Judicial Responses to Internet Shutdowns in Manipur and Kashmir
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In the age of digital dependence, internet access is increasingly viewed not just as a luxury, but as a necessity for communication, education, work, and accessing government services. In conflict-prone regions like Kashmir and Manipur, the suspension of internet services has raised serious constitutional questions. Over the years, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have had to walk a tightrope between national security concerns and citizens' fundamental rights, particularly the right to freedom of speech and expression, and right to livelihood.
Background: The Legal Framework
India’s internet shutdowns are generally imposed under two provisions:
- Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Preventive orders to curb unrest.
- The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 – Allows the government to suspend telecom services during emergencies.
Despite legal backing, critics argue that the implementation often lacks transparency, time limits, and proper oversight.
Kashmir: The 2019 Shutdown and Supreme Court’s Stand
Context
After the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, Jammu & Kashmir saw one of the longest internet shutdowns in a democracy, lasting over seven months.
Supreme Court Verdict (Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, 2020)
The SC’s landmark ruling didn’t directly order the restoration of services but laid down critical guidelines:
- Freedom of speech and the right to carry out trade via the internet are constitutionally protected.
- Any restrictions must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to judicial review.
- Suspension orders must be publicly available and reviewed every 7 days.
- Indefinite shutdowns are unconstitutional.
Impact
The ruling became a precedent-setting judgment, reaffirming digital access as a key part of constitutional freedoms, even if the State can restrict it in extreme cases.
Manipur: 2023–2024 Shutdowns and High Court Directions
Context
Following ethnic violence and civil unrest in Manipur starting in May 2023, the State imposed repeated internet shutdowns for months, disrupting education, communication, and relief efforts.
Judicial Response
- The Manipur High Court took suo motu cognizance of the prolonged shutdown.
- It directed the State to consider partial restoration, especially for essential services and verified users.
- The Court echoed the Anuradha Bhasin guidelines, emphasizing that shutdowns must be limited, transparent, and justified.
- Civil society petitions challenged the lack of proportionality and disruption to fundamental rights, leading to phased restoration.
Common Judicial Themes in Both Cases
1. Right to Internet Access as Part of Article 19
Courts have recognized that freedom of speech, education, and business in the digital era depends on internet access.
2. Need for Proportionality and Review
The judiciary has insisted that restrictions must not be arbitrary, and review mechanisms must be followed to prevent prolonged deprivation of rights.
3. Accountability and Transparency
Both cases exposed how shutdown orders are often vague, undisclosed, or without rationale—an issue courts have flagged repeatedly.
Remaining Challenges
- Lack of enforcement: Despite judicial guidelines, internet bans continue without clear reasoning or oversight.
- No central reporting system for shutdowns creates an information vacuum.
- National security claims often override scrutiny, as governments refuse to disclose grounds for restrictions.
- Judicial remedies are slow, often outpaced by the events on the ground.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court and High Courts have made it clear: internet shutdowns cannot be used as blunt instruments to control unrest. While courts have not completely banned shutdowns, they have demanded judicial review, transparency, and proportionality, reaffirming that fundamental rights do not vanish in times of crisis.
As Manipur and Kashmir show, balancing national security with civil liberty remains one of the most pressing challenges for India’s democracy—and the judiciary’s role in maintaining that balance is more vital than ever.
RELATED Blog
0 comments