Internet Shutdowns

Mobile Internet and SMS services were susspend in Jodhpur (Rajasthan) for three days after local authorities imposed a curfew under Section 144 following communal violence in the city on 3 May 2022. Fixed lines and cable broadband connections, as well as voice calls, were still operational. The District Magistrate cited Section 2(i) of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 as grounds for the order. This section specifically deals with the checks and balances in place around ordering Internet shutdowns. This was the second Internet shutdown in the region in the last month — a week-long internet shutdown was imposed in Karauli district of Rajasthan in the first week of April 2023, reportedly prompted by communal clashes. Internet shutdowns during protests or civil unrest impact the ability of citizens to get accurate information from government sources when they need it most. It also becomes harder for citizens to contact family members and friends in other parts of the country, or in other countries.

Authorities suspended mobile Internet and SMS services in the Patiala district in Punjab on 30 April 2022 (between 9:30 to 16:00 local time) to maintain law and order following a clash between two groups the day before. The Punjab government said the decision had been taken in the public interest with a view to stopping the spread of misinformation and rumors, through social media platforms. Internet shutdowns during protests or civil unrest impact the ability of citizens to get accurate information from government sources when they need it most. It also becomes harder for citizens to contact family members and friends in other parts of the country, or in other countries.

The state government of West Bengal in India ordered Internet shutdowns in seven districts from 11:00 to 15:15 IST on March 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 to prevent exam question papers from being leaked. Internet shutdowns during exams impact the ability of citizens to access online businesses, banking services, health services, educational institutions, or contact loves ones. The Suspension Order was challenged in a petition filed by Ashlesh Biradar, a digital literacy fellow at Internet Freedom Foundation and a resident of West Bengal, on who argued that the Suspension Order was illegal because: It did not contain any material facts to demonstrate why it was necessary to suspend internet services; It was issued under Section 144 of the CrPC even though it is not permissible to do so, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. Moreover, assuming that it could have been issued under Section 144 of the CrPC, it has been issued by an officer not empowered to issue such an order under the provision; It has not been issued because of a public emergency or on account of public safety, which are prerequisites for suspending internet services under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 (Telecom Suspension Rules); It does not comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin, as the Suspension Order was not published by the West Bengal Government, and also because it is disproportionate; and It restricts the right to speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This is only the second time that a court in India has stayed an Internet suspension order.

The state government of West Bengal in India ordered Internet shutdowns in seven districts from 11:00 to 15:15 IST on March 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 to prevent exam question papers from being leaked. Internet shutdowns during exams impact the ability of citizens to access online businesses, banking services, health services, educational institutions, or contact loves ones. The Suspension Order was challenged in a petition filed by Ashlesh Biradar, a digital literacy fellow at Internet Freedom Foundation and a resident of West Bengal, on who argued that the Suspension Order was illegal because: It did not contain any material facts to demonstrate why it was necessary to suspend internet services; It was issued under Section 144 of the CrPC even though it is not permissible to do so, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. Moreover, assuming that it could have been issued under Section 144 of the CrPC, it has been issued by an officer not empowered to issue such an order under the provision; It has not been issued because of a public emergency or on account of public safety, which are prerequisites for suspending internet services under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 (Telecom Suspension Rules); It does not comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin, as the Suspension Order was not published by the West Bengal Government, and also because it is disproportionate; and It restricts the right to speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This is only the second time that a court in India has stayed an Internet suspension order.

The state government of West Bengal in India ordered Internet shutdowns in seven districts from 11:00 to 15:15 IST on March 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 to prevent exam question papers from being leaked. Internet shutdowns during exams impact the ability of citizens to access online businesses, banking services, health services, educational institutions, or contact loves ones. The Suspension Order was challenged in a petition filed by Ashlesh Biradar, a digital literacy fellow at Internet Freedom Foundation and a resident of West Bengal, on who argued that the Suspension Order was illegal because: It did not contain any material facts to demonstrate why it was necessary to suspend internet services; It was issued under Section 144 of the CrPC even though it is not permissible to do so, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. Moreover, assuming that it could have been issued under Section 144 of the CrPC, it has been issued by an officer not empowered to issue such an order under the provision; It has not been issued because of a public emergency or on account of public safety, which are prerequisites for suspending internet services under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 (Telecom Suspension Rules); It does not comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin, as the Suspension Order was not published by the West Bengal Government, and also because it is disproportionate; and It restricts the right to speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This is only the second time that a court in India has stayed an Internet suspension order.

The state government of West Bengal in India ordered Internet shutdowns in seven districts from 11:00 to 15:15 IST on March 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 to prevent exam question papers from being leaked. Internet shutdowns during exams impact the ability of citizens to access online businesses, banking services, health services, educational institutions, or contact loves ones. The Suspension Order was challenged in a petition filed by Ashlesh Biradar, a digital literacy fellow at Internet Freedom Foundation and a resident of West Bengal, on who argued that the Suspension Order was illegal because: It did not contain any material facts to demonstrate why it was necessary to suspend internet services; It was issued under Section 144 of the CrPC even though it is not permissible to do so, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. Moreover, assuming that it could have been issued under Section 144 of the CrPC, it has been issued by an officer not empowered to issue such an order under the provision; It has not been issued because of a public emergency or on account of public safety, which are prerequisites for suspending internet services under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 (Telecom Suspension Rules); It does not comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin, as the Suspension Order was not published by the West Bengal Government, and also because it is disproportionate; and It restricts the right to speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This is only the second time that a court in India has stayed an Internet suspension order.

The state government of West Bengal in India ordered Internet shutdowns in seven districts from 11:00 to 15:15 IST on March 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 to prevent exam question papers from being leaked. Internet shutdowns during exams impact the ability of citizens to access online businesses, banking services, health services, educational institutions, or contact loves ones. The Suspension Order was challenged in a petition filed by Ashlesh Biradar, a digital literacy fellow at Internet Freedom Foundation and a resident of West Bengal, on who argued that the Suspension Order was illegal because: It did not contain any material facts to demonstrate why it was necessary to suspend internet services; It was issued under Section 144 of the CrPC even though it is not permissible to do so, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. Moreover, assuming that it could have been issued under Section 144 of the CrPC, it has been issued by an officer not empowered to issue such an order under the provision; It has not been issued because of a public emergency or on account of public safety, which are prerequisites for suspending internet services under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 (Telecom Suspension Rules); It does not comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin, as the Suspension Order was not published by the West Bengal Government, and also because it is disproportionate; and It restricts the right to speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This is only the second time that a court in India has stayed an Internet suspension order.

The state government of West Bengal in India ordered Internet shutdowns in seven districts from 11:00 to 15:15 IST on March 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 to prevent exam question papers from being leaked. Internet shutdowns during exams impact the ability of citizens to access online businesses, banking services, health services, educational institutions, or contact loves ones. The Suspension Order was challenged in a petition filed by Ashlesh Biradar, a digital literacy fellow at Internet Freedom Foundation and a resident of West Bengal, on who argued that the Suspension Order was illegal because: It did not contain any material facts to demonstrate why it was necessary to suspend internet services; It was issued under Section 144 of the CrPC even though it is not permissible to do so, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. Moreover, assuming that it could have been issued under Section 144 of the CrPC, it has been issued by an officer not empowered to issue such an order under the provision; It has not been issued because of a public emergency or on account of public safety, which are prerequisites for suspending internet services under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 (Telecom Suspension Rules); It does not comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin, as the Suspension Order was not published by the West Bengal Government, and also because it is disproportionate; and It restricts the right to speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This is only the second time that a court in India has stayed an Internet suspension order.

The state government of West Bengal in India ordered Internet shutdowns in seven districts from 11:00 to 15:15 IST on March 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 to prevent exam question papers from being leaked. Internet shutdowns during exams impact the ability of citizens to access online businesses, banking services, health services, educational institutions, or contact loves ones. The Suspension Order was challenged in a petition filed by Ashlesh Biradar, a digital literacy fellow at Internet Freedom Foundation and a resident of West Bengal, on who argued that the Suspension Order was illegal because: It did not contain any material facts to demonstrate why it was necessary to suspend internet services; It was issued under Section 144 of the CrPC even though it is not permissible to do so, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. Moreover, assuming that it could have been issued under Section 144 of the CrPC, it has been issued by an officer not empowered to issue such an order under the provision; It has not been issued because of a public emergency or on account of public safety, which are prerequisites for suspending internet services under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 (Telecom Suspension Rules); It does not comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin, as the Suspension Order was not published by the West Bengal Government, and also because it is disproportionate; and It restricts the right to speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This is only the second time that a court in India has stayed an Internet suspension order.

Local authorities have extended orders for Internet Service Providers to suspend mobile data services in several areas of the Srinagar district of Jammu and Kashmir from 23 to 25 February as part of wider actions to quell civil unrest in the region. These orders follow similar orders in the district over the past month. Internet shutdowns during protests or civil unrest impact citizens' ability to get accurate information from government sources when they need it most. It also becomes harder for citizens to contact family members and friends in other parts of the country or other countries.