Context:

• The Supreme Court in January 2024 questioned the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir about the non-publication of orders for the suspension of Internet services in the UT. 
• The importance of the publication of Internet suspension orders cannot be understated. Those aggrieved with the restriction cannot approach a court of law to question an order’s legality in the absence of the order.
• At this juncture, looking into the costs and benefits of Internet shutdown becomes important.

Definition: 

• “An intentional disruption of Internet or electronic communications, rendering them inaccessible or effectively unusable, for a specific population or within a location, often to exert control over the flow of information.” 
• Shutdowns are also sometimes called “blackouts” or “kill switches”.

Why Internet Shutdowns?

• Governments implement Internet shutdowns for a variety of reasons, to control the spread of rumours, stopping people from organising protests.
• Other common reasons include avoiding cheating on school exams or preventing unrest during public holidays.

Status in India:

• On January 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of India held that access to information via the Internet is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. 
• This was in the case of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, where the top court also ruled that any restriction on Internet access by the Government must be temporary, limited in scope, lawful, necessary and proportionate. 
• The Court reiterated that the Government’s orders restricting Internet access are subject to review by Courts.

Costs of Internet Shutdown:

Economic:

• Loss of revenue: Businesses, especially small and online ones, lose income due to disrupted operations and customer reach.
• Reduced economic activity: The overall economy suffers due to limited online transactions and hampered productivity. In 2020, the Indian economy suffered losses to the tune of $2.8 billion due to 129 separate instances of Internet suspension, which affected 10.3 million individuals. 
• Livelihood impact: Individuals dependent on online work or access to information for their jobs are affected.

Social:

• Disrupted communication: People are unable to connect with loved ones, access essential services, or participate in online communities.
• Spread of misinformation: Offline rumours can flourish without the ability to verify information online.
• Erosion of trust: Lack of transparency and justification for shutdowns damages public trust in the government.
• Psychological stress: Anxiety and frustration arise due to isolation and limited access to essential services.
• Educational disruption: Students lose access to online learning resources.
• Health risks: Access to telehealth and emergency medical information can be hindered.

Legal:

• Violation of fundamental rights: Access to information and free expression are curtailed, raising legal concerns.
• Lack of transparency: Non-publication of orders makes legal challenges difficult and undermines accountability.
• Unclear legal framework: The lack of statutory recognition for the Anuradha Bhasin judgement creates ambiguity.

Way Forward:

• Before blocking the Internet, it is essential to conduct a proportionality and necessity test. 
• It is crucial to consider whether the same objective can be achieved by a less intrusive and more effective solution that minimises the short-term and long-term social and economic costs incurred.
• All governments should document the reasons, time, alternatives considered, decision-making authorities and the rules under which the shutdowns were imposed and release the documents for public scrutiny. Necessary updates in the Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017 should be taken up.
• Indiscriminate Internet blockades are not likely to safeguard public order in today’s time and age.