence to constitutional principles
such as proportionality and necessity. Moving forward, there is a need for
comprehensive reforms to ensure that internet shutdowns are imposed transparently,
accountably, and only when absolutely necessary to protect public order and national
security.

3.2 The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is a colonial-era legislation that remains one of the
primary legal instruments for regulating telecommunications, including telegraph,
telephone, and internet services, in India. While it was originally enacted to regulate
telecommunication in a time when the telegraph was the primary means of
communication, its provisions have been adapted to cover newer technologies, including
the internet, as they emerged. The Act, especially Section 5(2), plays a pivotal role in
enabling internet shutdowns in India, granting the government wide discretionary powers
to suspend telecommunication services in the interest of national security, public safety,
or public order. This chapter will explore Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, its
historical context, its application in contemporary India, and the criticisms it has faced in
light of its use for imposing internet shutdowns 30.

Historical Context of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

The Indian Telegraph Act was introduced during British colonial rule as a measure to
control and regulate the telecommunication infrastructure in India. The telegraph was a
crucial communication tool, and the Act was part of the broader effort by the colonial
government to manage communication for purposes such as administration, control over
the territory, and military use. Section 5(2) of the Act was crafted to give the colonial
government the power to intercept or suspend communication whenever there was a
public emergency or a threat to public safety. This provision was intended to serve as a
30
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 5(2).

38
mechanism for control, particularly in times of rebellion or unrest, allowing the British
authorities to disrupt communication channels that could be used to organize or incite
opposition.

In post-independence India, the Act continued to govern telecommunication, and Section

5(2) was retained largely unchanged. Over time, as telecommunications technology
evolved from the telegraph to telephones, and eventually to the internet, the Act was
stretched to encompass these new forms of communication. However, its broad and
vague language has remained a source of contention, especially in its modern-day
application to the internet.

Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act is the critical provision that allows the
government to suspend telecommunication services, including the internet, in the event of
a public emergency or for reasons of public safety. The section reads as follows:

"In the event of any public emergency, or in the interest of public safety, the government
may, by order in writing, authorize the interception or suspension of any message or
communication through a telegraph, including the internet."

This provision grants the government extensive powers to block or interfere with
communication, particularly the internet, during times of unrest, violence, or when there
is a perceived threat to national security. The government can issue orders without
judicial scrutiny, and these orders often have a broad and sweeping impact, affecting
entire regions or states. The section is particularly controversial in the context of internet
shutdowns, as it enables the government to disrupt communication on a large scale, often
without clear, narrow parameters.

While the Indian government has argued that the provision is necessary for national
security, it is criticized for its vague language, which allows for subjective and arbitrary
decision-making. The section does not define what constitutes a public emergency or
public safety threat, leaving it to the discretion of the government. This broad discretion,

39
critics argue, makes it prone to abuse, particularly when internet shutdowns are used to
control political discourse, silence dissent, or suppress protests.

Application of Section 5(2) for Internet Shutdowns

The application of Section 5(2) in the modern context, particularly with respect to
internet shutdowns, has become increasingly contentious. In recent years, India has
witnessed a significant rise in the frequency and scope of internet shutdowns, often linked
to political events, civil unrest, or national security concerns. According to Access Now,
India accounted for over 100 internet shutdowns in 2019 alone, which was the highest
number globally.

Internet shutdowns are often imposed by the government under the justification of
controlling the spread of misinformation, maintaining law and order, or preventing
violence. For instance, during the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests,
the government invoked Section 5(2) to suspend internet services in areas where protests
were taking place, particularly in states like Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and
Assam. Similarly, following the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir in
August 2019, the government imposed one of the longest internet shutdowns in the
region, which lasted for months.

Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act has also been invoked to justify internet
shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir, especially following the insurgency and ongoing
conflict in the region. The state government used this provision to impose a
communications blackout after Article 370 was abrogated, citing security concerns and
the need to maintain public order. However, this extended shutdown has drawn
international criticism for its disproportionate and prolonged nature, severely impacting
the lives of millions of residents who rely on the internet for daily activities such as
communication, education, business, and healthcare.

The government’s use of Section 5(2) to justify widespread internet shutdowns has raised
significant constitutional concerns. Critics argue that the provision grants the government
excessive power to curtail citizens' fundamental rights, particularly freedom of speech
and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and right to life and personal liberty under

40
Article 21. The arbitrary nature of these shutdowns has prompted calls for greater
judicial scrutiny, especially since internet shutdowns affect a wide range of rights, from
political participation to access to essential services.

Criticism of Section 5(2) and the Need for Reform

The widespread and often prolonged use of internet shutdowns in India has drawn heavy
criticism from legal scholars, human rights organizations, and the international
community. One of the central criticisms is that Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act
is vague and overbroad, giving the government too much discretion in imposing
shutdowns without a clear, standardized framework. The lack of specific criteria for
determining when a shutdown is necessary or proportionate has led to excessive use of
this provision, with entire regions being shut off from the internet for extended periods.

For example, Subhash C. Jain31 has argued that the broadness of Section 5(2) leaves the
provision open to abuse, as it allows for arbitrary actions by the government. The Indian
Supreme Court, in AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020), also raised concerns
over the imposition of internet shutdowns, highlighting the lack of proportionality and
accountability in the process. The Court ruled that any suspension of internet services
must be reasonable, necessary, and proportional to the situation at hand, and
emphasized the need for periodic reviews of shutdown orders.

Moreover, critics argue that Section 5(2), as currently formulated, does not offer
adequate judicial oversight. While the law does allow the government to impose internet
shutdowns during emergencies, there is no robust mechanism for judicial review, nor
does it require the government to provide detailed reasons for the shutdown. The
AnuradhaBhasin case underscored the necessity of a more transparent and accountable
process, and the Supreme Court ruled that shutdowns must be subject to regular
reviews to ensure that they do not unduly infringe upon citizens' rights.

The lack of a clear legal framework for internet shutdowns has prompted calls for
reform. Legal experts like AmitBhandari suggest that a new legislative framework

31
Subhash C. Jain, "The Legal Framework for Internet Shutdowns in India: A Critical Review,"
Indian Law Review, 2020.

41
should be introduced to regulate internet shutdowns, ensuring that any suspension of
services is justified, time-bound, and subject to independent oversight. They also
advocate for public transparency, where the government is required to disclose the
reasons for internet shutdowns and subject them to judicial review 32.

The Way Forward: Legal Reform and Judicial Oversight

To address the issues arising from the application of Section 5(2) in the context of
internet shutdowns, several reforms could be considered. One potential reform could
involve the introduction of a new internet shutdown law that explicitly defines the
criteria under which shutdowns may be imposed. This law could include provisions that
ensure the proportionality of such measures, require the periodic review of shutdowns,
and establish a transparent process for judicial oversight.

Additionally, the creation of an independent review body to assess the need for and
impact of internet shutdowns could be another effective measure. This body could ensure
that shutdowns are not imposed arbitrarily and are only used when absolutely necessary
to protect national security or public order. The body could also evaluate the social and
economic impact of shutdowns on affected communities and businesses.

Furthermore, there should be a strong emphasis on public accountability and

transparency. The government should be required to inform the public about the reasons
for an internet shutdown, its expected duration, and the specific areas affected. This
would help minimize confusion and ensure that citizens can take appropriate action to
mitigate the impact of the shutdown33.

Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides the legal basis for internet
shutdowns in India, but its broad and vague language has made it susceptible to misuse.
While the government justifies shutdowns as necessary for national security and public
safety, the lack of a clear, standardized framework for implementing such measures has
led to significant challenges. The Supreme Court‟s decision in AnuradhaBhasin has

32
AmitBhandari, "The Role of the Judiciary in Regulating Internet Shutdowns," Journal of Indian
Constitutional Law, 2021.
33
Access Now, "India: The Impact of Internet Shutdowns," 2020.

42
highlighted the need for greater judicial oversight and accountability in the imposition
of internet shutdowns. Moving forward, reforms to the existing legal framework are
necessary to ensure that internet shutdowns are subject to strict scrutiny and that they do
not disproportionately infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens.

3.3 Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety)

Rules, 2017

The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public

Safety) Rules, 2017 form a key part of the regulatory framework in India that governs
the suspension of internet and telecommunications services during emergencies. These
rules, which were notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885, aim to provide clarity and structure to the process of suspending telecom
services, including the internet, in cases of public emergencies or situations involving
threats to public safety. The rules reflect an acknowledgment of the growing importance
of digital communications and the need for a legal framework to address the increasing
use of internet shutdowns.

While the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (specifically Section 5(2)) grants the government
broad powers to suspend telecom services during public emergencies, the 2017 Rules
were introduced to regulate this process and ensure that any such suspension is conducted
with greater transparency, accountability, and periodic review. The rules were meant to
address the gaps and ambiguities in the previous legal framework, which had been used
to justify internet shutdowns in various instances.

This section critically examines the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services

(Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, their purpose, their provisions, and
their implications on citizens’ rights, particularly the right to freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It will also analyze the criticisms these rules have
received and the potential for reforms to ensure that internet shutdowns are implemented
more responsibly and in accordance with constitutional principles.

43
Background and Context of the 2017 Rules

The use of internet shutdowns in India has become a frequent tool for the government,
particularly in the context of civil unrest, political protests, or national security concerns.
The application of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provided a broad legal basis for such
measures, but it lacked specificity and transparency. This created a situation where
internet shutdowns were often imposed with little accountability or oversight, leading to
widespread concerns about the disproportionate restriction of citizens’ rights.

To address these concerns, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the Temporary
Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules in 2017,
which set out guidelines for the imposition of internet shutdowns. The rules were
intended to ensure that shutdowns are imposed with clear justifications, with a defined
duration, and under conditions that are more easily scrutinized by the public and the
judiciary. The 2017 Rules were seen as a step towards balancing the need for national
security and public safety with the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights.

Key Provisions of the 2017 Rules

The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public

Safety) Rules, 2017 include several important provisions that provide a framework for
the suspension of telecom services, including internet services. These provisions are
intended to ensure that shutdowns are not imposed arbitrarily and that they meet certain
conditions of necessity and proportionality. The key provisions of the rules are as
follows:

1. Authorization for Suspension Under the 2017 Rules, any suspension of telecom
services, including internet shutdowns, must be authorized by the State or Union
Home Secretary. The decision may be taken at the district level in emergency
situations but must be reviewed within 24 hours by a higher authority. The rules
state that state governments and the central government have the power to
suspend telecom services in situations where there is a public emergency or a
threat to public safety, including cases of civil unrest, terrorism, or major public
disturbances.

44
This provision allows for a quick response to emergencies, but it also sets limits on the
exercise of this power. The review within 24 hours aims to ensure that the suspension is
not prolonged unnecessarily and that it is reviewed by a higher authority to determine its
continued necessity.

2. Periodicity of Review A significant provision of the 2017 Rules is the

requirement for periodic reviews of any internet shutdowns. The rules stipulate
that the suspension of telecom services must be reviewed every 24 hours to ensure
that it remains necessary for maintaining public safety or national security. If the
shutdown continues for more than 15 days, it must be reviewed by a Review
Committee composed of senior government officials. This provision is intended
to prevent indefinite internet shutdowns and ensure that such measures are only in
place for as long as absolutely necessary.

While this provision is a step in the right direction, it has been criticized for the lack of
independent oversight. The Review Committee, which is responsible for reviewing the
suspension, is composed of government officials, and there is no independent judicial
mechanism to ensure the fairness of the review.

3. Geographic Specificity The 2017 Rules mandate that the suspension of telecom
services be geographically specific. This means that internet shutdowns should
only affect the areas that are directly impacted by the emergency or public safety
threat. The rules require that the government specify which regions will be
affected by the suspension, rather than imposing a blanket shutdown across a
large area.

This provision aims to ensure that internet shutdowns are targeted and proportional,
reducing the impact on individuals who are not involved in the unrest or conflict.
However, in practice, internet shutdowns are often imposed in large regions or entire
states, even when only specific areas might be affected by the situation.

4. Transparency and Communication Under the 2017 Rules, the government is

required to provide justification for the suspension of services. This includes the
need to explain the reasons for the internet shutdown and the expected duration of

45
 the suspension. This requirement aims to provide greater transparency and ensure
that citizens are aware of the reasons behind the shutdown, reducing confusion
and uncertainty.

However, the effectiveness of this provision is limited by the lack of clear criteria for
when shutdowns are justified. In many instances, the government does not provide a
detailed rationale for the suspension of services, and the justification given can be vague
or insufficient to fully address the constitutional concerns raised by citizens and advocacy
groups.

5. Duration and ScopeThe rules also specify that internet shutdowns should be
time-bound and limited in scope. While the rules do not impose a strict
maximum duration for shutdowns, they require that any suspension be regularly
reviewed to assess whether it remains necessary. If the shutdown lasts for an
extended period, the government must justify the continuation of the suspension.

Despite these provisions, the practice of imposing long-term shutdowns continues to be

a problem in India. For example, in Jammu and Kashmir, after the revocation of Article
370 in 2019, the internet was shut down for several months, causing significant hardship
to residents. This prolonged shutdown exemplifies the lack of proportionality in the
application of the rules.

6. Accountability and Judicial Review One of the most significant criticisms of the
2017 Rules is the lack of independent judicial review of the decisions to
suspend internet services. The rules grant significant power to the executive
branch of government, with minimal oversight from the judiciary or independent
bodies. While the rules require periodic reviews of shutdowns by government
officials, there is no independent or judicial mechanism to assess the necessity or
proportionality of the shutdowns.

The Supreme Court‟s ruling in AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020) addressed

this concern by stressing the need for judicial scrutiny of internet shutdowns. The Court
emphasized that internet shutdowns should be subject to necessary judicial review to

46
ensure that they are consistent with constitutional principles, particularly the protection of
fundamental rights.

Criticism of the 2017 Rules

While the 2017 Rules provide a more structured and transparent framework for internet
shutdowns, they have been criticized on several fronts. The primary concerns are the lack
of judicial oversight, the vague language of some provisions, and the excessive power
granted to the government in imposing shutdowns.

1. Lack of Judicial Oversight One of the most significant criticisms of the 2017
Rules is the absence of an independent judicial review mechanism. While the
rules require periodic reviews by government officials, there is no provision for
an independent body or judicial authority to assess the necessity and
proportionality of internet shutdowns. As a result, there is a risk that shutdowns
may continue without adequate checks on government power.

The Supreme Court‟s judgment in AnuradhaBhasin stressed the importance of judicial

oversight and called for greater accountability in the decision-making process
surrounding internet shutdowns. The Court ruled that any restriction on internet access
must meet constitutional standards, including being necessary, proportionate, and
transparent.

2. Vague Language and Lack of Clear Criteria Critics have argued that the
language of the 2017 Rules remains too vague, particularly when it comes to
defining public emergency or public safety. The rules grant the government
significant discretion to impose internet shutdowns, but they do not specify the
precise conditions under which such measures are warranted. This ambiguity has
led to the arbitrary application of internet shutdowns in situations where less
restrictive measures could have been employed.

3. Prolonged Shutdowns and Lack of Proportionality Despite the requirement for

periodic reviews, long-term internet shutdowns continue to be imposed in India.
The case of Jammu and Kashmir, where internet services were suspended for over

47
 150 days in 2019, exemplifies the lack of proportionality in the application of
the rules. Critics argue that the 2017 Rules do not sufficiently limit the duration
of shutdowns or establish strict criteria for when they should be lifted.

4. Impact on Fundamental Rights The most pressing concern regarding the 2017
Rules is their impact on citizens' fundamental rights, particularly the right to
freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to life and
personal liberty (Article 21). Internet shutdowns disrupt communication, access
to information, education, business, and healthcare, and disproportionately affect
marginalized communities. The prolonged suspension of internet services in
areas like Jammu and Kashmir highlights the devastating impact of such measures
on everyday life.

The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public

Safety) Rules, 2017 were introduced to provide a clearer, more structured framework for
imposing internet shutdowns in India. While they represent an improvement over the
previous legal regime, they still leave significant room for abuse of power and lack
adequate judicial oversight. The rules grant the government broad discretion to impose
internet shutdowns, with limited checks on executive power.

The Supreme Court‟s decision in AnuradhaBhasin underscored the importance of

proportionality, transparency, and judicial review in regulating internet shutdowns.
Moving forward, the legal framework governing internet shutdowns in India must be
reformed to ensure that such measures are implemented in a way that respects
fundamental rights, minimizes harm to citizens, and meets constitutional standards.
Reforms should focus on creating an independent oversight mechanism, clarifying the
criteria for when shutdowns are justified, and ensuring that internet shutdowns are
imposed only as a last resort, for the shortest possible duration.

3.4 Role of Government and State Authorities in Implementing Shutdowns

In India, the responsibility for implementing internet shutdowns primarily lies with the
central government and state authorities, with specific powers granted under the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services

48
(Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 201734. The government, at both the
national and state levels, exercises considerable discretion in deciding when and where to
impose an internet shutdown, often citing public safety, national security, or the
maintenance of public order as justification. This chapter explores the role of the central
government and state authorities in the process of implementing internet shutdowns,
the legal mechanisms through which they exercise these powers, and the challenges
related to transparency, accountability, and oversight 35.

Role of the Central Government

The central government plays a critical role in the decision-making process regarding
internet shutdowns. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is the primary agency
responsible for the coordination and authorization of internet shutdowns across the
country. Under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the 2017 Suspension Rules, the
central government holds the ultimate authority to issue orders to suspend
telecommunications services, including internet services, especially when the situation
involves national security or public safety concerns.

The central government‟s role typically comes into play during periods of nationwide
unrest, during communal violence, or in response to incidents that threaten national
security. For example, when large-scale protests or civil unrest threaten to spiral out of
control, the MHA can step in to authorize an internet shutdown to curb the spread of
rumors or prevent the coordination of violent activities.

In some cases, such as in the aftermath of the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and
Kashmir in 2019, the central government plays an active role in the decision to impose a
complete communications blackout. In such cases, the central government not only
coordinates the shutdown but also ensures that other branches of the government
implement and enforce the suspension, especially in sensitive or strategic regions.

34
Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.
35
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 5(2).

49
Role of State Authorities

While the central government has overarching authority in matters of national security,
state authorities often take a more prominent role in implementing internet shutdowns
during local or regional disturbances. According to the Temporary Suspension of
Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, state home
secretaries or district magistrates are authorized to order temporary suspensions of
telecom services, including the internet, during periods of public unrest within their
jurisdictions.

State authorities are typically the first to assess the need for an internet shutdown in the
face of localized unrest, whether in response to political protests, communal violence, or
specific security concerns. For instance, during protests related to the Citizenship
Amendment Act (CAA) in 2019, state governments in affected areas, such as Uttar
Pradesh and Assam, imposed internet shutdowns to control the spread of misinformation
and curb violent clashes. In such cases, the state government‟s role is to evaluate the
local context, determine the extent of the unrest, and recommend or authorize a shutdown
in response.

State authorities often play an essential role in the initial decision-making process,
particularly when the shutdown affects smaller geographic areas. For example, district
magistrates can issue directives for internet suspension in response to localized protests
or disturbances, but such decisions must be reviewed and validated by higher authorities,
including the Union Home Secretary or the Review Committee after 15 days, as
stipulated by the 2017 Rules. The responsibility of local officials is significant as they are
closest to the ground realities of the situation.

Coordination Between Central and State Authorities

In many instances, coordination between central and state authorities is essential for
the effective implementation of an internet shutdown. When a public emergency occurs,
the central government and state governments must work in tandem to assess the gravity
of the situation, decide on the areas where the shutdown will apply, and implement the

50
decision. This collaboration is often evident in situations where national security
concerns are at stake or where unrest spills over from one region to another.

One of the most significant instances of such coordination occurred after the revocation
of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019. The central government, through
the MHA, authorized a complete internet shutdown in the region. In this case, the
shutdown was coordinated by both central and state authorities, with Jammu and Kashmir
being placed under a communication blockade. Local authorities were tasked with
enforcing the shutdown in the region, while the central government was responsible for
ensuring that the decision was implemented in line with national security objectives.

During such high-stakes situations, the central government ensures that states adhere to
the broader policy framework, such as upholding national security interests, while state
governments implement and manage local directives. However, these situations often
reveal challenges related to accountability, transparency, and the proportionality of
shutdown measures, particularly when the impact on civil liberties is significant.

Challenges in Transparency and Accountability

While the Indian Telegraph Act and the 2017 Suspension Rules provide a legal basis
for the suspension of internet services, they also leave significant room for abuse and a
lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. One of the
central concerns is the lack of adequate oversight and the discretionary powers granted
to both central and state authorities. The rules allow the central government and state
authorities to make decisions about internet shutdowns with minimal checks and
balances, and often, these decisions are made behind closed doors without sufficient
public or judicial scrutiny.

For example, state authorities have been known to implement internet shutdowns in a
manner that is not publicly disclosed for long periods, creating an environment of
uncertainty and confusion for the residents affected. In many instances, citizens have not
been made aware of the specific reasons for the shutdowns or their expected duration.
This lack of communication and transparency has been a point of concern, particularly

51
when people are denied access to essential services, including communication tools,
online education, banking services, and healthcare.

Furthermore, the proportionality of internet shutdowns has been questioned, particularly

when the shutdowns affect entire regions or states due to localized disturbances. The
imposition of a blanket internet shutdown often restricts access to a wide range of digital
services, disproportionately affecting innocent citizens who are not involved in the
unrest. In cases like the Jammu and Kashmir shutdown in 2019, millions of residents
were deprived of internet access for months, significantly disrupting daily life.

Judicial Oversight and Role of the Courts

The issue of judicial oversight is one of the most significant concerns in the context of
internet shutdowns. Both central and state authorities have broad powers to impose these
shutdowns, but there is often no independent mechanism to review the necessity or
proportionality of such actions. While the Supreme Court of India has intervened in
certain cases (e.g., AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India, 2020)36, judicial review of
shutdown decisions remains inconsistent.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that internet shutdowns should be subject to
judicial scrutiny, and that any restriction on access to the internet must comply with the
principles of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. The Court’s decision in
AnuradhaBhasin was a landmark ruling that recognized the significant impact of
internet shutdowns on fundamental rights and emphasized the need for judicial oversight
of such decisions. The Court held that the government must justify any internet shutdown
in accordance with constitutional principles, and such measures should be subject to
periodic review to ensure that they do not continue longer than necessary.

Challenges in the Role of Government and State Authorities

One of the primary challenges in the implementation of internet shutdowns is the lack of
a standardized framework to ensure that decisions are made with full consideration of
citizens’ rights. While the central government and state authorities are expected to act

36
AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.

52
within the boundaries of the law, the broad discretionary powers granted to them often
lead to excessive measures that infringe upon fundamental rights. In the absence of
consistent judicial oversight and with the lack of independent review bodies, there is a
real risk of these powers being misused to control political discourse, suppress protests,
or limit freedoms without adequate justification.

The role of the central government and state authorities in implementing internet
shutdowns is crucial to understanding the broader implications of this practice in India.
While these authorities are granted substantial powers under the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885, and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or
Public Safety) Rules, 2017, the lack of transparency, accountability, and judicial
oversight remains a significant concern. The central government and state authorities
must exercise their powers with due regard for citizens' fundamental rights, ensuring that
internet shutdowns are used only when absolutely necessary, are time-bound, and are
subject to periodic reviews. Without robust checks and balances, the risk of arbitrary
and disproportionate shutdowns will continue to undermine democratic principles and
hinder citizens' access to essential services and freedoms.

3.5 International Legal Standards and India‟s Obligations

The increasing use of internet shutdowns in India has drawn significant attention from
international human rights bodies, as these shutdowns often come at the cost of
fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression and the right to life and
personal liberty. In this context, understanding international legal standards regarding
internet shutdowns and the extent of India‟s obligations under international law is
critical to evaluating the legitimacy of the country’s use of such measures.

India, as a signatory to several international conventions and treaties, has certain

obligations to uphold human rights, including the rights related to access to information,
freedom of expression, and the protection of personal liberty. These obligations are
largely shaped by international human rights law, notably the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and regional frameworks such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic,

53
Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This section discusses these international legal
standards, how they intersect with India’s domestic legal framework, and the country’s
obligations under these international treaties and agreements in the context of internet
shutdowns37.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
which was adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 1966. The ICCPR protects a wide
range of human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and
association. Two key provisions of the ICCPR are particularly relevant to the issue of
internet shutdowns: Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 21 (right to liberty
and security of person)38.

1. Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to freedom of expression, which

includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information through any
medium, including the internet. The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC),
which monitors the implementation of the ICCPR, has interpreted Article 19
expansively, affirming that freedom of expression is not limited to traditional
media but includes all forms of communication, including digital media. Any
restrictions on this right must comply with international standards, and the
restrictions must be prescribed by law, necessary for a legitimate aim, and
proportional to the goal pursued.

The Human Rights Committee has consistently expressed concerns about the
disproportionate impact of internet shutdowns and their conflict with international
standards on freedom of expression. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Expression has stated that internet shutdowns constitute a serious violation of
international law and have been condemned as a breach of the ICCPR, particularly

37
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19.
38
United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 19.

54
when they involve blanket restrictions on communication, disrupt access to essential
services, and impact marginalized communities 39.

2. Article 21 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which
has been interpreted by the HRC to encompass a right to access information,
which is central to the exercise of many other rights, including education,
healthcare, and political participation. Internet access, especially in the modern
world, is seen as integral to the effective exercise of this right, as it enables
individuals to access information, communicate, and engage in social, economic,
and political activities. Restrictions on internet access are viewed as a violation of
Article 21, particularly when they affect access to critical services or disrupt daily
life without adequate justification.

In the case of internet shutdowns, the UN has raised concerns about how the
disproportionate suspension of services violates an individual’s right to life and liberty by
interfering with access to essential services, information, and communication. The
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the UN Human Rights Council
(UNHRC) have both indicated that any measures restricting internet access should be
exceptional, strictly necessary, and subject to judicial review to prevent excessive and
arbitrary restrictions on human rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

India is also a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which
serves as a foundational document in international human rights law. While the UDHR
itself is not legally binding, it carries significant moral and political weight and provides
guiding principles for the protection of fundamental rights.

Article 19 of the UDHR states that:

39
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Report on the Right to Freedom of Expression,
2016.

55
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

This provision strongly supports the notion that internet access is an essential part of the
freedom of expression. It emphasizes that the right to impart and receive information
should not be restricted, and internet shutdowns interfere with this fundamental right. The
UDHR, therefore, serves as a key reference point for analyzing the compatibility of
India‟s use of internet shutdowns with its international obligations.

International Norms and the UN Special Rapporteur

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been

outspoken about the growing trend of internet shutdowns and their violation of
international human rights law. The Special Rapporteur has issued several reports
condemning blanket internet shutdowns, emphasizing that they should be seen as a last
resort, and that any suspension of services must meet the principle of proportionality.

In particular, the UN Special Rapporteur‟s report (2016) on the right to freedom of

expression calls on states to uphold their human rights obligations under the ICCPR and
UDHR, asserting that access to the internet is a fundamental human right. The report also
stresses that internet shutdowns undermine the ability of citizens to access information,
participate in political processes, and access essential services like education and
healthcare. The Special Rapporteur recommends that states adopt clear guidelines and
undergo independent review of any internet shutdowns to ensure that such measures
comply with international human rights standards.

India‟s International Human Rights Obligations

India’s commitment to international human rights law is embedded in its constitution and
its participation in global forums. As a signatory to the ICCPR, UDHR, and ICESCR,
India is bound by the obligations of these instruments to respect, protect, and fulfill the
rights they enshrine. This means that India is legally bound to ensure that internet

56
shutdowns do not violate the rights to freedom of expression and the right to life and
personal liberty, as enshrined in the ICCPR and UDHR.

India is also expected to comply with the recommendations and guidelines issued by
international bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Human
Rights Committee. These bodies have repeatedly urged states to refrain from imposing
internet shutdowns unless absolutely necessary, and to ensure that such shutdowns are
limited in duration, geographically specific, and subject to judicial oversight.

India’s obligations under international human rights law extend beyond merely ratifying
international treaties; they also involve translating these international norms into
domestic lawand policy. India must ensure that its legal framework governing internet
shutdowns aligns with its international obligations, and that these shutdowns are subject
to independent judicial scrutiny to ensure their compliance with constitutional rights
and international human rights standards.

Challenges in India‟s Implementation of International Obligations

Despite India’s international commitments, the country’s use of internet shutdowns often
falls short of these standards. The Indian government continues to impose internet
shutdowns in a discretionary and opaque manner, with limited judicial oversight. For
instance, the imposition of shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation
of Article 370 in 2019, and the widespread internet disruptions during protests in 2019
and 2020, raised significant human rights concerns. These shutdowns were often
prolonged, geographically indiscriminate, and lacked adequate justification or review.

International bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council and Access Now, have
criticized India for failing to implement international human rights standards when
imposing internet shutdowns. These organizations argue that India must do more to
ensure that shutdowns are necessary, proportional, and subject to meaningful oversight.

India’s international obligations under the ICCPR, UDHR, and other human rights
frameworks clearly require the country to respect the right to freedom of expression and
the right to life and personal liberty, which are often violated by internet shutdowns.

57
While India is a signatory to these key international agreements, its current legal and
regulatory framework surrounding internet shutdowns does not always align with these
obligations. The lack of judicial oversight, arbitrary imposition, and prolonged
shutdowns raise serious concerns about India’s adherence to international human rights
standards.

To comply with its international obligations, India must ensure that any restrictions on
internet access are narrowly tailored, proportionate, and subject to independent judicial
review. Moreover, India should adopt clearer, more transparent processes for imposing
internet shutdowns, taking into account the broader human rights implications of such
measures. In doing so, India would be better positioned to uphold its international
commitments and protect its citizens’ fundamental rights40.

40
Access Now, “India: The Impact of Internet Shutdowns,” 2020.

58
 CHAPTER 4

CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENTIONS: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND

PERSONAL LIBERTY

4.1 Constitutional Provisions: Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21

In the context of internet shutdowns, the Indian Constitution guarantees various

fundamental rights that form the backbone of the legal framework surrounding the
regulation of communication and freedom of expression. Two of the most critical
provisions are Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and
expression, and Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The
interpretation of these articles in judicial pronouncements has been pivotal in shaping the
constitutional understanding of internet shutdowns.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom
of speech and expression. This right is broad, encompassing the freedom to hold
opinions, disseminate them, and access a wide range of information through various
mediums, including the internet. The internet has evolved into an indispensable tool for
communication, education, business, and governance in contemporary society. Judicial
interpretations of Article 19(1)(a) have consistently expanded its scope to include
various modes of communication, from newspapers and television to digital platforms
and the internet. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that internet access is integral to
the exercise of this right.

However, Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and
expression on specific grounds, including national security, public order, decency and
morality, and sovereignty of India. These restrictions, though permissible, must meet a
test of necessity and proportionality. In cases involving internet shutdowns,
governments often invoke these exceptions to justify limiting access to online platforms,
particularly during periods of political unrest or communal violence. The question that
arises is whether these restrictions are proportionate and necessary, or whether they
infringe upon the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

59
Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted
expansively by the Supreme Court of India. The Court has recognized that Article 21 is
not limited to mere physical existence but includes a range of rights necessary for a
dignified life. The right to access information has been viewed as part of the broader
right to life and personal liberty. In the case of Internet Shutdowns, the Supreme Court
has acknowledged that access to the internet is essential for individuals to engage in
modern society, access education, healthcare, and participate in economic and political
activities. Denying access to the internet, especially during critical times, violates an
individual’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

The Supreme Court has articulated that Article 21 is a means of protecting the dignity
of individuals, and any interference with fundamental rights like communication and
information access must be subject to stringent tests. This intersection of Article 19(1)(a)
and Article 21 has become central to the judicial review of internet shutdowns, as such
restrictions often touch upon both the right to free speech and the right to live with
dignity. In evaluating the legality of internet shutdowns, courts must assess whether these
actions meet the proportionality and necessity requirements and whether they are
consistent with the broader constitutional mandate to protect individual liberties.

4.2 Impact on Education and Access to Information

The imposition of internet shutdowns in India has far-reaching consequences, not only
for freedom of speech and political participation but also for vital aspects of daily life
such as education, healthcare, business, and access to information. Education and access
to information are particularly affected, as the internet has become a fundamental tool
for learning, teaching, and sharing knowledge. In a country like India, where millions of
students and educators depend on digital platforms for their educational activities, the
disruption caused by internet shutdowns is substantial and often detrimental.

This section explores the socio-economic impact of internet shutdowns on education and
access to information, highlighting how such shutdowns disrupt the learning process,
exacerbate educational inequalities, and hinder access to essential information for
students, teachers, and the general public. In particular, we will examine the effects of

60
internet shutdowns on online education, research, communication between students
and teachers, and the dissemination of information crucial for personal and academic
growth.

The Shift to Digital Education in India

In recent years, India has made significant strides toward digital education, with
increasing numbers of students, teachers, and educational institutions embracing online
learning platforms. This shift became even more pronounced during the COVID-19
pandemic, which forced schools and universities to shift from in-person classes to online
platforms. According to the Ministry of Education in India, online education has
grown significantly in the past decade, with platforms such as SWAYAM, BYJU‟S, and
Unacademy gaining widespread adoption. For millions of students in rural areas,
internet access became a crucial tool to access learning resources, online courses, and
study materials that were otherwise unavailable in traditional educational settings 41.

However, the imposition of internet shutdowns disrupts this vital channel for education.
Internet access has become an essential part of the educational infrastructure, and when
it is cut off, it severely hampers the ability of students to continue their studies. For
instance, during the Jammu and Kashmir internet shutdown in 2019-2020, which
lasted for several months, thousands of students were unable to attend online classes or
access study materials. The prolonged internet shutdown left students without access to
educational resources, exam updates, or even the ability to communicate with their
teachers. In some cases, students were forced to miss critical exams or classes,
significantly disrupting their academic progress.

Moreover, many students in India rely on mobile data for accessing education, especially
in rural or remote areas where internet infrastructure is weak. Internet shutdowns in
these areas often leave students without any viable alternatives for continuing their
studies. This digital divide disproportionately impacts students from disadvantaged
backgrounds, further exacerbating existing educational inequalities.

Impact on Educational Inequality

41
Ministry of Education, “Digital Education Initiatives in India”, 2020.

61
One of the most significant socio-economic consequences of internet shutdowns is their
exacerbation of educational inequality. In India, there is already a significant digital
divide between urban and rural areas, as well as between wealthier and less privileged
communities. Students from rural areas or lower-income families often lack access to
high-speed internet, computers, and smartphones, which are essential for participating
in online education. When internet shutdowns occur, these students are disproportionately
affected because they often rely on the internet for educational resources that would
otherwise be unavailable in physical classrooms or libraries.

For example, the prolonged internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir during 2019
and 2020 disproportionately impacted students from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds, as they lacked alternative means to access educational resources. The
shutdown not only interrupted the academic careers of thousands of students but also
contributed to a widening education gap between the privileged few who had access to
offline educational resources and the majority who were left without any means to
continue their studies.

Additionally, rural areas often lack the necessary infrastructure to support traditional
offline education. Schools in these areas are under-resourced, and internet access is vital
for connecting students to the broader educational ecosystem. For example, rural
students often use the internet to access online lectures, digital libraries, and
collaborative learning platforms. When shutdowns occur, these students lose their ability
to participate in these digital platforms, exacerbating their educational disadvantage.

Impact on Research and Academic Collaboration

Beyond students, internet shutdowns also affect researchers and academics, especially
in higher education and research institutions. Today, academic research and
collaboration are increasingly conducted through digital platforms. Online journals, e-
libraries, databases, and research collaborations depend on continuous access to the
internet. Professors and graduate students in particular are highly dependent on the
internet for accessing research papers, journals, and for interdisciplinary
collaboration with peers across the globe.

62
The interruption of internet access through shutdowns can significantly delay the
progress of research. For instance, researchers in Kashmir during the 2019-2020
shutdown were unable to access global databases, academic journals, or communicate
with other scholars. The loss of internet access disrupted their academic work, making it
difficult to conduct research, complete academic assignments, and contribute to ongoing
academic projects.

Moreover, online collaboration has become an integral part of academic exchange,

especially in a globalized academic environment. Internet shutdowns severely limit
opportunities for students and scholars to connect with the international academic
community, attend webinars, conferences, and engage in cross-border research
initiatives. In regions affected by shutdowns, this also means a loss of academic
freedom, as researchers are unable to freely access knowledge or communicate openly
with peers.

Impact on Access to Information

Access to information is a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the

Indian Constitution. Information is critical not only for education but also for informed
decision-making, political participation, and the exercise of personal freedoms. The right
to access information has become increasingly linked to digital access, as the internet is
the primary platform for accessing news, government notifications, public services, and
academic resources.

Internet shutdowns severely limit individuals' ability to access important information,

especially in times of crisis or during elections. For instance, during the 2019 CAA
protests, many states imposed internet shutdowns to prevent the spread of information,
often citing security concerns. These shutdowns hindered citizens from accessing news
about ongoing protests, government responses, or updates on public safety measures.
Without the internet, people were unable to participate in democratic processes, express
dissent, or engage with ongoing political debates 42.

42
Cost of Shutdowns in India Report, Access Now, 2020.

63
Furthermore, during public health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the internet
became an essential tool for disseminating information about health advisories, safety
measures, and vaccination drives. Internet shutdowns during such times deprive
people of vital health-related information, which can have dire consequences for public
health. For instance, in regions affected by internet shutdowns, communities were unable
to access real-time information about the spread of COVID-19, government guidelines,
or emergency services, which hindered their ability to take necessary precautions.

Impact on Business and Employment

The broader socio-economic impact of internet shutdowns on education and access to

information also extends to businesses and employment opportunities. In today’s
digital age, much of the Indian economy depends on the internet for business
transactions, digital payments, online marketing, and remote work. The disruption of
internet services has a severe economic impact, particularly for small businesses, e-
commerce platforms, freelancers, and workers in the gig economy.

When internet services are shut down, businesses lose their ability to function, process
transactions, communicate with customers, or access critical market data. In regions
where shutdowns occur frequently, local economies suffer from disrupted business
operations, leading to revenue losses and job layoffs. In particular, small businesses that
rely heavily on social media platforms and online retail struggle to sustain their
operations during shutdowns.

Remote work, which became more common during the pandemic, is another area deeply
affected by internet shutdowns. In India, many individuals in the gig economy and
remote employment sectors depend on the internet for their livelihoods. A widespread
shutdown leaves many workers without work opportunities, leading to income
insecurity and increased economic hardship.

The socio-economic impact of internet shutdowns in India, particularly in relation to

education and access to information, is profound. Shutdowns disrupt the learning
process, hinder the progress of academic research, exacerbate educational inequalities,
and restrict access to essential information. For students in rural areas or from

64
economically disadvantaged backgrounds, the lack of internet access during shutdowns
worsens existing disparities in educational opportunities. Similarly, for researchers and
businesses, shutdowns delay progress, disrupt operations, and severely affect
productivity43.

To mitigate these effects, it is essential that internet shutdowns be used as a last resort,
only when absolutely necessary, and that they are time-bound, proportionate, and
subject to periodic reviews. Transparent government communication and access to
alternative means of education and business operations can help reduce the negative
socio-economic consequences of internet shutdowns. Moreover, judicial oversight is
crucial in ensuring that such measures comply with constitutional guarantees of freedom
of speech, access to information, and personal liberty.

4.3 Impact of Internet Shutdowns on Fundamental Rights

Internet shutdowns have far-reaching implications for fundamental rights, particularly

those enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21. Internet access has become an
essential tool for communication, education, business, and social interaction. Shutdowns,
therefore, disrupt not only the freedom of speech but also the right to life and personal
liberty44.

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression: Internet shutdowns directly impact Article

19(1)(a), as they prevent individuals from expressing their views, accessing
information, and participating in public discourse. For journalists, activists, and
ordinary citizens alike, the internet is the primary means of communication and
information exchange. Shutting down the internet not only limits the flow of
information but also stifles the free exchange of ideas, which is central to a
functioning democracy.

2. Right to Access Information: The Supreme Court‟s interpretation of Article 21

has evolved to include access to information as a fundamental aspect of the right
to life. In a digital world, access to the internet is an essential part of exercising

43
Internet Shutdowns and Their Impact on Education, Economic Times, 2020.
44
Internet Shutdowns and Human Rights in India, Access Now, 2020.

65
 this right. Internet shutdowns disrupt access to vital services, including
government portals, banking services, healthcare information, and educational
resources. In particular, during the COVID-19 pandemic, internet shutdowns
worsened the digital divide, depriving individuals of the means to continue their
education and work remotely.

3. Economic Impact: The economic consequences of internet shutdowns are also

significant. In regions where businesses rely on the internet for transactions,
marketing, and operations, a shutdown can lead to substantial financial losses.
Small businesses and informal workers, in particular, are disproportionately
affected by such disruptions, as they often lack the resources to continue their
operations offline.

4. Right to Participate in Political and Social Processes: The internet has become
an essential platform for political engagement, activism, and civic participation.
Internet shutdowns have been used to suppress protests and limit the flow of
information during times of political instability. This deprives citizens of their
ability to organize, express dissent, and influence public policy. The shutdown in
Jammu and Kashmir, for example, not only affected the daily lives of residents
but also curtailed their ability to participate in political discourse and express their
views.

4.4 Internet Shutdowns in India: Digital Censorship its Impact on Personal Liberty

In recent years, India has emerged as a global leader in internet shutdowns, recording the
highest number of incidents each year. These shutdowns are typically enacted by state or
central authorities under the justification of preserving law and order, curbing
misinformation, or safeguarding public safety. While such justifications may sometimes
hold merit, the frequent and arbitrary implementation of shutdowns raises significant
concerns about their legality, proportionality, and effect on citizens’ fundamental rights,
especially the rights to freedom of speech, expression, and access to information.

The web nowadays plays an irreplaceable part in way of life — from communication and
instruction to trade, healthcare, and equitable interest. When web get to is suspended, it

66
disturbs crucial administrations, confines communities, and debilitates open believe in
majority rule educate. For occurrence, amid dissents, web power outages are frequently
utilized to stifle contradict and limit the stream of data. The farmers' dissent (2020–2021)
and the Citizenship Alteration Act (CAA) dissents saw multiple localized shutdowns over
different states.

The foremost striking case remains the web shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir after the
annulment of Article 370 in Admirable 2019, which endured for over seven months —
the longest ever in any equitable nation. Amid this period, understudies were incapable to
go to online classes, businesses confronted enormous budgetary misfortunes, writers
battled to report, and standard citizens were cut off from fundamental administrations like
telemedicine and computerized keeping money. Such shutdowns do not fair ruin network
— they paralyze lives.

From a legitimate point of view, web shutdowns in India are administered by Area 144 of
the Criminal Method Code (CrPC) and the Brief Suspension of Telecom Administrations
(Open Crisis or Open Security) Rules, 2017, beneath the Indian Transmit Act. In any
case, these arrangements need clear shields to anticipate abuse. There's frequently no
earlier take note, open avocation, or autonomous audit. This has driven to reactions that
shutdowns are forced excessively and without accountability.

Within the point of interest case Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the
Incomparable Court held that flexibility of speech and expression by means of the web
may be a crucial right beneath Article 19(1)(a) of the Structure. The Court too
emphasized that confinements must be fundamental, proportionate, and time-bound. In
any case, in spite of this judgment, shutdowns proceed to be utilized routinely, with small
adherence to these standards.

Financially, web shutdowns taken a toll India billions of rupees yearly. The Brookings
Institution and Top10VPN have detailed overwhelming misfortunes to the computerized
economy, particularly influencing new companies, consultants, and little businesses.
Socially, shutdowns confine get to to instruction, particularly amid the COVID-19

67
widespread when understudies intensely depended on online learning. Politically, they
prevent majority rule engagement by quieting voices, especially amid races and dissents.

The normalization of web shutdowns postures a risk to India's majority rule system. In a
time when advanced connectivity is interlaced with gracious freedoms, self-assertively
cutting off get to is associated to checking the proper to life with nobility. It is significant
that India embraces a more transparent and accountable approach.

4.5 The Principle of Proportionality in Constitutional Law

The principle of proportionality is a cornerstone of constitutional law, particularly in

democratic societies where the balance between state power and individual rights is
crucial. Proportionality ensures that any restriction imposed on fundamental rights must
not exceed what is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. In the context of internet
shutdowns in India, the principle of proportionality is a critical framework for assessing
whether the measures taken by the government are justified, reasonable, and in line with
constitutional provisions such as Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression)
and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).

The Supreme Court of India, in various rulings, has affirmed the importance of
proportionality in judicial review, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake. In
AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020)45, the Court discussed the principle of
proportionality in the context of internet shutdowns, emphasizing that disruptions to the
internet must be necessary, proportionate, and time-bound. According to this
principle, the government must demonstrate that the restriction on a fundamental right,
such as internet access, is the least restrictive means available to achieve its objectives,
such as preventing public disorder or maintaining national security.

Proportionality in the context of internet shutdowns involves several components:

1. Legitimate Aim: The government must show that the measure is being
implemented for a legitimate purpose, such as public safety, national security,

45
AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.

68
 or public order. The aim must be bona fide, and not to stifle political dissent or
suppress free expression.

2. Suitability: The shutdown must be suitable or effective in achieving the stated

objective. If there are less restrictive alternatives (e.g., targeted content
blocking), internet shutdowns should be avoided. Shutdowns should not be the
first resort.

3. Necessity: The measure should be the least restrictive means to achieve the
objective. If there are other ways to manage the situation without shutting down
the internet, such as targeting specific services or issuing warnings, these
methods should be pursued instead of a blanket internet suspension.

4. Proportionality in the Narrow Sense: The benefit gained from the shutdown
must outweigh the harm caused by the restriction. The Court must assess whether
the severity of the restriction is justified by the need to maintain public safety or
order.

The proportionality test involves a careful balancing act between the state’s need to act
in the interest of public safety or order and the fundamental rights of citizens. The
Supreme Court, in its judgment in AnuradhaBhasin, reiterated that proportionality is
a constitutional requirement that ensures that government action does not unduly harm
individual freedoms. This principle aligns with international human rights law, which
dictates that any restrictions on rights should be necessary, proportionate, and subject
to regular review.

Thus, proportionality serves as a safeguard against overreach by the state and ensures
that restrictions on rights, especially fundamental freedoms like access to information,
are not applied arbitrarily or discriminately. Proportionality provides a robust
framework for assessing the legality of internet shutdowns by requiring the government
to justify the necessity and effectiveness of the shutdown relative to its impact on
individual rights.

69
 CHAPTER 5

JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND EMERGING JURISPRUDENCE

5.1 Landmark Case: AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020)

The case of AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020) is one of the most significant
rulings by the Supreme Court of India regarding internet shutdowns. The case arose out
of the complete internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation of
Article 370 in August 2019, which granted special autonomy to the state. The shutdown,
which lasted for several months, was widely criticized for its impact on fundamental
rights and its prolonged nature.

AnuradhaBhasin, a journalist, challenged the internet shutdown on the grounds that it

violated her right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and her
right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. She argued that the shutdown
violated the core principles of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees individuals the
right to access information and communicate freely.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that while the government has the authority to
impose restrictions on internet access, such restrictions must be necessary, proportional,
and time-bound. The Court emphasized that any suspension of internet services must be
justified with clear reasons and subject to periodic reviews. The Court held that freedom
of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and right to life under Article 21 are intertwined with
access to the internet, especially in the digital age.

The Court also outlined the following key principles for internet shutdowns:

1. Proportionality: The Court emphasized that internet shutdowns should be

proportional to the threat posed by the situation. They should be limited to the
specific area affected and the time required to mitigate the threat.

2. Necessity: The government must demonstrate that the suspension of internet

services is necessary to achieve the legitimate aim, such as maintaining public

70
 order or national security. Any measure that goes beyond what is required for the
stated purpose may be deemed unconstitutional.

3. Transparency: The government must provide clear reasons for imposing

internet shutdowns and communicate these to the public to ensure transparency
and accountability.

4. Periodic Review: The Court ruled that internet shutdowns should be reviewed
periodically to ensure they remain necessary and are not prolonged without
justification.

The ruling in AnuradhaBhasin was a significant step forward in defining the limits of
government power in the digital age. It reaffirmed the constitutional protection of free
speech and personal liberty while also recognizing the need for the government to act in a
manner that respects these fundamental rights.

5.2 Case Law Analysis: Judicial Responses to Internet Shutdowns

The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the legal landscape surrounding
internet shutdowns, particularly in the context of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21. In
addition to AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India, there are several other cases that have
addressed the issue of internet restrictions and their impact on fundamental rights.

1. ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India (2015): While not directly related to internet

shutdowns, this case is seminal in shaping the discourse around freedom of
speech in the digital age. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act, which allowed the government to prosecute
individuals for posting offensive content online. The ruling emphasized the
importance of protecting online speech and established that internet freedom is
protected under Article 19(1)(a), thereby reinforcing the right to free expression
in the digital era.

2. Internet Shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir: The Supreme Court‟s ruling in

AnuradhaBhasin was a direct response to the prolonged internet shutdown in
Jammu and Kashmir after the revocation of Article 370. The case drew attention

71
 to the human rights violations resulting from the shutdown, as it affected
millions of citizens who were denied access to essential services. The Court’s
emphasis on transparency and judicial oversight set important precedents for
future cases involving internet shutdowns.

3. People‟s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2019): In this
case, the Supreme Court examined the legality of mass surveillance and
restrictions on internet freedom in the context of national security. While the case
did not directly involve internet shutdowns, the Court reiterated that national
security concerns cannot justify arbitrary or disproportionate restrictions on
freedom of speech46.

5.3 The Doctrine of Proportionality in Judicial Decisions

The doctrine of proportionality plays a central role in the judicial review of internet
shutdowns. This doctrine requires that any restriction on fundamental rights must be
necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and that the means chosen must not exceed what is
required to achieve the goal. The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of
proportionality in cases involving internet shutdowns, as the consequences of such
measures can be far-reaching and devastating.

In AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India, the Court applied the proportionality test and
ruled that the complete suspension of internet services for an extended period in Jammu
and Kashmir was excessive and unjustified. The Court held that the government must
demonstrate that the internet shutdown was necessary, and that less restrictive
alternatives should have been considered. The ruling reinforced the idea that any action
that restricts citizens' fundamental rights must be proportionate to the problem it seeks
to address.

The doctrine of proportionality is crucial in balancing the state‟s duty to protect

national security and public order with the fundamental rights of individuals. It

46
People‟s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, 2019.

72
ensures that internet shutdowns are not used excessively or indiscriminately, and that
they do not undermine the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution 47.

5.4 Judicial Scrutiny of Proportionality and Necessity in Shutdowns

Judicial scrutiny is essential in ensuring that the principles of proportionality and

necessity are applied correctly in cases involving internet shutdowns. Courts play a
crucial role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that state actions, particularly
those that restrict individual freedoms, are justified and reasonable.

In AnuradhaBhasin, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of judicial review

of internet shutdowns, emphasizing that these measures should not be taken lightly and
must meet the strict requirements of necessity and proportionality. The Court’s decision
reinforced the idea that government action that limits fundamental rights must be subject
to independent scrutiny to prevent abuse and ensure that restrictions are justified and
appropriate to the threat they seek to address.

Judicial scrutiny ensures that state actions are not arbitrary or excessive and that the
fundamental rights of citizens are protected. Courts must assess whether the shutdown
is proportionate to the threat, whether less restrictive alternatives are available, and
whether the shutdown is time-bound. Judicial review of these decisions helps maintain a
balance between the state‟s duty to protect public safety and the citizens‟ right to
freedom and information.

5.5 Challenges in the Emerging Jurisprudence of Internet Shutdowns

1. Balancing National Security and Personal Liberties:

One of the biggest challenges in the jurisprudence surrounding internet shutdowns is

balancing national security concerns with individual liberties. Governments often justify
shutdowns in the name of preventing violence, controlling riots, or averting the spread of

47
Supreme Court of India, "Proportionality in Law and Internet Shutdowns," Journal of
Constitutional Law, 2021.

73
misinformation. The judiciary must decide whether the restrictions on individual
freedoms are justified by the state's legitimate interests.

However, the vague nature of national security threats often complicates judicial review.
In many cases, the government invokes security concerns without providing detailed
evidence, making it difficult for the judiciary to perform a robust review of the necessity
or proportionality of shutdowns.

2. Lack of Legislative Framework:

The absence of a comprehensive legal framework specifically governing internet

shutdowns creates uncertainty. Currently, internet shutdowns are justified under various
laws like the Indian Telegraph Act and the Disaster Management Act, but these laws do
not clearly define the scope, duration, and review mechanisms for shutdowns.

This gap leads to inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary decisions, as courts are often
forced to rely on principles of constitutional law rather than specific statutory guidelines.
There is a need for a more structured and clear legislative framework that balances
security and freedom.

3. Opacity and Lack of Clarity in Government Orders:

A significant challenge in judicial scrutiny arises from the lack of transparency in

government orders for internet shutdowns. Often, such orders are issued without
sufficient public explanation or are presented in vague terms. This opacity makes it
difficult for courts to evaluate the proportionality of the measures and the real threat
posed by the situation.

The absence of a standardized process for issuing shutdown orders means that judicial
oversight is less effective, as courts must rely on the specifics of each case without a
consistent set of rules or guidelines.

4. Extended Shutdowns and the Socio-Economic Impact:

74
Extended shutdowns that last for days or weeks pose a severe threat to people's ability to
access basic services such as banking, education, healthcare, and communication. The
economic and social costs of prolonged internet blackouts are substantial, and the
judiciary faces the challenge of addressing these long-term consequences while balancing
national security concerns.

For example, during the internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation
of Article 370, the judiciary had to weigh the short-term security concerns with the long-
term impact on education, employment, and personal liberty.

5. Emergence of New Technologies and Surveillance:

The rise of new surveillance technologies and digital tools adds another layer of
complexity to the judicial scrutiny of internet shutdowns. The use of technology by the
state to monitor and control digital spaces may exacerbate concerns related to privacy,
civil liberties, and potential misuse of power.

Courts must increasingly deal with issues of data privacy and surveillance, particularly
when internet shutdowns are linked to state control over digital content and
communications.

6. Access to Justice During Shutdowns:

When internet services are shut down, access to justice becomes difficult for affected
individuals. People often cannot access courts, file petitions, or consult lawyers, making
it harder to challenge shutdowns during the period they are imposed.

This creates a vicious cycle where citizens have no means of challenging the
government's actions, making it imperative for the judiciary to set clear, enforceable
guidelines for internet shutdowns.

Conclusion

Judicial interpretations of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21, particularly in cases involving
internet shutdowns, underscore the importance of protecting fundamental rights in the
digital age. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the rights to freedom of speech

75
and personal liberty, recognizing the essential role of the internet in modern life.
However, the Court has also emphasized that restrictions on these rights must be
proportional, necessary, and time-bound. The application of the doctrine of
proportionality in judicial decisions ensures that the government’s powers to impose
internet shutdowns are not exercised arbitrarily and are subject to rigorous legal scrutiny.
Through landmark cases like AnuradhaBhasin and ShreyaSinghal, the judiciary has
established critical precedents for ensuring that the right to access information and
communicate freely is safeguarded, even during times of crisis The emerging
jurisprudence of internet shutdowns in India highlights the critical role of the judiciary in
protecting constitutional rights while balancing them against the state's legitimate
interests. However, significant challenges remain in terms of providing clarity,
transparency, and a structured approach to regulating shutdowns. To address these issues,
there is a strong need for a comprehensive legal framework that clearly defines the
circumstances under which internet shutdowns may be imposed, the duration of such
measures, and a process for regular judicial review.

The courts, while playing a vital role in upholding citizens' rights, must continue to
develop principles of proportionality, transparency, and accountability in cases involving
internet shutdowns, ensuring that these measures do not unduly infringe upon the rights
and liberties of citizens in the digital age.

76
 CHAPTER 6

COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES OF INTERNET SHUTDOWNS

6.1 International Examples of Internet Shutdowns

Internet shutdowns are not exclusive to India but have been used globally by
governments in response to political instability, protests, or national security concerns.
Around the world, governments have employed internet shutdowns as a way to control
information flow, prevent social unrest, or suppress dissent. This global phenomenon has
sparked widespread concern about the implications of such actions on freedom of
expression, access to information, and democratic participation.

China, for instance, is well-known for its extensive internet censorship and shutdowns.
The government regularly blocks access to major social media platforms like Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube and employs a Great Firewall to control what content can be
accessed online. One of the most notable instances of an internet shutdown occurred
during the 2019 Hong Kong protests, where the government not only blocked specific
sites but also shut down internet access in various districts to prevent the mobilization of
protesters. This action was widely criticized for violating the right to free expression
and public participation.

Iran also frequently shuts down the internet to suppress dissent and maintain control
during political crises. During the November 2019 protests, in response to fuel price
hikes, the Iranian government imposed one of the longest internet shutdowns in history,
lasting for several days. This shutdown severely hampered the ability of protesters to
organize, share information, and receive updates about the situation. Human rights
organizations condemned the shutdown, citing it as a violation of the right to
information and a clear attempt by the government to cover up state violence and
abuses.

Turkey has also employed internet shutdowns in recent years, particularly during times
of political unrest. In 2016, during the failed coup attempt, the Turkish government took
significant steps to control the flow of information by blocking access to social media

77
platforms and certain news outlets. The government justified these actions as necessary
for national security, but critics argued that these measures were disproportionate and
used to suppress opposition voices. Similarly, Egypt, in 2011, during the Arab Spring,
imposed an internet shutdown to stifle the mass protests against President Hosni
Mubarak. This was one of the most prominent examples of internet censorship used to
disrupt the mobilization of dissent.

In Myanmar, during the 2019 Rohingya crisis, the military regime imposed a targeted
internet shutdown in the Rakhine state, where violence and humanitarian crises were
occurring. This was aimed at preventing journalists, human rights organizations, and the
international community from documenting and reporting on the violence against the
Rohingya people.

These international examples highlight the growing trend of internet shutdowns as a

tool used by authoritarian regimes and even democratically elected governments to
suppress political opposition, hinder the free flow of information, and control social
unrest. These shutdowns often have grave consequences for freedom of expression, the
functioning of democracy, and the economic well-being of citizens. They also raise
critical human rights concerns about the disproportionate use of state power to
control digital communication channels.

6.2 Best Practices and Lessons from Other Democracies

While internet shutdowns have been used by various governments, there are also best
practices and lessons from other democracies that emphasize the importance of
safeguarding freedom of expression and ensuring transparency in the implementation
of shutdowns. These best practices can serve as models for India as it continues to
address the challenges associated with internet governance.

France, for example, provides an interesting case of democratic oversight during

periods of civil unrest. In 2018, during the Yellow Vest protests, while the government
did not shut down the internet, it worked with major social media platforms and tech
companies to curb misinformation and violent content. The French government
collaborated with private companies to increase the monitoring of online content,

78
particularly posts inciting violence, while ensuring freedom of speech was not unduly
restricted. The government’s efforts to strike a balance between public safety and free
expression stand as an example of how digital governance can be exercised without
infringing on individual freedoms.

United States also serves as an example of how public accountability and judicial
oversight play crucial roles in regulating government power during times of unrest. In
the 2017 Charlottesville protests, the state of Virginia requested tech companies like
Facebook and Twitter to provide information about the participants involved in the
violence. However, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, and any
attempt by the government to restrict internet access or surveil online platforms had to be
carefully scrutinized by the judiciary. The case highlights the importance of judicial
review to ensure that government actions remain within the bounds of constitutional
rights.

Germany, through its Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), has taken proactive steps
to ensure that internet platforms do not become breeding grounds for hate speech and
incitement to violence, particularly during periods of political instability. This law
requires social media platforms to remove illegal content within 24 hours of receiving a
report. While this legislation does not involve internet shutdowns, it does set a positive
precedent for dealing with harmful content online while safeguarding freedom of
expression. Germany’s approach highlights the importance of transparent regulations
and corporate responsibility in maintaining a safe and open internet during times of
civil unrest.

In Brazil, during the 2020 protests against the government’s handling of the COVID-19
crisis, the judiciary intervened to prevent the government from imposing internet
shutdowns or censoring social media content. Brazilian courts ruled that internet
freedom must be protected, even during political unrest. This decision shows the role
that judicial intervention plays in protecting human rights and maintaining freedom
of expression during moments of national crisis.

79
These examples illustrate how democratic countries can adopt measures to balance
public order and individual rights without resorting to blanket internet shutdowns.
The focus on transparency, judicial scrutiny, corporate responsibility, and
alternative measures demonstrates that it is possible to ensure public safety without
sacrificing fundamental rights.

6.3 Comparative Legal Analysis: India vs. Global Standards

In the global context, India’s use of internet shutdowns stands out both for its frequency
and the scale of its implementation. India has seen some of the highest rates of internet
shutdowns in the world, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, where prolonged
shutdowns have occurred repeatedly. India‟s approach to internet shutdowns raises
important legal questions when compared with international standards and practices.

The Indian Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights, including freedom of

speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21. These rights, while not absolute, are subject to reasonable
restrictions under Article 19(2). Indian law permits the government to restrict these
rights in the interest of national security, public order, and other reasons. However, as the
Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, these restrictions must be proportional and
necessary, and internet shutdowns must comply with these standards48.

Comparing India‟s legal framework with that of other democratic countries, India’s
approach to internet shutdowns often appears more opaque and discretionary. Unlike
France or Germany, where there are specific laws governing content regulation or
online activity, India relies on vague provisions in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and
the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017, which grant extensive
powers to government officials to order shutdowns. These powers are often exercised
without clear judicial oversight or public accountability, raising concerns about their
compatibility with international human rights standards.

The Supreme Court‟s ruling in AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020) has called
for stricter scrutiny of internet shutdowns, underscoring the importance of judicial
48
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19.

80
review and the principle of proportionality. This ruling aligns India’s legal framework
more closely with international standards, requiring that any restriction on internet
access be justified, necessary, and proportionate. This shift toward more transparent
and accountable practices is in line with global human rights standards, which stress
the need for legal certainty and due process when imposing restrictions on digital
freedoms49.

6.4 The Role of International Human Rights Law in Shaping Policy

International human rights law plays a vital role in shaping national policies on internet
freedom and shutdowns. The United Nations has consistently emphasized that internet
access is a fundamental right and a vital tool for individual empowerment and
democratic participation. The UN Human Rights Council has recognized that any
restriction on internet access must comply with the principles of necessity,
proportionality, and non-discrimination.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 50, to which India
is a signatory, guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the right to
access information through the internet. Any government action that imposes an internet
shutdown must adhere to these principles. International bodies such as the UN Special
Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression have repeatedly warned that internet
shutdowns represent a serious violation of human rights and must be subject to strict
legal scrutiny and transparent processes.

India’s legal framework must be aligned with international standards to ensure the
protection of digital rights. This includes adopting clear, specific laws governing
internet shutdowns that are consistent with ICCPR obligations, ensuring judicial
oversight, and requiring regular reviews of shutdown measures.

49
Supreme Court of India, "AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India," (2020) 3 SCC 637.
50
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19.

81
6.5 Global Advocacy for Internet Freedom and Access

Global advocacy for internet freedom has grown in recent years, driven by
organizations like Access Now, Freedom House, and Reporters Without Borders,
which have been at the forefront of advocating against internet shutdowns and
censorship. These organizations work to raise awareness about the detrimental effects of
internet shutdowns on human rights, economic development, and democratic
participation.

Access Now has conducted extensive research on the economic impact of internet
shutdowns, highlighting the billions of dollars lost annually due to internet disruptions,
particularly in developing countries. Through their #KeepItOn campaign, Access Now
advocates for global standards for internet freedom, calling for greater accountability
and transparency from governments and tech companies in handling digital rights.

Reporters Without Borders has similarly focused on the impact of internet shutdowns
on press freedom and the free flow of information. Shutdowns often target journalists
and news outlets, limiting their ability to report on critical issues and communicate with
the public. The organization advocates for policy changes that prioritize the protection
of journalistic freedoms and the right to access information.

India, like many other countries, must align its national policies with the growing global
consensus that internet shutdowns are a violation of human rights and hinder economic
development, education, and democratic participation. By adhering to international
human rights standards, India can strike a balance between national security concerns
and the digital rights of its citizens.

82
 CHAPTER 7

RECOMMENDATIONS &CONCLUSION

7.1 Recommendations

The increasing frequency of internet shutdowns in India has raised significant concerns
about their impact on fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression
and the right to life and personal liberty. While internet shutdowns are often
implemented by the government for the purpose of ensuring national security or
maintaining public order, they frequently result in significant social, economic, and
psychological harm to citizens. This chapter outlines key recommendations and policy
implications for addressing the challenges posed by internet shutdowns, focusing on
legislative reforms, enhancing transparency and accountability, strengthening the role of
the judiciary, ensuring proportionality and necessity in shutdown measures, mitigating
the socio-economic impacts, and fostering international cooperation to protect internet
freedom.

The key recommendations are aimed at ensuring that internet shutdowns are used only
when absolutely necessary, are subject to proper legal and procedural safeguards, and do
not infringe upon citizens' fundamental rights. These recommendations are grounded in
the principles of human rights, democracy, and justice, with a view to aligning India’s
policies with international standards and best practices.

Legislative Reforms for Regulating Internet Shutdowns

One of the most pressing needs in addressing the issue of internet shutdowns is the
introduction of comprehensive legislative reforms that provide a clear legal framework
for their implementation. Currently, internet shutdowns in India are governed by outdated
and broadly worded provisions in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Temporary
Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.
While these laws allow the government to impose restrictions on telecommunications in
the interest of national security or public safety, they lack adequate safeguards to ensure

83
that shutdowns are implemented transparently, proportionately, and in compliance with
constitutional principles.

A major legislative reform that could address these issues is the introduction of a
dedicated law on internet shutdowns, which would clearly define the circumstances
under which internet shutdowns may be imposed, the procedures for doing so, and the
limitations on their scope and duration. Such a law should explicitly require that internet
shutdowns only be used in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort. It should also
ensure that any such measure is time-bound, with a clear mechanism for review after a
set period, and be subject to judicial oversight to ensure compliance with constitutional
rights.

The law should establish criteria for proportionality and necessity to ensure that the
impact of shutdowns on individual rights is minimized. It should specify that shutdowns
can only be imposed when alternative measures have been explored and found to be
ineffective. Furthermore, it should impose strict reporting requirements, including the
provision of a justification for the shutdown and its expected duration to the public
and the Judiciary. There must be an independent review committee, composed of both
legal experts and civil society representatives, that evaluates the need for continued
shutdowns.

Another important reform would be the amendment of the Indian Telegraph Act to
explicitly require that internet shutdowns must adhere to the principles of international
human rights law, including the ICCPR and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR). These changes will help ensure that India’s legal framework for internet
shutdowns aligns with global standards of human rights and freedom of expression.

Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Shutdown Decisions

To ensure that internet shutdowns do not become tools for abusing power or suppressing
political dissent, it is essential that transparency and accountability be strengthened in the
decision-making process. At present, the process for imposing internet shutdowns is often
opaque and arbitrary, with little to no public scrutiny or judicial oversight. In many

84
cases, the government fails to provide clear justifications for shutdowns, and there is no
mechanism to assess their effectiveness or proportionality.

One of the key recommendations for addressing these issues is the introduction of a
mandatory public notification system for internet shutdowns. The government should
be required to publicly disclose the reasons for imposing a shutdown, the specific areas or
regions affected, the expected duration, and the justification for the decision. This
information should be made available through official government websites, press
releases, and public statements, ensuring that citizens are informed about the reasons
behind the shutdown and the potential impact on their daily lives.

Additionally, there should be a detailed review mechanism that is independent of

government control. This review should be conducted by an independent body, such as a
digital rights commission or a public oversight committee, which includes members
from civil society, legal experts, and representatives from affected communities. This
body would be responsible for assessing the necessity and proportionality of the
shutdown and ensuring that it does not unduly infringe upon citizens’ rights.

To enhance accountability, the government should be required to periodically report to

the parliament on the implementation of internet shutdowns, detailing the reasons for
their imposition, their duration, and their impact on public welfare. Parliament should
have the ability to scrutinize these reports and hold government officials accountable for
any excessive or disproportionate actions.

The judiciary plays a vital role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that
government actions are subject to legal scrutiny. In the context of internet shutdowns,
judicial oversight is essential to prevent the abuse of power and to ensure that any
restrictions on freedom of speech and personal liberty are proportionate, necessary, and
in accordance with constitutional principles. The Supreme Court‟s decision in
AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020) was a significant step in the right direction,
as it reinforced the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases involving internet shutdowns.

However, more can be done to strengthen the role of the judiciary in regulating
internet shutdowns. First, the judiciary should be empowered to conduct real-time

85
reviews of internet shutdowns, particularly when they are imposed in response to protests
or social unrest. The courts should have the authority to order the immediate restoration
of internet services if the shutdown is deemed disproportionate or unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the judiciary should be more proactive in ensuring that government

measures are subject to regular judicial review. While the Supreme Court has
emphasized the importance of reviewing the necessity and proportionality of internet
shutdowns, there should be a more structured and consistent approach to this review.
Courts should have access to data and evidence regarding the impact of the shutdown on
citizens, businesses, and essential services, and should be able to call upon experts in
digital rights and public safety to assess the legitimacy of the shutdown measures.

Another important reform would be the establishment of specialized digital rights

tribunals that can provide faster and more effective resolution of disputes related to
internet shutdowns. These tribunals should be empowered to hear complaints from
individuals and businesses affected by shutdowns, and to make binding rulings on the
legality of such measures.

7.2 Conclusion

The issue of internet shutdowns in India has become a complex and contentious matter,
raising significant legal, human rights, and socio-economic concerns. As internet access
has become an essential part of modern life, the imposition of internet shutdowns during
periods of civil unrest, political instability, or national security threats has raised
questions about the balance between public safety and individual freedoms. This balance
is central to the functioning of a democracy, where citizens’ freedom of speech, access to
information, and right to participate in political processes are fundamental rights
protected by the Constitution.

In the context of India, internet shutdowns have been used increasingly as a tool to
control communication during periods of social unrest, such as the 2019-2020 protests
over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), and the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu
and Kashmir. These disruptions, although justified by the government on the grounds of
national security and public safety, have had severe repercussions on individual

86
freedoms, economic activities, and social well-being. The Supreme Court of India, in its
landmark judgment in AnuradhaBhasin v. Union of India (2020), provided important
insights into the proportionality and necessity of such actions, reaffirming that internet
shutdowns must be justified, time-bound, and subject to judicial review. The ruling was a
step in the right direction, advocating for a more measured approach to such restrictions,
but many challenges remain in ensuring their effective implementation.

One of the critical issues highlighted throughout this study is the lack of transparency and
accountability in the decision-making process surrounding internet shutdowns. In many
instances, shutdowns have been imposed without adequate justification or clear criteria
for their duration and geographic scope. This lack of clarity leaves citizens in the dark
about the reasons behind these actions and the potential duration of their impacts. This
has resulted in widespread disruptions in daily life, particularly for those in rural areas
and marginalized communities who rely heavily on the internet for education,
communication, healthcare, and business. The economic consequences of internet
shutdowns have been stark, with millions of dollars lost each year due to disrupted
commerce and trade, particularly for small businesses and freelancers who depend on
online platforms for their livelihoods.

The proportionality and necessity of internet shutdowns remain the cornerstone of the
debate. Proportionality ensures that the extent of the restriction on rights is commensurate
with the threat posed, and necessity guarantees that no less restrictive alternatives are
available. In most cases of unrest or political protests, there are alternative measures that
can address the issues at hand without resorting to a blanket internet shutdown. For
instance, the government could block specific websites or platforms that are inciting
violence, rather than cutting off access to the entire internet, which disproportionately
affects a much larger population. Judicial scrutiny is essential in ensuring that internet
shutdowns are not used arbitrarily or for purposes beyond their stated objectives. The
AnuradhaBhasin case set a precedent for the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental
rights while balancing the need for public order, highlighting the importance of judicial
oversight to ensure that such shutdowns do not become tools for political suppression.

87
The socio-economic impact of internet shutdowns, particularly on marginalized groups,
has also emerged as a major concern. Rural communities, women, minorities, and low-
income groups are disproportionately affected by internet restrictions. These groups often
lack alternative means of accessing services such as education, healthcare, government
schemes, and economic opportunities. Women, in particular, face challenges when
internet shutdowns disrupt access to essential information about legal rights, healthcare
services, and support networks. Moreover, the psychological toll of being disconnected
from the digital world during a shutdown, especially in times of crisis or unrest, can lead
to increased stress, anxiety, and social isolation. For marginalized groups, the loss of
internet access during shutdowns is a further layer of exclusion, deepening their socio-
economic vulnerabilities.

The international dimension of the internet shutdown debate cannot be ignored, as many
countries, including Iran, Turkey, China, and Myanmar, have used internet restrictions to
suppress dissent and control the flow of information. India’s use of internet shutdowns is
often compared with global standards, particularly in democratic societies where the right
to access information is guaranteed under international human rights law, including the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The United Nations and
human rights organizations have consistently condemned internet shutdowns as a
violation of freedom of expression and the right to information, urging governments to
explore less restrictive measures when addressing national security concerns or public
order issues. The global advocacy for internet freedom is growing, with organizations
like Access Now and Freedom House leading the charge for stronger protections against
internet shutdowns and digital censorship worldwide.

One of the core recommendations emerging from this analysis is the need for legislative
reforms to provide a clear and comprehensive legal framework for regulating internet
shutdowns. This framework should include proportionality tests, clear criteria for
necessity, and judicial oversight to prevent abuse. In addition, the government should
adopt a transparent process for making decisions about internet shutdowns, with public
reporting and clear justifications for each instance. Judicial review is crucial to ensure
that shutdowns are subject to legal scrutiny, and that they do not unduly infringe upon

88
fundamental rights. The AnuradhaBhasin judgment provides a strong foundation for
expanding the role of the judiciary in regulating internet shutdowns, ensuring that such
decisions are made in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution and international
human rights standards.

The impact on marginalized communities underscores the need for policy reforms that
take into account the socio-economic consequences of internet shutdowns. As mentioned
earlier, rural populations, low-income groups, women, and minorities bear the brunt of
these shutdowns. There is an urgent need for the government to implement alternative
measures, such as targeted content blocking or suspending specific services, rather than
imposing widespread shutdowns. Additionally, compensation mechanisms for businesses
and individuals affected by internet shutdowns, particularly in rural areas, could help
mitigate the economic impact on those most vulnerable. Public support programs aimed
at providing digital resources for marginalized communities, such as access to offline
educational materials or alternative communication channels, should also be considered.

International cooperation is another key aspect of addressing internet shutdowns. The

global nature of the internet means that international human rights law plays an important
role in shaping the policy responses of individual governments. India must continue to
engage with international bodies such as the United Nations, the World Wide Web
Foundation, and digital rights organizations to ensure that its policies on internet freedom
are consistent with international standards. By doing so, India can contribute to the global
conversation on internet governance and digital rights, ensuring that it upholds
democratic principles while addressing national security concerns.

In conclusion, the problem of internet shutdowns in India is complex and multifaceted.

While the government must maintain national security and public order, it must also
recognize the significant human rights and economic consequences of restricting access
to the internet. By implementing legislative reforms, strengthening transparency and
accountability, enhancing the role of the judiciary, ensuring proportionality and necessity,
and addressing the socio-economic impact, India can improve its approach to internet
governance. Furthermore, international cooperation for upholding internet freedom and
digital rights is essential to ensure that the country’s policies align with global best

89
practices. The recommendations outlined in this study are aimed at achieving a more
balanced, just, and human rights-respecting framework for addressing the issue of
internet shutdowns, while ensuring that India remains true to its constitutional obligations
and democratic values

90
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

1. Access to Justice in India by UpendraBaxi

2. Human Rights and the Internet by Susan S. F. Chen

3. Constitutional Law of India by M.P. Jain

4. The Rule of Law in India by Granville Austin

5. Democracy and Governance in India by S.L. Goel

6. Internet Governance: The New Frontier of Global Power by William H. Dutton

7. The Right to Information Act in India by M. Sridhar Acharyulu

8. Digital Rights: The Changing Landscape by Robin Mansell

9. The Law of the Internet by Robert A. Scholes

10. Global Internet Governance by Laura DeNardis

11. Internet Freedom: A Global Perspective by Virginia Dignum

12. Media Law and Ethics by Richard L. Gilbert

13. The Globalization of World Politics by John Baylis

14. Law and Public Policy in India by C.P. Joshi

15. Human Rights in the Information Society by Patrick S. Ryan

16. Cyber Law: A Guide for the Perplexed by Brian Craig

17. Access to Justice in the Age of Information by Christopher D. Stone

18. Free Speech and the Internet by Jennifer L. Redman

19. Political Economy of the Internet by David J. Brenner

i
 20. The Human Rights of the Internet by Beatriz T. Gonzalez

21. Globalization, Cybercrime, and the Politics of the Internet by Lee E. Goodman

22. Privacy, Technology, and the Law by J. A. Toth

23. The Internet and Democracy by Bernard Reiss

24. E-Commerce and Internet Law by David B. Westbrook

25. Freedom of Speech: The Philosophy of Freedom by Thomas D. Buckle

26. The Impact of Internet Censorship by Alexis O’Connor

27. Understanding Digital Media by G. J. Galloway

28. Digital Disruption and Democracy by Anthony K. Verdugo

29. Internet Law and Policy by Lee A. Bygrave

30. Law, Internet, and Society by Eugene K. Baram

Reports

1. Cost of Shutdowns in India Report by Access Now, 2020

2. The Economic Impact of Internet Shutdowns by Freedom House, 2020

3. The Right to Information in the Digital Age by Reporters Without Borders, 2020

4. Digital Rights and Democracy by International Commission of Jurists, 2019

5. Internet Shutdowns in India: A Human Rights Crisis by Amnesty International,

2020

6. The State of Internet Freedom by Freedom House, 2020

7. Global Internet Shutdowns: An Impact Assessment by International

Telecommunication Union, 2019

ii
8. Rights and Restrictions: Internet Shutdowns in India by Human Rights Watch,
2020

9. Proportionality in Internet Shutdowns by United Nations Special Rapporteur on

Freedom of Expression, 2020

10. Human Rights and Technology: The Case for Digital Privacy by United Nations
Human Rights Council, 2020

11. Surveillance, Privacy, and the Right to Information by Privacy International, 2021

12. India’s Internet Shutdowns: A Review of Policies and Impact by Economic

Times, 2020

13. The Impact of Online Misinformation by United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization, 2020

14. Impact of Internet Shutdowns on Public Safety and Rights by National Institute of
Public Finance and Policy, 2021

15. Digital Divide and Its Impact on Indian Rural Communities by World Bank, 2019

16. Cybersecurity and Human Rights in the Digital Era by The Hague Institute for
Global Justice, 2020

17. Report on Internet Shutdowns and Public Order by Indian Ministry of Home
Affairs, 2020

18. International Standards for Internet Shutdowns by International Federation for

Human Rights, 2020

19. Policy Recommendations for Internet Governance in India by International Law

Association, 2021

20. Rights to Digital Access in Crisis Situations by UNDP, 2021

iii
Journals

1. Journal of Information Technology & Politics

2. Journal of Internet Policy

3. Journal of Cyber Security & Privacy

4. International Journal of Human Rights

5. Journal of Digital Media & Policy

Newspapers

1. The Times of India

2. The Hindu

3. The Economic Times

4. The Indian Express

5. The Telegraph

6. India Today

7. The New York Times

8. The Guardian

9. BBC News India

10. The Washington Post

11. Hindustan Times

12. The Wall Street Journal

13. The Financial Express

14. The Hindu Business Line

iv
 15. Deccan Herald

16. The Asian Age

17. The Indian Express

18. The Statesman

19. The New Indian Express

20. Mint

Legal Websites

1. Indiacode.nic.in

2. Manupatra.com

3. Lawctopus.com

4. LiveLaw.in

5. SCC Online