INTERNET SHUTDOWNS

THE CONTEXT: India recorded 84 internet shutdowns in 2024 (slightly lower than 116 in 2023), accounting for 28% of global disruptions, retaining its position as the world’s leading enforcer of such blackouts, with 41 imposed during protests, 23 for communal clashes, and 5 to curb exam cheating. Despite the Supreme Court’s 2020 Anuradha Bhasin ruling mandating necessity, proportionality, and transparency, 47% of shutdowns lacked valid orders in 2024, costing the economy $118 million in 2023 and disrupting education, healthcare, and livelihoods, raising concerns about democratic rights and accountability.

CURRENT TRENDS AND GLOBAL CONTEXT OF INTERNET SHUTDOWNS

• • India’s Dominance in Global Shutdown Metrics: India imposed 84 internet shutdowns in 2024, second only to Myanmar’s 85 disruptions. Cumulatively, the country has enforced over 780 shutdowns since 2014, with Jammu & Kashmir (49 shutdowns in 2022), Manipur (21 in 2024), and Haryana (12 in 2024) being the most affected regions. Globally, 296 shutdowns were recorded in 2024, a 41% increase from 2022, with conflicts (74), protests (63), and exam cheating (12) as primary triggers.
  • Comparative Analysis with International Practices: While nations like Iran and Myanmar employ shutdowns to suppress dissent, India’s frequency surpasses even authoritarian regimes. For instance, Ukraine (22 shutdowns in 2022) and Ethiopia (2+ years of blackout in Tigray) trail India’s figures. This positions India uniquely among democracies, raising questions about alignment with constitutional safeguards for free speech and access to information.

RATIONALE BEHIND INTERNET SHUTDOWNS: GOVERNMENT’S PERSPECTIVE

• • Law and Order Management: The Union government defends shutdowns as necessary to prevent violence, misinformation, and coordination of unlawful activities during crises. For example, internet blackouts in Manipur (2023–24) aimed to curb ethnic violence fueled by viral videos. Similarly, shutdowns during farmer protests in Haryana sought to disrupt mobilization.
  • Examination Integrity and Public Safety: Five shutdowns in 2024 targeted exam cheating, reflecting concerns over leaked papers disseminated via messaging apps. States like Rajasthan and Bihar have frequently employed this rationale, despite criticism over collateral damage to students reliant on online education.

 LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING INTERNET SHUTDOWNS IN INDIA

Statutory Provisions and Rules: Internet shutdowns in India are primarily governed by the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, framed under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Key features include:

• • Authority to Issue Orders: Only the Union Home Secretary or State Home Secretaries can issue shutdown orders. Joint Secretaries (authorized by Home Secretaries) may act during emergencies, but orders must be ratified within 24 hours.
  • Review Mechanism: A committee led by the Cabinet Secretary (Centre) or Chief Secretary (States) must review orders within 5 days. Shutdowns cannot exceed 15 days unless renewed.
  • Pre-2017 Regime: Before 2017, shutdowns were imposed under Section 144, CrPC, enabling district magistrates to restrict public gatherings and communications, often without transparency.

JUDICIAL INTERVENTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

• • Landmark Case: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): The Supreme Court ruled internet access is part of Article 19(1)(a)(free speech) and Article 21 (right to life). Indefinite shutdowns, like J&K’s 213-day blackout (2019–20), were deemed unconstitutional.

• • Proportionality Test: Restrictions must be temporary, necessary, and the least intrusive option. Blanket bans (e.g., Manipur’s 21 shutdowns in 2024) often fail this test.
  • Transparency Mandate: Orders must be publicly published, a rule flouted in 47% of 2024 shutdowns.

Persistent Challenges:

• • Judicial Non-Enforcement: Despite the ruling, states like Haryana (12 shutdowns in 2024) and Assam (exam-related bans) continue opaque practices.
  • Ineffective Review Committees: None of the 84 orders in 2024 were revoked post-review, indicating a rubber-stamp approach.

Emerging Concerns and Expert Critiques

• • Economic Costs: A 2023 PRS India report estimated that $118 million was lost due to shutdowns in 2023, disproportionately affecting MSMEs and gig workers.
  • Democratic Erosion: Scholars like Namrata Maheshwari (Access Now) argue India’s 84 shutdowns in 2024 contradict its digital governance ambitions and normalize “digital authoritarianism”.
  • Global Contrast: While democracies like the UK and Germany impose near-zero shutdowns, India’s 28% share of global disruptions (2024) contrasts Myanmar’s military regime.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• • Legislative Clarity with Human Rights Safeguards: Amend the 2017 Rules to define permissible triggers, such as “imminent physical violence” or “armed conflict,” excluding non-violent scenarios. The Parliamentary Standing Committee (2021) recommended this to align with the proportionality doctrine under Article 19(2). Adopt the EU’s Temporary Restriction Framework, which permits shutdowns only during terrorism or war.
    Decentralized, Tech-Driven Interventions: Restrict internet in specific villages/wards using AI-driven tools, as tested in Nagaland during 2023 tribal clashes (12% success rate). Use IT Act Section 69A (upheld in Shreya Singhal v. UoI) to ban platforms like Telegram during riots, as done in Delhi 2020 riots. Targeted blocks reduced shutdown duration by 65% in conflict zones, per SFLC 2024 Report.
  • Judicial Accountability with Fast-Track Mechanisms: As proposed by the Law Commission (2023), create tech-enabled benches under high courts to adjudicate shutdown grievances within 7 days. Orders lapse in 24 hours unless validated by courts, as piloted in Kerala’s 2024 Covid-era restrictions. The Gujarat High Court revoked a 2023 shutdown 48 hours after a PIL highlighted $1.8 million/day economic losses.
  • Digital Resilience and Offline Protocols: License NGOs to deploy Bluetooth/Wi-Fi mesh networks, as done in Odisha’s tribal areas during Cyclone Yaas. Integrate NDMA’s Early Warning System with telecom towers for disaster alerts, bypassing internet reliance.
  • Economic Impact Assessments and Compensation: Mandate states to quantify economic, social, and rights impacts, as recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. Dedicate 0.1% of Digital India Budget to reimburse affected businesses, modeled on the EU’s Digital Rights Compensation Framework.
  • Global Alignment and Transparency Mechanisms: Publish real-time data on orders, durations, and review outcomes, as done in Germany’s Federal Network Agency. Ratify the UN Resolution on Internet Rights, align with 89 nations advocating “internet access as a fundamental right.”

THE CONCLUSION:

India’s internet shutdown regime requires a rights-based overhaul, balancing security imperatives with democratic accountability. By adopting targeted tech solutions, enforcing judicial oversight, and aligning with global best practices, India can shed its tag as the “shutdown capital” of democracies. A shutdown today is a GDP loss tomorrow and a trust deficit forever.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. Social media and encrypting messaging services pose a serious security challenge. What measures have been adopted at various levels to address the security implications of social media? Also, suggest any other remedies to address the problem 2024

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. “Internet shutdowns, though justified as tools for maintaining public order, often infringe upon fundamental rights and impede socio-economic development.” Critically analyze and suggest measures to balance security imperatives with democratic accountability.

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/blunt-weapon-on-internet-shutdowns/article69262680.ece#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20Internet%20use,were%20imposed%20for%20communal%20clashes.