Internet Shutdowns

In one line

A government may switch the network off, but only by a published order, on stated reasons, for a defined area, for no more than fifteen days, and only if the object cannot be achieved by any other reasonable means.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India the Supreme Court held that an order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible, that suspension can be utilized for temporary duration only, that any such order must adhere to the principle of proportionality and must not extend beyond necessary duration, that it is subject to judicial review, and that all orders in force must be published so as to enable the affected persons to challenge it; and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules 2024, made under section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act 2023 and in supersession of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules 2017, now require a suspension order to be published, to clearly state the reasons, to be limited to a clearly defined geographical area, a specified type of telecommunication service and a specified duration, not exceeding fifteen days, and to be made only where the authority has considered that the objectives cannot be achieved by any other reasonable means.

The case

Facts. On and after 4 August 2019 the Government of Jammu and Kashmir restricted movement under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and suspended mobile, internet and landline services across the territory. The editor of a newspaper published from Srinagar petitioned that the suspension prevented the press from working, and a Member of Parliament petitioned against the restrictions generally. The suspension orders had been made under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules 2017, framed under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, and most of them had not been published.

Held. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308, decided on 10 January 2020 by Ramana, Subhash Reddy and Gavai JJ, issued fifteen directions. Those on the internet are:

• the State is directed to publish all orders in force and any future orders under section 144 and for the suspension of telecom services, including internet, to enable the affected persons to challenge it before the High Court or appropriate forum;
• the Court declares that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g), restriction being subject to Article 19(2) and (6), inclusive of the test of proportionality;
• an order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible under the Suspension Rules and suspension can be utilized for temporary duration only;
• any such order must adhere to the principle of proportionality and must not extend beyond necessary duration;
• any such order is subject to judicial review;
• because the Rules then provided neither a periodic review nor a time limitation, the Review Committee constituted under Rule 2(5) must conduct a periodic review within seven working days of the previous review;
• the State is directed to review all orders suspending internet services forthwith, and orders not in accordance with the law laid down must be revoked; and
• the State is to consider forthwith allowing government websites, localized or limited e-banking facilities, hospitals services and other essential services in regions where services are not likely to be restored immediately.