Introduction
India has consistently topped global charts in internet shutdowns—with over 770 shutdowns between 2016 and 2023, and 116 in 2023 alone, accounting for 41% of global instances under the #KeepItOn report. Shutdowns are often justified under the colonial-era Telegraph Act and recent Telecom Suspension Rules for public safety and emergency. Yet, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that internet access is a constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a) and any restriction must meet legality, necessity, and proportionality. The persistence of long-duration shutdowns—such as the 212-day blackout in Manipur (2023) and 552 days in Kashmir (2019–21)—raises serious questions about whether India’s practice respects these constitutional mandates.
Scale & Pattern of Shutdowns
-
India recorded 116 shutdowns in 2023, the highest globally for the sixth straight year. In 2024 there were 84 shutdowns, again topping democracies.([turn0search6]turn0search1])
-
Since 2016, India accounted for 53% of all recorded shutdowns globally—773 of 1,458 total cases.([turn0search7]turn0search2])
-
Shutdowns spanned diverse triggers: 31% linked to protests, 23% to communal violence, and some to exams or elections—even for preventing cheating.([turn0search3]turn0search4])
-
In Manipur alone, shutdowns totaled 212 days in 2023, while Jammu & Kashmir endured 552 days between 2019–21.([turn0search0]turn0search5]turn0search21])
Legal Principles & the Proportionality Test
-
The Supreme Court, in Anuradha Bhasin, affirmed internet access as protected under Article 19(1)(a) and stated restrictions must satisfy:
-
Legality—order must arise from valid delegation of power (Telegraph Act Section 5(2)),
-
Legitimate Aim—e.g. public safety or emergency,
-
Proportionality—no less intrusive alternative must exist, and impact on rights must be minimal.([turn0search10]turn0search11])
-
-
It prohibited indefinite shutdowns and held that orders must be reviewed periodically, publicly disclosed, and examined by a review committee within seven working days.([turn0search10]turn0search11])
-
Later amendments (Telecom Suspension Rules 2020/2024) limited orders to a maximum of 15 days, but critics noted they failed to embed proportional review mechanisms or public consultation.([turn0reddit24]turn0search11])
Rights Violations & Economic Costs
-
Shutdowns severely impede freedom of speech, press, and expression, particularly in conflict zones like Manipur where atrocities went undocumented until after weeks.([turn0news12]turn0search5])
-
Economic losses are grave: $1.9 billion in 2023, with $118 million lost in foreign investment, while even a single day’s shutdown may push up to 379 people into unemployment.([turn0search9]turn0search2])
-
In 2024, 3,160 hours of shutdowns (131.6 days) reportedly cost India $236 million and disrupted education, healthcare, and digital service delivery.([turn0search8])
-
Shutdowns disproportionately harm marginalized communities—women, rural poor, gig workers, and states like Jammu & Kashmir or Manipur often face systemic exclusion.([turn0search5]turn0search7])
Proportionality in Practice: Gaps & Failures
-
Shutdown orders often exceed 15 days, with governments renewing them repeatedly—for instance, in Manipur via rolling orders, bypassing Supreme Court guidelines.([turn0news12]turn0search0])
-
In many states, shutdown orders are not proactively published, violating court-mandated transparency. Reviews by State-level Committees may be perfunctory or absent.([turn0search5]turn0search2])
-
Instances like Rajasthan exam shutdowns (multiple local shutdowns to prevent cheating) are widely seen as disproportionate and unnecessary, failing the least intrusive test.([turn0search10]turn0search4])
-
Shutdowns extended far beyond emergency periods — e.g. Manipur during the 2023 unrest, continued for months despite minimal fresh incidents.([turn0news12]turn0search6])
Recommendations: Making Shutdowns Proportionate & Accountable
-
Embed Independent Oversight Mechanisms
Create statutory review bodies—including judiciary representation—to assess shutdown orders, with power to revoke non-compliant or prolonged orders. -
Require Public Consultation & Publication
Every shutdown order must be published within 24 hours on government websites and notified in print media per Anuradha Bhasin mandates. -
Periodic Judicial Review Every 7 Days
The Review Committee must assess necessity and proportionality within a week of issuance—order extensions should require explicit additional justification. -
Limit Use Cases Based on Risk Assessment
Disallow shutdowns for non-critical reasons like exams or local protests unless credible intelligence shows imminent violence or threat. -
Enforce Economic Compensation Mechanism
Consider legal frameworks for public accountability or reparations, especially when shutdowns cause predictable economic harm in marginalized sectors. -
Strengthen Transparency & Data Logging
Maintain a public register of all shutdowns detailing start/end times, geographic scope, reasons, impact durations, and review decisions. -
Promote Alternative Measures
Governments should prioritize targeted content moderation, fast-tracking counter-rumor messaging, or limits on specific platforms over full shutdowns.
Conclusion
Internet shutdowns in India have become an opaque tool of public policy, used extensively to contain unrest, curb protests, or prevent misinformation—even in democracies. Yet the constitutional framework established by the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin demands that shutdowns respect legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality. Data shows that many orders—especially long-duration shutdowns—fail to meet these standards, causing severe human rights and economic harm to millions.
Reforms are urgently needed: statutory oversight, timely disclosures, rule-based extensions, and sunset mechanisms must translate court principles into practice. With thoughtful legal reform and transparent governance, India can align its emergency powers with democratic norms, safeguarding both public order and fundamental freedoms.