- Despite India digitalizing critical services, the Government still allows state and local authorities to suspend the Internet.
- Recent regional Internet shutdowns and service blocking events have highlighted the unintended toll these actions take on society.
- Rather than resorting to blanket shutdowns, authorities must explore alternative measures to address security concerns while ensuring people’s rights, safety, and access to essential services remain uncompromised.
India has rapidly embraced digital governance, integrating the Internet into essential public services such as healthcare, banking, transportation, and education. Under the Government of India’s flagship Digital India program, 9.2 billion documents have already been digitized and delivered to citizens, and 1.38 billion Aadhaar cards (unique citizen identity numbers) have been issued, effectively covering nearly the entire population.
Despite digitalizing these critical services, the Government still allows state and local authorities to suspend the Internet to ‘curb misinformation’ and ‘maintain law and order.’ Beyond the immediate inconvenience, these disruptions affect essential services, economic activity, and public safety.
| Internet Shutdown Process | Details |
|---|---|
| Authority to Order Internet Shutdowns | Only the Union Home Secretary (for the central government) or the State Home Secretary (for the state government) can authorize Internet shutdowns. In urgent cases, a Joint Secretary-level officer may issue the order, but it must be confirmed within 24 hours by the Home Secretary. |
| Grounds for Suspension | Internet services can only be suspended in cases of public emergency or public safety. Decisions must be based on necessity and proportionality, considering threats to law and order, national security, or public interest. |
| Duration and Review Mechanism | The initial suspension order is valid for up to 15 days. A Review Committee must assess the order within five working days. The committee includes: — Cabinet Secretary (Central level) or Chief Secretary (State level) — Secretary to Government of India in Legal Affairs or State Law Secretary — Telecom Secretary or State Home Secretary. |
| Transparency and Accountability | The 2017 Rules do not mandate public disclosure of shutdown orders, leading to transparency concerns. There is no explicit requirement for the government to publish reasons for shutdowns or allow real-time legal challenges. |
This report examines the human impact of three recent Internet shutdowns in India, questioning whether their enforcement outweighs the disruptions they cause.
Case Study 1: The Mahakumbh Stampede and Digital Silence
On 29 January 2025, a human stampede broke out in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, during the Maha Kumbh Mela, a 45-day pilgrimage during which an estimated 450 million devotees gathered along the Ganges River for a holy dip.
As chaos unfolded, videos and images of the tragedy quickly began circulating on social media. Concerned about the spread of misinformation, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath took to X, urging people to avoid unverified content and warning of strict action against those spreading falsehoods.
Official reports on casualties or the death toll were notably absent, as Internet services were reportedly suspended or restricted locally—though no formal confirmation was provided. This communication blackout delayed emergency response efforts, leaving victims without immediate aid and relatives in distress, unable to contact their loved ones. The Shahi Snan (holy dip) was temporarily halted, adding to the disruptions. It took 15 hours for the government to release an official death toll. Still, many questioned its accuracy as stranded individuals continued searching for their missing loved ones, with little to no information on whether they were alive or deceased.
Internet shutdowns during these situations exacerbate chaos instead of containing it. When distress levels peak, people struggle to communicate, seek medical aid, or locate missing family members. Seamless Internet access could have streamlined rescue operations, mitigated human suffering, and aided crowd management to prevent stampedes.
This incident raises a critical question: Should preventing misinformation take precedence over ensuring immediate access to emergency services and vital information using the Internet?
Case Study 2: Sambhal Violence and Internet Shutdown: A Digital Blackout Amid Crisis
On 24 November 2024, Sambhal District Magistrate Rajendra Pensia ordered a 24-hour Internet shutdown following violence during a mosque survey. The shutdown was officially justified to prevent misinformation and maintain law and order. (see event page).
Actions Taken During the Shutdown:
✔ Schools were closed.
✔ Entry of outsiders, organizations, and public representatives was restricted without official permission.
✔ Heavy security deployment across the district.
✔ A magisterial inquiry was ordered into the incident.
After the #violence in Sambhal, holiday in all schools and #internet service has been closed. District Magistrate Sambhal has stopped the entry of outsiders and public representatives in #Sambhal.#SambhalJamaMasjid #SambhalViolence pic.twitter.com/xGy2GkXPPH
— Devesh , वनवासी (@Devesh81403955) November 25, 2024
What Happened During the Violence?
- Five people died from gunshot wounds.
- Nearly two dozen people, including police officers and senior officials, were injured.
- Tensions escalated due to a large gathering near the mosque.
Residents allege that the Internet was shut down before the violence erupted, preventing real-time documentation of events. No publicly available government order confirms the shutdown, raising concerns over transparency. Without Internet access, alternative narratives and evidence that usually emerge online were effectively suppressed.
Despite Sambhal’s reputation for digital governance, the district magistrate’s official X handle remained active that day, highlighting district achievements—yet it made no mention of the Internet suspension. This underscores the severe consequences of an abrupt digital blackout, leaving citizens uninformed at a critical moment.
During the shutdown:
🚫 Several passengers were stranded in Sambhal, missing web check-in for a flight, causing travel delays and loss of money.
🚫 A blood donation campaign was cut short.
🚫 Thousands of financial transactions were disrupted mid-payment, and no concrete data on the extent of the impact is available.
🚫 Several public hospitals reported delays in critical medical operations.
This incident raises another fundamental question: Does information moderation by the government justify cutting off an entire region from vital digital access?
Case Study 3: Bhadrak District Service Blocking
On 28 September 2024, the Government of Odisha issued prohibitory orders restricting access to Internet services such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat (See event page). The order was enforced under a critical Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in conjunction with Rule 2(1) of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency/Public Safety) Rules, 2017.
This event was concerning for several reasons:
- No Judicial Oversight: Unlike in some countries where courts review decisions of shutdowns, India’s shutdowns are executive decisions without prior judicial approval, giving exceptional powers to the executive to shut down but not publicize the review of such decisions, making them less accountable.
- Lack of Transparency: Orders are not always publicly disclosed, making it difficult to challenge them.
- Economic and Social Impact: Shutdowns affect businesses, education, healthcare, and emergency response services, often disproportionately harming the poor and digitally dependent communities. It also impacts individuals with limited digital skills, making understanding digital services’ intersectional effects challenging.
The broader implications of service blocking go beyond isolated incidents in specific regions. They affect broader social, economic, and political landscapes, including healthcare services, social benefits, education, banking, and transportation, leaving citizens vulnerable at critical moments.
| Services Impacted | Effects of Internet Shutdown/ Service Blocking |
|---|---|
| Healthcare | Telemedicine services are halted, emergency assistance is delayed, and hospitals cannot access patient records. |
| Banking and Payments | UPI transactions fail, digital banking is inaccessible, ATM withdrawals are disrupted, and businesses suffer losses. Impacts on government welfare disbursements, such as pension payments, disability, and other direct beneficiary schemes. |
| Education | Online classes are disrupted, students lose access to study materials, and exams are postponed or canceled. |
| Public Transport | Railway ticketing and airport check-ins are disrupted, ride-hailing services are unavailable, and passengers are stranded. This affects logistics and supply chains (for example, causing delivery delays for essential goods). |
| Emergency Services | Delays in law enforcement coordination, blood donation drives are interrupted, and citizens cannot report incidents. |
| Digital Governance | Citizens cannot access government services, e-document verifications are halted, and health schemes, insurance, grievances, and redressals are affected. |
Rather than resorting to blanket shutdowns, authorities must explore alternative measures to address security concerns while ensuring people’s rights, safety, and access to essential services remain uncompromised. The actual cost of an Internet shutdown isn’t just economic—it’s measured in lost lives, missed opportunities, and deepened societal fractures.
To be continued.
Saadia Azim, a public policy expert from India, conducts in-depth research on the Digital Divide and actively advocates for Internet Rights. As the Vice President for Publicity at the Internet Society’s Kolkata Chapter, she plays a key role in bridging the gap in understanding digital accessibility and governance.
Photo by Dibakar Roy via Pexels.