INTODUCTION
India has been one of the largest democracy with most frequent internet shutdowns. According to
the Access Now global report on internet shutdowns in 2024: India recorded 84 internet shutdowns
in 2024, the highest number among democratic nations making India internet shutdown capital of
the world. Internet have multiple functions like- Freedom of Expression, Communication,
Education, Business & Trade, etc, restriction on access to mobile data, broadband, or specific
telecom services in a defined area for a defined time is know as “internet curfew”.It is also known
as ‘Digital curfew’ or ‘internet kill switch’ In the Indian constitution Internet curfew is justified on
basis like- public order, avoid violence or disruption, stopping rumours and maintaining peace in
country. These kind of restriction can hinder the right to practice fundamental rights of an individual
creating a serious problem. It also create social and economic inequalities.
EXAMPLES OF INTERNET CURFEW
1. Jammu and Kashmir (2019)
Government imposed internet shutdown in the state after the removal of Article 370 which provided
Jammu and Kashmir special status, own constitution, administrative autonomy. It was imposed to
maintain public order in the state.
2. Delhi (2019)
During the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in Delhi, internet services were
temporarily suspended in certain areas.
3. Punjab and Haryana (2018)
They have also faced internet shutdown during the farmers protest.
4. Rajasthan (2018)
Rajasthan witnessed internet shutdowns during incidents of communal tension and to prevent
cheating during examinations.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
I. Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
The act empowers the central and state government to impose restriction or suspend the
telecommunications services. The circumstances specified for this was- sovereignty and integrate
on the nation, state security and public order.
II. Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
This section empower the District Magistrate and executive authorities to issue urgent order in the
interest of national security. Before the suspension rule was established government used section
144 to justify the internet shutdown even though the section was meant for physical control not
online communication.
III. Information Technology Act, 2000
This act was introduced to empower the government to control the online content. Section 69 of the
act gives state the power to block the websites or application which may be dangerous for nations
security and sovereignty.
IV. Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017
In 2017, the government notified the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public
Emergency or Public Safety) Rules under the Telegraph Act. Internet shutdowns allowed only in
exceptional situations and the Orders can be issued only by: Union Home Secretary and State Home
Secretary.
V. Amendment to Suspension Rules, 2020
The 2017 act was amended to add a mandatory review committee and also there should be regular
supervision of the internet shutdowns.
VI. Telecommunications Act, 2023
The Telecommunications Act, 2023 replaced the colonial Telegraph Act. It provides a
comprehensive legal basis for regulation of telecom and internet services in India.
VII. Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024
Orders must be in writing, Issued only by competent senior authorities, Must clearly state: Reasons
for suspension, Geographic scope, Specific duration and Review Committees must meet within a
prescribed time.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATED
In modern times, the Internet plays a predominant role in the life of a man. Part III of the Indian
Constitution deals with the fundamental rights of the individual.
A. Article 19(1)(a): freedom of speech and expression
Speech nowadays happens through the online platform, from ordinary communication to political
criticism or protest against government. Everything requires the online platform which is driven by
internet for wide coverage of the areas. Internet curfew creates a barrier of communication, neither
the message could be send nor would it be received. Therefore right to freedom of speech and
expression is violated on an individual.
B. Article 19(1)(g): trade, profession, and livelihood
Freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business shutting down
of the internet threatens the livelihood of people who are engaged in e-commerce or online delivery
services and also causes obstruction in working of e-banking services, hotels etc.
C. Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.” It includes right to life with dignity,
which include access to information, access to healthcare services, ability to communicate, etc.
Internet shutdown deprive the people from there right to live with dignity. Right to privacy which is
not separately mentioned in the constitution but is included in Article 21 is also violated as it creates
interference with Access to personal data and services, Individual autonomy in decision-making,
etc. Right to education is also interfered as without internet online lectures are not possible also the
lack of e book services.
D. The United Nations Human Rights Commission’s General Assembly stated that every person in
the world is entitled to have access to the internet as it is considered as one of the essential human
rights.
CASE LAWS
1. Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020)
Based on the ruling from Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, it appears that in regards to the use of
the Internet, there are a number of different ways you can use the internet to express yourself
through your freedom of speech and expression, while also being able to use it for other areas such
as profession, trade, occupation, and business, and this can be done for the promotion of free speech
or expression, as these activities are protected by Articles 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Indian
Constitution. Supreme Court made several important points like- Indefinite internet shutdowns are
impermissible, must satisfy proportionality.
Any restriction on these rights must comply with Article 19(2) and Article 19(6) and must also pass
the test of proportionality, meaning the restriction should be reasonable, necessary, and not
excessive.
2. Faheema Shirin R.K. v State of Kerala (2019)
The case is based on the Article 21 right to education is hindered due to internet curfew. The kerela
court held that restricting a hostel student access to internet interface with there learning ability and
knowledge as online resources are not accessible for them making a barrier in their studies. Thus,
the High Court ruled that students have the right to access the Internet under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. This judgement proves that internet is no longer a luxury but rather is a essential part
of students life and career.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v Union of India (1997)
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court
examined the constitutionality of telephone tapping under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and held
that private communication forms an essential part of the right to privacy under Article 21. While
recognising the State’s power to intercept communications in cases of public emergency or public
safety, the Court ruled that such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be accompanied by
procedural safeguards, including authorisation by a competent authority and periodic review. This
judgment is relevant to internet curfews as it reinforces the principle that restrictions on
communication technologies must be lawful, necessary, proportionate, and subject to oversight,
failing which they violate fundamental rights.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The increasing use of internet curfews in India highlights a serious tension between nation peace
and constitutional freedoms. Internet shutdown are justified on the grounds- public order, national
security, and prevention of violence but avoids the violation of fundamental rights and the
proportionality test. India being termed the internet shutdown capital of the world reflects an over-
dependence on a drastic measure rather than effective methods.
Internet curfew effects entire population of the country irrespective of their individual involvement
in the unlawful activity, in result it leads to collective punishment, suffering of individuals like-
students, small traders, people lacking health care services, etc. Such measures often fail the test of
proportionality, as recognised by the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, which
mandates that restrictions on fundamental rights must be necessary and reasonable.
From a socio-economic perspective, shutdowns disproportionately affect vulnerable sections of
society. Small traders dependent on digital payments, gig-economy workers, students relying on
online education, and rural populations with limited offline alternatives bear the maximum impact.
This widens existing inequalities and undermines the right to livelihood and dignified life under
Article 21.
As I see it, normalising internet shutdowns poses a serious threat to democratic governance. What
started as exceptional measures taken during times of crisis are becoming commonplace (both in
terms of number and permanence) and create an ongoing risk of eroding the civil liberties of
everyone to an extent. Many legitimate security concerns exist, but they must be protected through
targeted, accountable, and constitutionally compliant policies so that democracy can preserve public
order without suppressing the voices of its citizens.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Internet curfews may be imposed to protect public order and national security, but their frequent use
in India raises serious constitutional concerns. In a digital age, access to the internet is closely
linked to the exercise of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, livelihood, education, and
the right to live with dignity. Blanket and prolonged shutdowns often fail the test of proportionality
and disproportionately affect ordinary citizens. While India has developed a legal framework to
regulate such powers, effective implementation, transparency, and judicial oversight remain
essential. Internet curfews must therefore remain a measure of last resort, ensuring that the
maintenance of order does not undermine democratic values and fundamental rights.
Key Recommendations to the Indian Central and State Governments are:
1. Ensure any restriction on internet access is lawful, necessary, proportionate, and limited in
scope, and ensure compliance with international law as reflected in the Supreme Court
directives in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.
2. Review and revise the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or
Public Safety) Rules, 2017, after consultation with civil society groups, digital rights
experts, and other stakeholders to bring the rules in line with international legal standards.
3. Publish every internet suspension order with details on the reasons for shutdown, duration of
the shutdown, legal provision under which the internet was suspended, and what efforts
were made to ensure the suspension was necessary and proportionate.
4. End broad, indiscriminate, and indefinite internet shutdown