●       The Internet, crucial for contemporary society, was declared a fundamental right in India on January 10, 2020, by the Supreme Court in the Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India case.

●       The judgment outlined strict criteria for government-imposed restrictions, emphasizing their temporary, limited, lawful, necessary, and proportionate nature.

●       However, despite these safeguards, there has been a surge in Internet shutdowns in the subsequent year, adversely affecting India's economy and global perceptions.

What is Internet Shutdown?

Internet shutdowns refer to the disruption of access to internet services, particularly mobile internet. These shutdowns are often implemented for various objectives, with a common justification being the prevention of communal tensions, civil unrest, or riots. It is crucial for such shutdowns to be proportionate to the situation at hand.

There are two main types of internet shutdowns:

            Preventive Shutdowns:

●       Implemented proactively before a potential disruptive event occurs.

●       For instance, in response to the dissemination of a video depicting a tailor being beheaded in Udaipur, a shutdown was enforced in anticipation of potential communal riots.

            Reactive Shutdowns:

●       Enforced in response to an event that has already taken place.

●       This type of shutdown is often used as a quick measure to control and manage escalating law and order situations effectively.

Legal Framework

●       In 2017, an amendment was made, and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules 2017 were introduced. This amended law relies on a broad interpretation of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act 1855, departing from traditional regulations.

●       The authority to issue such directives now rests with the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, a central government official.

●       The Supreme Court, in rulings such as Anuradha Bhasin and Faheema Shirin, has emphasized the importance of preserving access to the Internet. The apex court has outlined specific directions, stating that Internet shutdowns should only be employed in situations necessitating exceptional control and surveillance. Moreover, the court has emphasized that such shutdowns must be temporary, limited in scope, lawful, and proportionate.

●       In accordance with the Anuradha Bhasin judgment, it has been mandated that if an Internet shutdown is enforced, the affected individuals must be informed. However, it is frequently observed that there is a lack of public information regarding these shutdowns.

A glaring example of this non-compliance is evident in the recent restrictions imposed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. In response to the death of hardline separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the government restricted access to mobile data in the Valley of Kashmir. Such restrictions, also observed in Haryana following farmers' protests, showcase a worrying trend. While some orders restricting access are published, they remain exceptions rather than the rule. The Jammu and Kashmir government, in particular, has been negligent in uploading suspension orders on its official websites, exacerbating the lack of transparency.

An Internet shutdown tracker maintained by the Software Freedom Law Centre highlights the frequent suspension of Internet services, with specific instances in Jammu and Kashmir districts. The non-publication of these orders not only hinders individuals from challenging the legality of restrictions in a court of law but also fosters a trust deficit between the government and its citizens.

Beyond the legal implications, Internet shutdowns exact a heavy toll on both the economy and society. In 2020, the $2.8 billion economic loss and the disruption caused by 129 instances of Internet suspension affected 10.3 million individuals. The Internet, serving as a vital source for information, entertainment, healthcare, education, and livelihood, is integral to modern life. The harm inflicted by such suspensions, encompassing economic, psychological, social, and journalistic aspects, outweighs any speculative benefits.

While justifications for Internet restrictions often cite limited impact on mobile data services, this argument overlooks the reality. A 2019 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) report reveals that 97.02% of total Internet users rely on mobile devices, with only 3% having access to broadband Internet. As a consequence, Internet restrictions disproportionately affect those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, exacerbating existing inequalities.

Arguments in Favor of Internet Shutdown:

●       Preventing Dissemination of Harmful Content: Supporters argue that internet shutdowns can prevent the spread of hate speech and fake news that may incite violence and unrest. For instance, the government's internet shutdown in Delhi NCR following a farmers' protest aimed to combat misinformation and maintain law and order.

●       Maintaining Public Order and Security: Advocates claim that internet shutdowns are necessary to curb the organization and mobilization of protests that could disrupt public order and security. For example, shutdowns in Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370 were implemented to prevent anti-national activities and separatist movements.

●       Protecting National Security and Sovereignty: Supporters contend that internet shutdowns are crucial to safeguarding national security and sovereignty from external threats and cyberattacks. For instance, the government suspended internet services in border areas during a standoff with China to prevent espionage or sabotage.

●       Controlling Harmful Content Distribution: Some argue that internet shutdowns can help control the distribution and consumption of content that may be harmful or offensive to certain groups or individuals. Blocking internet access in specific regions has been cited as a measure to prevent the circulation of objectionable images or videos.

Arguments Against internet shutdown:

●       Undermining Democracy and Accountability: Critics argue that internet shutdowns undermine democracy by preventing citizens from accessing information, expressing opinions, participating in public debates, and holding authorities accountable for their actions.

●       Facilitating Authoritarianism: Opponents claim that internet shutdowns can enable authoritarian governments to silence critics and create distorted information echo chambers, suppressing dissent and diverse perspectives.

●       Ineffectiveness and Counterproductivity: Many critics contend that internet shutdowns are ineffective and counterproductive as they fail to address the root causes of the issues they aim to resolve. For example, shutdowns do not stop violence or terrorism but may fuel anger and resentment among affected populations.

●       Failure to Address Misinformation: Critics argue that internet shutdowns do not effectively prevent misinformation or hate speech; instead, they create information vacuums that can be exploited by malicious actors.

●       Arbitrary Nature and Lack of Due Process: Detractors assert that internet shutdowns are arbitrary and prone to abuse, often imposed without due process, transparency, or judicial oversight. Local authorities, lacking legal power, often order these shutdowns.

●       Lack of Clear Criteria and Oversight: Critics highlight that internet shutdowns lack clear and objective criteria, duration, and scope, making them susceptible to political interference and human rights violations.

The persistent issue of Internet shutdowns in India poses a dual challenge – the violation of constitutional rights and the detrimental impact on the economy and society. The Supreme Court's Anuradha Bhasin judgment laid down clear guidelines, emphasizing the temporary nature of restrictions and the necessity for transparency and legal scrutiny. However, the subsequent surge in Internet shutdowns, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, underscores a concerning trend of non-compliance and lack of accountability.

To shed the tag of being the "Internet shutdown capital" of the world and realize the potential of Digital India, faithful compliance with the Supreme Court's directives is imperative. This involves not only adhering to the constitutional principles outlined in Anuradha Bhasin but also incorporating these principles into statutory frameworks. The government must recognize that Internet access is a necessity in the contemporary world, and any restriction without publicly disclosed reasons creates a trust deficit.

Addressing the challenges posed by Internet shutdowns requires a holistic approach that considers the economic, social, and legal dimensions of the issue. By aligning policies with constitutional principles, promoting transparency, and prioritizing the fundamental right to access information, India can navigate the delicate balance between security concerns and democratic values in the digital age.