INTRODUCTION
Internet bans have come to be a regularized and troubling method of state control adopted by state authorities in India in the name of public order. These federal and state bans continuously violate people’s digital rights and urgently demand constitutional checks and balances. The High Court of Kerala noted in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (2019) that today, access to the internet is a necessity and no longer a luxury.[1]
A recent case study of a state-wide ban is the one imposed in Manipur after violent clashes broke out following a tribal clash in May 2023. The state decided to shut down the internet in the name of managing misinformation and went for months with a ban on internet access.[2] The shutdown removed access to services that were not nefarious in any way, such as educational platforms, digital payments, and emergency messages. In violation of human rights and freedoms, examples of police brutality and wrongful arrest were more widespread and typical in Manipur, raising questions of the necessity and effectiveness of the internet shutdown.[3]
Although the frequency of internet bans does overlap with protests, India is also the world leader in internet bans, with 84 in 2023 alone (SFLC).[4] Most troubling is that bans occur most commonly in smaller towns, such as Aligarh, Darjeeling, and Jammu, with a distinction of being frequently invoked without stakeholders being given advanced notice in a manner bearing quasi due process. Vaguely defined public order grounds, authorities imposed immediate and indefinite bans, no more accompanied by an order than a summary mention of orders.[5]
While a temporary order may be warranted in some event of necessity or crisis, the SOP’s increased restrictive state controls and imposition of blanket bans are signalling the normalization of digital censorship and a real impact on democracy and fundamental rights.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND COURT MECHANISMS
The primary legal basis for internet shutdowns in India is found in various judicial and quasi-judicial frameworks. The more important sections are Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as well as the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017.[6] Section 144 provides lawful authority for certain types of public-order restrictions, and the 2017 Rules require written suspension orders that state the reasons for the orders and periodic reviews.
The Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) judgment from the Supreme Court represents a significant improvement in the framework. The Court indicates that indefinite internet shut-downs are unconstitutional, and incorporated the right to internet access as a part of Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to trade or profession) of the Constitution.[7] The Court established important guidelines. The shutdowns must be temporary, not arbitrary and proportional. Authorities must demonstrate that alternatives that are less restrictive were thoroughly pursued. The orders must be disclosed to the public. Although limited, the orders should also be limited to places only.
In Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court condemned blanket government bans and ordered the return of 4G services in Jammu and Kashmir.[8]
Nonetheless, compliance remains poor. Shut-downs often occur where the orders are not written or reviewed in a meaningful way.
THE HUMAN AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF INTEREST BLACKOUTS
Internet shutdowns have implications far beyond sheer inconvenience – these outages have ripple effects that impact all facets of modern living. In medical contexts, if healthcare services are disrupted during a blackout, a patient seeking medical help, that possibility may be terminated. During the Manipur crisis, patients did not know how they could contact doctors amid rampant violence and emergencies, and many of them reported not being able to access the digital prescriptions or explain their medical history, sitting on Microsoft records in their online patient charts.[9]
Moreover, the implications for education are no less extreme. The digitization of education, a growing trend, makes shutdowns especially impactful for students in rural areas who may rely on online courses and digital tools, and educational materials. The abrupt disruption experienced by students who were attending classes and using digital learning materials during India’s protracted internet blackouts in 2020 during COVID-19 emphasises the reality of an internet-restricted education can totalize millions of imperfect outcomes for students.[10]
In terms of economic implications, there are also growing losses. A 2023 report from the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) reported that between the years of 2012 and 2022, India lost on the order of $3.04 billion as a result of internet blackouts. [11]Small businesses and daily wage workers in the “informal sector” are hit hardest during internet shutdowns. When digital payment systems freeze, and retail and online marketplaces are made unavailable (which is where urban informal laborers primarily operate), the digital space that once provided income is now rendered void.[12]
REFORM AND MECHANISMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY
India must pursue comprehensive reform at multiple layers to fix its unprecedented problem with internet shutdowns. First and foremost, the Anuradha Bhasin guidelines will have to be adhered to strictly. The shutdown order must be issued publicly with the reasons, limited to a specific area, and reviewed regularly by a judge.[13] Speaking orders or vague notifications to the public are unacceptable.
Second, India needs greater parliamentary scrutiny of government internet suspension decisions. The government should establish a standing committee to assess all orders to determine necessity and proportionality. This committee could summarize and organize expert knowledge, civil society perspectives, and legal expertise.[14]
Third, the law must be amended to include a basic compensation mechanism for affected citizens and businesses when internet inaccessibility is caused by unlawful shutdown orders. There is no recourse for citizens who suffer economic losses, damages, or other harms as a result of arbitrary digital restrictions.[15]
Fourth, the authorities must begin to develop alternative options that address security concerns, without resorting to the total suspension of services. Specific content moderation, service providers increasing bandwidth (available during sensitive periods), and one-off educational campaigns aimed at raising public awareness around misinformation, and specific campaigns, could be considerably more proportionate responses than complete shutdowns.[16]
CONCLUSION
India’s epidemic of internet shutdowns is a serious threat to constitutional democracy. While there is no doubt that maintaining public order is a serious objective, the current method of routinely using secrecy and prolonged, indiscriminate shutdowns takes away opportunities to secure fundamental rights without demonstrating any tangible security benefit. The economic costs of these shutdowns are staggering; the social implications are far-reaching, and the democratic implications are troubling. The courts have clarified, through a number of judgments, basic principles for the use of internet shutdowns. The time has come to apply and affirm these principles consistently. Time for lawmakers to vote for stronger protections, time for administrators to embrace greater transparency, and time for citizens to embrace a greater role in the Defence of their digital rights. In the words of the Kerala High Court, in Faheema Shirin: “When you shut the internet, you shut democracy”.[17] In an increasingly digital world, protecting access to the internet is not just about technology; it is about protecting the very democratic governance and fundamental rights that allow citizens to build a better world.
Author(s) Name: Reshmi Raj (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University)
References:
[1] Faheema Shirin R K v State of Kerala [2019] SCC OnLine Ker 3158 [28] (Ker HC).
[2] Indian Express, ‘Manipur Internet Ban Extended Again amid Ongoing Violence’ (Indian Express, 3 August 2023) < https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/manipur-internet-ban-violence-8864520/ > accessed 23 July 2025.
[3] Human Rights Watch, ‘India: Ensure Rights in Manipur Conflict Response’ (1 June 2023) < https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/01/india-ensure-rights-manipur-conflict-response > accessed 23 July 2025.
[4] Software Freedom Law Centre, ‘Internet Shutdowns in India – Tracker 2023’ < https://internetshutdowns.in > accessed 23 July 2025.
[5] Internet Freedom Foundation, ‘#Keep it on: The Problem with Internet Shutdowns in India’ (Policy Brief, 2023) < https://internetfreedom.in/keepiton/ > accessed 23 July 2025.
[6] The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, notified under s 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 144.
[7] Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India [2020] 3 SCC 637 [71–86].
[8] Foundation for Media Professionals v Union of India (2020) Writ Petition (Civil) No 10817/2020 (SC), order dated 11 May 2020.
[9] Human Rights Watch, ‘India: Ensure Rights in Manipur Conflict Response’ (1 June 2023) < https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/01/india-ensure-rights-manipur-conflict-response > accessed 23 July 2025
[10] UNICEF India, ‘COVID-19 and Remote Learning: Reaching India’s Most Vulnerable Children’ ( UNICEF India, 2021) < https://www.unicef.org/india/reports/covid-19-and-remote-learning > accessed 23 July 2025.
[11] Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), The Anatomy of an Internet Shutdown: Measuring the Economic Impact of Disruptions in India (2023) < https://icrier.org/publication/the-anatomy-of-an-internet-shutdown/ > accessed 23 July 2025.
[12] Internet Freedom Foundation, ‘Costs of Internet Shutdowns in India’ (Policy Brief, 2023) < https://internetfreedom.in/costs-of-internet-shutdowns/ > accessed 23 July 2025
[13] n (7)
[14] Chinmayi Arun, ‘Parliament Must Play a Stronger Role in Reviewing Internet Shutdowns’ (The Hindu, 7 January 2020) < https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/parliament-must-play-a-stronger-role-in-reviewing-internet-shutdowns/article30489092.ece > accessed 23 July 2025.
[15] Internet Freedom Foundation, ‘#Keep It On and Compensation: The Missing Legal Framework’ (2022) < https://internetfreedom.in/keepiton-and-compensation/ > accessed 23 July 2025.
[16] Access Now, ‘Alternatives to Internet Shutdowns: Toward Rights-Respecting Responses to Crisis’ (Policy Paper, 2021) < https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2021/06/Shutdowns-Alternatives-report.pdf > accessed 23 July 2025.
[17] Faheema Shirin R.K. v State of Kerala [2019] SCC OnLine Ker 17348 [45].
