The use of the internet has become an integral part of life. People of all ages use the internet for various purposes. It is a tool that helps us gain information about everything, it facilitates in keeping us entertained and for most, it has even become an addiction. The internet has also become a platform through which people share their opinions and reveal their dissent. Expressing dissent is a fundamental right which confers the freedom of speech and expression, it is also an intrinsic fragment of democracy. Conventionally, citizens took to the streets in protest, in order to proclaim their dissent and they still do. But a change that has been brought about by the advent of the internet and social media, is protesting online. People make use of platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, and many more to exhibit their views concerning democracy.
In wake of the changes that ensued with the introduction of the ‘Citizenship Amendment Act’ and the ‘Abrogation of Article 370’ people took to the streets and the internet to show their dissent. These are instances wherein the Government saw fit to cut-off internet and telecommunication services. These services were taken away from the people in many parts of the country with no warning. Various reasons have been cited for this severe action, such as uncontrollable protests, unrest due to elections, and cheating during exams.
The Shutdowns Tracker Optimization Project was launched in 2016 by Access Now which verified and documented internet shutdowns. It was claimed under this in 2019, that India had announced internet shutdowns ninety-three times. Another website dedicated to the cause of keeping track of this, with the domain name ‘internet shutdowns.in’ claims that there has been a total of four hundred and forty-nine shutdowns until now, with their most recent case being reported on the 7th of November 2020 in Jammu and Kashmir.
Internet Shutdowns, simply described, are the restrictions that are enforced by the government preventing internet access to the public. The whole nation or a specific area within the nation can lose its access to internet services.
Before 2017, Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 took under its ambit, internet shutdowns. This section empowers District and Executive magistrates to pass orders they deem necessary for the safety of the public.
Later in 2017, the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules was notified.
These rules were promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885- Power to make rules for the conduct of telegraphs. It states that “The Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules consistent with this Act for the conduct of all or any telegraphs established, maintained or worked by the Government or by persons licensed under this Act.”
Under these rules, “Directions to suspend the telecom services shall not be issued except by an order made by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs in the case of Government of India or by the Secretary to the State Government in-charge of the Home Department in the case of a State Government and in unavoidable circumstances, where obtaining of prior direction is not feasible, such order may be issued by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been duly authorized by the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary. In this circumstance, the Joint Secretary is required to obtain approval within twenty-four hours of passing shutdown orders, from the competent authority."
The implementation of these rules in 2017 have superseded Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to issue internet shutdowns.
In the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031/2019), the Supreme Court ruled that indefinite restriction of internet services would be illegal under the law. It also stated that orders passed facilitating internet shutdowns must pass the test of necessity and proportionality. It was also noted that expression of views and opinions through the internet is a right as provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
The test of proportionality aforementioned was laid down in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 Of 2012).
The test requires that:
(a) the action must be sanctioned by law;
(b) the proposed action must be necessary and for a legitimate aim;
(c) the extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need;
(d) There should be procedural guarantees against abuse of interference.
Especially in times like these, where the world is facing a global crisis in from of a pandemic, internet services are an absolute necessity. With new changes being made to the way we live, with people working and earning their livelihood from home, students learning online and people only have access to the outside world using the internet. Access to healthcare, information, and education is now facilitated by the usage of the internet. Implementing shutdowns without warning could be potentially life-threatening under certain circumstances. Arbitrary restrictions imposed on internet and telecommunication services is a definite violation of rights.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.
