Introduction
The Internet has become an essential part of our lives for communication, education, commerce, and political engagement in the 21st century. In India, where over 800 million people are online, it serves as a vital resource for both individuals and organizations. However, the state’s frequent internet shutdowns have sparked serious worries about human rights, democratic principles, and constitutional freedoms. Unfortunately, India has gained a troubling reputation for having one of the highest rates of internet shutdowns globally over the last ten years. This article delves into the issue of internet shutdowns in India, exploring the legal framework surrounding them, their impact on human rights, and how the judiciary has responded. It also aims to assess whether these actions are justified in terms of proportionality and necessity within a constitutional democracy.
Internet Shutdowns: The Concept and Trends
In its broadest definition, internet shutdown is a term that refers to making internet or mobile services unreachable or unusable by a particular section of the population or by location, typically by the order of the government. It can be total, meaning “insidious blackout of all internet services,” or partial, broken down into mobile data alone or blocking certain sites or throttling bandwidth.
Shutdowns are justified on various bases nationally and internationally, including public order, national security, and other reasons to evade misinformation. Most Indian shutdowns are ordered either during protests, communal tensions, elections, or public exams.
Reports from Access Now and from the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) show that about 60-70 percent of shutdowns globally occur in India every year. Kashmir has had the longest internet blackout for a democracy, with blackout days lasting for 213 days (August 2019 to March 2020) after the abrogation of Article 370.
Legal Framework for Internet Shutdowns in India
Internet shutdowns in India are mainly governed by two key provisions:
1. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – This section gives the government the authority to take control of telecommunication services and halt communication “in the interest of public safety” or during a “public emergency.” – However, the phrases “public emergency” and “public safety” aren’t clearly defined, which allows for a wide range of executive interpretation.
2. Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 – These rules, established under the Telegraph Act, outline the process for implementing shutdowns. – Orders must be issued by the Home Secretary (either Central or State), and a review committee is required to assess these orders within five days. – What was initially meant to be a rare measure has now turned into a common practice.
3. Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – This section allows district magistrates to issue orders in urgent situations involving nuisance or potential danger. – Prior to 2017, Section 144 was frequently used to suspend internet services, but the Supreme Court clarified in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) that telecom suspensions should follow the 2017 Rules.
4. Information Technology Act, 2000 – While this act doesn’t directly authorize shutdowns, its provisions regarding the blocking of websites and content (Section 69A) are often leveraged to limit digital communication.
Constitutional and Human Rights Dimensions
The Indian Constitution does not explicitly grant the right to access the internet, but in judicial interpretations, the courts have held that fundamental rights at least include access to digital platforms. Shutdowns infringe various constitutional rights:
Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a))
The internet is a medium of expression and of dissent and the access to several opinions and information. Blanket shutdowns curtail this right disproportionately.
Freedom to Carry on Trade and Business (Article 19(1)(g))
In the digital age, e-commerce, online banking, and digital transactions are inherent to sustenance. Shutdowns obstruct economic rights.
Right to Education (Article 21A)
Especially during the days of COVID-19, online learning was pertinent for education. Restrictions on the internet in places like Kashmir denied students a right to education, thereby defeating the spirit of Article 21A.
Right to Privacy and Life (Article 21)
The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. Shutdowns deny access to healthcare, emergency services, and other sectors of personal liberty.
International Human Rights Law
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party, guarantees freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information.
UN Human Rights Council (2016) condemned the shutdown of the internet as a violation of international human rights law.
Human Rights and Socio-Economic Impact
Shutdowns in India carry a lot of ramifications:
1. Democratic Deficit – Shutdowns are imposed during the protests and curtail dissent, thus eroding democratic participation.
2. Economic Losses – The report by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) states that nearly $3 billion was lost by India between 2012-2017 due to the declared shutdowns.
– Businesses relying on digital payments, e-commerce, and startups face impediments.
3. Access to Justice and Healthcare – Legal aid services, telemedicine, and online grievance redressal become inaccessible, affecting people’s fundamental rights to health and justice.
4. Educational Disruption – Students in Kashmir and areas affected elsewhere face educational setbacks due to prolonged shutdowns.
5. Social Marginalization – Shutdowns have a disproportionate effect on marginal communities that depend on cheap mobile internet for essential services.
Security and Liberty in Balance:
Governments used to justify shutdowns as means of limiting the spread of false information, maintaining law and order, and restraining violence. In conflict-prone or communally sensitive areas, authorities look upon these shutdowns as preventive measures.
However, it also brings with it the requirement that limitations on fundamental rights should be:
1. Legitimate – for a proper purpose (for instance, public order).
2. Necessary – no less intrusive alternative should exist.
3. Proportional – so that the harm done does not outweigh the benefit.
Generally, blanket shutdowns do not meet the litmus test. Entire populations rather than individuals spreading misinformation are deprived of rights as a form of collective punishment.
Way Forward
1. Clear Legislative Standards – We need to update the 2017 Rules to clearly define what we mean by “public emergency” and “public safety.” – It’s essential to have independent judicial oversight before any shutdowns are approved.
2. Transparency and Accountability – Every shutdown order should be made public and open to scrutiny by the community.
3. Technological Alternatives – Rather than imposing blanket bans, authorities could consider targeted content takedowns, blocking specific websites, or just slowing down services in certain areas.
4. Judicial Assertiveness – Courts should go beyond just recognizing rights; they need to enforce a strict review of shutdowns.
5. International Best Practices – India can learn from the UN Guiding Principles and from other democracies that implement narrowly focused measures instead of broad shutdowns.
Conclusion
The shutdowns on the internet in India further highlight the state’s dual needs for securing itself from the threat of outside forces and maintaining constitutional freedoms. While it is the duty of the state to ensure the maintenance of law and order, such indiscriminate bans only hurt the tenets of democracy and human rights as well as weaken economic growth.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Anuradha Bhasin created a framework of proportionality, transparency, and temporariness, but its enforcement is rather weak. In the future, India must find a balanced approach that protects public order but does not erode the digital rights which have become integral to citizenship.
Access to the Internet has ceased to be a luxury and has, in fact, become a necessity in any democratic country because it is linked with freedom of expression, livelihood, and dignity. The Indian perspective of internet shutdowns needs to change to one of empowerment to ensure that security does not come at the cost of fundamental rights.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
