INTRODUCTION
Internet in the 21st century is undeniably an integral part of modern living. The politics, education, communication, trade, banking, journalism and democratization of contemporary India are heavily reliant on the Internet. When the government mandates a deliberate disruption of the Internet in the form of Internet Shutdowns, it raises alarms against constitutional and moral principles.
On 7th June, the Government of Rajasthan ordered a 24-hour internet shutdown in Jaipur East and Jaipur North districts to prevent potential threats to public order and communal harmony during protests for an anti-encroachment drive.[1]Was the decision to blanket ban internet access for 24 hours necessary, or was it just a convenient way to collectively punish entire districts?
UNESCO has observed a growing incline of state mandated internet shutdowns, with over 300 shutdowns in 54 countries in the last 2 years.[2] India has been a leading witness to widespread and very frequent internet shutdowns by the government on grounds of public order, national security and potential disruption of peace. India carries the unfortunate medal of the country with the highest number of state-sponsored internet shutdowns, with around 448 shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir and 114 in Rajasthan.[3] It is an undisputed fact that the government has the binding obligation to maintain and regulate public order, but complete blanket shutdowns often negatively disrupt the usual living of a population. India, with over 491 million unique UPI users[4], relies very heavily on the internet to render basic transactions; thus, disruptions are a huge setback. During internet shutdowns, students lose their access to essential online resources, the healthcare system collapses due to banking delays, and the laymen lose their right to access news, information and ordinary vendors suffer financial losses. With blanket bans the citizens who have no control over the incidents that warrant such restrictions lose their freedom to perform daily tasks and even deprives them of basic aid during emergencies.
This raises an important constitutional question, ‘When internet access is suspended for huge sections of populations because of the actions of a limited number of individuals, do such measures begin to resemble a form of collective punishment?’
UNDERSTANDING THE IDEA OF COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT
The idea of ‘Collective Punishment’ usually refers to a practice where an entire multitude is penalized and restricted due to the actions of a small group of people. This is a popular subject of discussion in humanitarian law. The Geneva Convention of 1949 states that “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”[5] Generally collective punishment is used to serve 2 purposes: One is to vividly highlight a group’s position in society and also alienate the members of the community from their ingroup perpetrators by intensifying their negative perception and frustration towards the perpetrator.[6]
Traditional forms of collective punishment are harsher than internet shutdowns, but what can’t be denied is that both are broadly similar: imposition of blanket bans and restrictions on the entire population without the concept of individual responsibility.
When internet is shut down across large areas because of threats due to a small section of society, an ordinary man’s access to healthcare, employment, education and banking comes to a halt. One is prohibited to exercise its fundamental rights, such as the right to education, freedom of expression, rights to healthcare. Therefore, internet shutdowns may tend to punish people disproportionately.
These sorts of restrictions are highly detrimental in a society that is very extensively dependent on the internet like contemporary Indian society. Therefore, internet restrictions are not mere technical restrictions; they also serve the purpose of collectively inconveniencing and punishing society by directly impacting the ability of individuals to participate meaningfully in modern civic life.
PRACTICAL PROBLEMS WITH INTERNET SHUTDOWNS
Internet Shutdowns in India are majorly done to maintain public order and to overcome potential risks of communal riots. Internet Shutdowns in India are regulated by the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, which allow the Union or state governments to suspend telecom services during an emergency or in the interest of public safety. But these orders come with negative disruptions in a larger landscape.
- Economic Disruption
A large section of Indian society is economically dependent on internet access for their livelihood. An internet shutdown affects small online businesses, freelancers, delivery workers, and gig economy workers and is a direct blow to them financially. With 12.7% of white-collar jobs in India operating completely remotely, a blanket ban on internet access can compromise the economy.[7]
Such restrictions disproportionately affect smaller businesses and daily wage workers, while big corporations and businesses have enough capital to look for alternatives during shutdown hours or make up for the losses produced due to these restrictions.
- Education
Post Covid-19, the educational infrastructure in India is heavily digitized with over 13.5 million students enrolled in distance programs at the higher studies level.[8] Internet shutdowns deny these students and many more access to education during restricted hours. Again, such restrictions disproportionately disadvantage students who already face limited educational opportunities.
- Restricted Information Flow
The blocking of Internet access tends to limit the capacity of journalists to document events accurately and immediately. Similarly, the population could lack access to trusted news outlets, which might paradoxically lead to misinformation and fear rather than prevent such occurrences. Restricting communication infrastructure during politically sensitive periods may further undermine transparency and public accountability.
UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND JUDICIAL FRAMEWORK
The constitutional concerns around internet shutdowns arise as these restrictions directly limit citizens’ right to exercise several fundamental rights. The rights under Articles 19(1)(a)[9], 19(1)(g)[10], and 21[11] of the Constitution are at risk during blanket bans. By disrupting access to digital platforms that have become essential in every aspect of living, it is easy to lose access to free speech, trade and personal liberty. Given the increasing digital dependency, these restrictions prevent an ordinary citizen from enjoying their constitutional freedoms.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India[12] is the most significant judgment regarding internet bans. In this landmark judgment, the court recognized that freedom of speech and the freedom to practice trade or profession through the internet enjoy constitutional protection under Article 19. However, it fell short of declaring internet access itself as a fundamental right. Despite that, the internet was recognized as an essential medium to perform fundamental constitutional freedoms. The court observed that internet shutdowns must pass tests of proportionality and necessity. The court directs central and state governments to enforce transparency in shutdown orders so that they are available for judicial review and public scrutiny.
Most importantly, the judgment introduced the doctrine of proportionality into jurisprudence of internet shutdowns.
THE DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY
The doctrine of proportionality in the case of internet shutdowns is very important because restrictions imposed by the State must not exceed the necessary proportion that is required to fulfil the government objective. What must be monitored is whether, in the face of a potential threat, there are alternatives available to the government. If such alternatives, such as targeted surveillance, are available and fulfil the requirement, blanket bans should not be imposed on an entire demographic. The principle of proportionality implies that it is essential to achieve a balance between the factors associated with public safety and constitutional liberties and rights.
CONCLUSION
Internet Shutdowns cannot just be treated merely as technical restrictions in a society that is so dependent on the internet for every aspect of basic living. Their impact runs deep into constitutional freedoms, journalism, education, healthcare, economic and democratic participation.
Although the government has a responsibility to maintain public order and peace, provisions like these can easily be misused to control unfavourable discourse against the state and can act as collective punishment when the tests of proportionality and necessity are not properly met.
It is essential to have independent review systems that analyse the blanket bans and make sure they are necessary, proportionate and politically unbiased and do not serve as collective punishment for the masses.
Author(s) Name: Dikshita Deb (West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences)
References:
[1] Police Commissioner, Jaipur, Order No 2062/1665 directing temporary suspension of internet services in Jaipur Commissionerate (6 June 2026)
[2] UNESCO Statement on Internet Shutdowns 2026< https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-statement-internet-shutdowns>
[3] SFLC.in, ‘Internet Shutdowns in India’ <https://internetshutdowns.in/>accessed 10th June 2026.
[4] Press Information Bureau, ‘The Digital Blueprint for Ease of Doing Business: Powering Seamless Business and Regulatory Efficiency’ (Government of India, 9 March 2026) <https://www.pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?NoteId=154912&ModuleId=3®=48&lang=2> accessed 11 June 2026.
[5] Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287, art 33.
[6] Çoksan S, Üzümçeker E and Esses V, ‘Understanding Collective Punishment: A Systematic Review from a Social Psychology Perspective’ (23 July 2025) <osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/twkz4_v1>
[7] Jodie Cook, ‘Remote Work Statistics And Trends In 2025’ (Forbes Advisor, 3 June 2025) <https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/business/remote-work-statistics/> accessed 11 June 2026.
[8] Ministry of Education, All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2021-2022 (Government of India) <https://aishe.gov.in> accessed 10 June 2026
[9] Constitution of India, art 19(1)(a)
[10] Constitute of India, art19(1)(g)
[11] Constitution of India, art 21
[12] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637.