On 2 October 2025, Gaurav Dayal, Secretary of the Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued a notification ordering a 48-hour suspension of internet services in Bareilly district. The directive was justified as a preventive measure to maintain public order during the Dussehra festivities. The decision came amid heightened security arrangements across the district. Police carried out drone surveillance, flag marches, and strict monitoring to avert communal tensions or law-and-order disturbances. The vigilance followed violent incidents reported in Bareilly on 26 September, when protests erupted after an Islamic scholar announced demonstrations over alleged derogatory remarks against the Prophet — a controversy that had also flared up in Shahjahanpur following the “I Love Muhammad” posters episode.

An internet shutdown refers to the deliberate disruption of internet or electronic communication services, rendering them inaccessible for a specific population or area. Governments often invoke such measures during emergencies or perceived threats to public order, arguing that temporary communication restrictions help prevent the spread of rumours and escalation of violence. However, such actions also raise serious constitutional, human rights, and economic concerns. The legality of internet shutdowns in India remains a subject of continuing debate. The Supreme Court, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), recognised access to the internet as integral to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and as part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Despite this recognition, the State retains statutory authority to impose restrictions under certain laws — primarily under three legal frameworks:

• Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, read with the Temporary Suspension Rules, 2017;
• Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008, read with the Blocking Rules, 2009; and Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Procedure and Limitations

Under the 1885 Telegraph Act and the 2017 Rules, only the Union or State Home Secretary is empowered to authorise an internet suspension order. Such orders must be based on a clear assessment of a “public emergency” or a threat to “public safety”. A Review Committee, constituted under these Rules, must examine the order within five days to ensure compliance with statutory provisions. However, the Committee lacks the authority to revoke the shutdown; it can only record its findings. Furthermore, these findings are not mandated to be made public, leaving citizens without access to critical information and thereby undermining transparency. This opacity has repeatedly drawn judicial criticism. In Anuradha Bhasin (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that any internet suspension order must be published and reasoned, ensuring compliance with the test of necessity and proportionality under Article 19(2). Similarly, in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (2019), the Kerala High Court held that the right to internet access forms part of the right to education and privacy under Article 21. Earlier, in Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2014), the Court had emphasised that the publication of such orders is essential for democratic accountability.

India has, unfortunately, emerged as the global leader in internet shutdowns. Between January 2012 and February 2024, the country witnessed over 800 government-imposed suspensions, with Kashmir, Manipur, and parts of Rajasthan being the most affected regions. These frequent disruptions, often justified on security grounds, have been criticised both domestically and internationally. The Freedom House Internet Freedom Index (2019) classified India as a “partially free democracy”, assigning it a modest score of 55/100. The UN Human Rights Committee, in its 2016 recommendation, urged India to adopt a “human rights-based approach” to such restrictions and to employ shutdowns only in the rarest circumstances. The Indian government, however, resisted this terminology, signalling its firm position on retaining wide discretionary powers.

While the State’s duty to maintain public order is undeniable, frequent and prolonged internet shutdowns raise fundamental questions about proportionality, transparency, and accountability. Judicial precedents have consistently underscored that such measures must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, and that the rationale behind them must be made public.

As India continues to digitise governance, education, and commerce, the internet has become not a luxury but a lifeline of liberty.

Any restriction on it must be exercised with the utmost restraint, ensuring that the right to security does not trample upon the right to freedom. Going forward, India’s challenge lies in striking this delicate balance — safeguarding peace without silencing progress.

The writer is a student of law at At Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law Punjab and writes on legal issues