Recent Internet Shutdown in Delhi Revives Debate on Legality, Proportionality and Digital Rights in Democratic Governance

Recent Developments:

• Mobile internet services were temporarily suspended in parts of Central Delhi during a protest, reviving debates over the legality and proportionality of internet shutdowns in India.
• The incident renewed concerns regarding compliance with the Telecommunications Act, 2023, the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, and the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020).
• The issue has also highlighted the need to balance public order and national security with fundamental rights, transparency, and accountability in a constitutional democracy.

What is an Internet Shutdown?:

Definition and Nature:

• An internet shutdown is the deliberate suspension or disruption of internet and electronic communication services, making them inaccessible or substantially unusable for a specified geographical area or population.
• Internet shutdowns may take different forms, including complete network suspension, internet throttling (speed reduction), or blocking specific digital platforms and online services, depending on the objective and extent of restrictions.
• Such restrictions may be imposed either as a preventive measure before an anticipated event or during an ongoing situation involving public disorder, violence, or other security concerns.

Objectives:

• Governments generally impose internet shutdowns to prevent the spread of misinformation, maintain public order, safeguard national security, or control communication during emergencies.
• However, shutdowns imposed merely to manage peaceful protests or public gatherings raise concerns regarding constitutional validity and democratic accountability.

Impact:

• Internet shutdowns disrupt access to verified information, affect journalists, businesses, educational institutions, healthcare services, banking, and digital governance.
• They also weaken transparency, restrict civic participation, and may unintentionally encourage the spread of rumours due to the absence of reliable information.

Global and Indian Scenario:

Global Trends:

• According to UNESCO, state-sponsored internet shutdowns have increased significantly in recent years, affecting access to information and other human rights across multiple countries.
• Access Now reported that 2024 witnessed the highest number of internet shutdowns since 2016, with shutdowns increasingly imposed during elections, protests, and internal conflicts.
• UNESCO maintains that universal internet access strengthens freedom of expression, education, association, democratic participation, and inclusive development, and therefore restrictions should remain exceptional and proportionate.

India's Position:

• India continues to record one of the world's highest numbers of internet shutdowns despite possessing one of the largest digital ecosystems.
• According to Access Now, 65 internet shutdowns were recorded across 12 States and Union Territories during 2025, while approximately 24 shutdowns had already been reported during 2026 (up to 22 July).
• According to the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) Internet Shutdown Tracker, Jamm& Kashmir has recorded the highest number of internet shutdowns since 2012, followed by Rajasthan and Manipur.

Legal Framework Governing Internet Shutdowns in India:

Statutory Basis:

• Internet shutdowns are presently governed by the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, which replaced the earlier Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.
• The Rules regulate temporary suspension of telecommunications services, including internet access, while prescribing procedural safeguards and review mechanisms.

Grounds for Suspension:

• Under Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, internet services may be suspended only in cases of public emergency or public safety, subject to legally specified grounds and written reasons.
• A protest or peaceful demonstration, by itself, does not constitute a lawful ground for suspending internet services.

Authority and Procedure:

• Shutdown orders may be issued by the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary.
• In unavoidable circumstances, a duly authorised officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary may issue the order, but it must receive confirmation within 24 hours, failing which it automatically ceases to operate.
• Every shutdown order must clearly specify the reasons, affected geographical area, duration, and time of enforcement, ensuring transparency and facilitating judicial scrutiny.

Principles Governing Shutdown Orders:

• Every shutdown order must satisfy the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, transparency, and procedural fairness.
• Governments must also examine whether less restrictive alternatives can effectively achieve the intended objective before resorting to complete suspension of internet services.

Judicial Review:

• Internet shutdown orders may be challenged before the High Courts under Article 226 or before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
• Constitutional courts examine whether the restriction is lawful, necessary, proportionate, time-bound, and limited to the minimum geographical area required.

Judicial Position on Internet Shutdowns:

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020):

• The Supreme Court held that access to the internet is closely connected with the exercise of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom to practise any profession or carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g).
• The Court ruled that every internet shutdown must have a legal basis, pursue a legitimate objective, satisfy the tests of necessity and proportionality, and adopt the least restrictive measure available.
• The judgment further directed that shutdown orders must contain adequate reasons, be published, remain limited in scope and duration, and undergo periodic review.
• The Court declared that indefinite internet shutdowns are impermissible and directed that every suspension order must be examined by a Review Committee within five working days.

Other Important Judicial Developments:

• In Ashlesh Biradar v. State of West Bengal (2022), the Calcutta High Court stayed an internet suspension order after observing that it lacked adequate legal authority, sufficient reasons, and consideration of less restrictive alternatives.
• The judgment reaffirmed that executive action affecting digital rights must comply with the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and procedural fairness.

Major Concerns Associated with Internet Shutdowns:

Impact on Fundamental Rights:

• Internet shutdowns restrict freedom of speech and expression, limit access to information, and affect the exercise of several rights linked to Article 21, including education, healthcare, livelihood, and personal liberty.

Governance and Transparency Issues:

• Although the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the 2024 Rules prescribe procedural safeguards, concerns remain regarding inadequate publication of shutdown orders, limited public disclosure of review decisions, and insufficient independent oversight.
• Reports indicate that some authorities continue relying upon provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the 2017 Rules, creating uncertainty regarding compliance with the updated legal framework.

Economic and Social Consequences:

• Internet shutdowns adversely affect businesses, digital payments, e-commerce, banking, healthcare, education, emergency services, and communication networks.
• According to international assessments, India suffered an estimated economic loss of about USD 255.2 million in 2023 due to internet shutdowns, making it one of the countries with the highest economic costs arising from such restrictions.
• Frequent shutdowns also undermine investor confidence and adversely affect India's digital economy and startup ecosystem.

Digital Governance Challenges:

• Frequent internet restrictions appear inconsistent with India's vision of becoming a global leader in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), digital governance, and innovation-driven economic growth.
• Weak implementation of transparency and review requirements continues to raise concerns regarding accountability and protection of digital rights.

Way Forward:

Strengthen Institutional Oversight:

• Independent review mechanisms, stronger parliamentary oversight, and greater judicial scrutiny should ensure that internet shutdowns are imposed only in exceptional circumstances.

Ensure Strict Legal Compliance:

• Authorities should strictly comply with the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, ensuring that shutdowns are ordered only on the legally recognised grounds of public emergency or public safety.

Adopt the Least Restrictive Approach:

• Internet shutdowns should remain a measure of last resort, limited in duration and geographical scope after carefully evaluating alternative measures.

Promote Targeted Alternatives:

• Governments should increasingly rely on targeted content moderation, fact-checking systems, misinformation monitoring, platform-specific restrictions, and cybersecurity measures instead of blanket internet shutdowns.
• Law enforcement agencies should strengthen digital investigation capabilities and improve capacity for managing online risks without unnecessarily restricting public access.

Enhance Transparency and Digital Rights Protection:

• All shutdown orders, supporting reasons, duration, review decisions, and affected areas should be published promptly to strengthen public accountability.
• Digital governance should simultaneously protect freedom of expression, access to information, privacy, and democratic participation.

Strengthen Digital Literacy:

• Public awareness programmes should improve digital literacy and misinformation resilience while aligning India's regulatory framework with international best practices on digital rights and open internet principles.

Conclusion:

• Internet shutdowns may be justified only in exceptional situations involving public emergency or public safety, but they should never become routine administrative tools for managing protests or restricting the free flow of information.
• A constitutional democracy requires every restriction to remain lawful, transparent, proportionate, time-bound, and subject to effective judicial and administrative review, thereby maintaining an appropriate balance between national security, public order, and fundamental rights.

Value Addition for UPSC:

Important Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 19(1)(g): Freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
• Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
• Article 32 and Article 226: Constitutional remedies before the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Important Supreme Court Principles:

• Legality: Every restriction must have statutory backing.
• Legitimate Aim: Restrictions must pursue a constitutionally valid objective.
• Necessity: Restrictions should be imposed only when genuinely required.
• Proportionality: The least restrictive measure should always be preferred.
• Transparency: Shutdown orders must be published with recorded reasons.
• Time Limitation: Indefinite internet shutdowns are unconstitutional and periodic review is mandatory.

Prelims Facts:

• Internet shutdowns are currently governed by the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024.
• Public emergency and public safety are the only statutory grounds for suspending internet services under Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) remains the leading Supreme Court judgment governing the legality of internet shutdowns.
• Shutdown orders are subject to judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
• Under the 2024 Rules, a suspension order cannot remain in force for more than 15 days, and every order must undergo review in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure