Important Cases on Internet Shutdowns: The Indian Case Law Explained

India leads the world in internet shutdowns, and the courts answered with a discipline rather than a prohibition: access is protected, suspension must be published, necessary, proportionate, temporary and reviewed, and the rules were tightened to cap each order. Topic 91 states the doctrine; this note, as asked, is the dedicated case digest.

1. The Case Line

From access to the review committee

Figure 1: From access to the review committee

📖 Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637

Facts: The indefinite, largely unpublished communications and internet shutdown imposed in Jammu and Kashmir from August 2019, challenged by a newspaper editor whose publication had stopped.

Held: Speech and trade through the medium of the internet are protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). Suspension orders must be published, satisfy necessity and proportionality, be limited in territory and duration, cannot be indefinite, and are subject to judicial review and periodic review by the committee; orders in force were to be reviewed forthwith (Topic 91).

Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (Ker HC, 2019). A women's hostel's phone and internet restriction struck down: access to the internet is part of the right to education and the right to privacy under Article 21, the furthest Indian statement toward a right of access, decided just before Bhasin.
Foundation for Media Professionals v. UT of J&K (SC, 2020). The continuing 4G restriction in J&K reviewed: the Court, applying Bhasin, directed a special committee to examine the proportionality and necessity of the speed restriction, the first follow-on enforcement of the Bhasin standard.
The Suspension Rules and the 2020 amendment. The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017 carry the power; after Bhasin they were amended to cap each suspension order at fifteen days, requiring a fresh order and fresh application of mind for any continuation, the regulatory tightening the judgments prompted.
The telecom recodification. The suspension power has since been re-housed under the new telecom legislation and its rules, carrying the Bhasin discipline, published reasoned orders, necessity, proportionality and review, into the successor framework.

2. Quick Revision

One line per case

Figure 2: One line per case

⚠ Exam trap

Make Bhasin the centre and recite its five requirements, publication, necessity, proportionality, temporariness and review, while noting carefully that it protected speech and trade through the internet rather than declaring access a free-standing fundamental right, the step Faheema Shirin took on the education-and-privacy footing. Add FMP v. UT of J&K as the enforcement follow-on and the fifteen-day cap as the rule change Bhasin produced, now carried into the telecom recodification.

3. Frequently Asked Questions

What did Anuradha Bhasin hold about internet shutdowns?

That freedom of speech and the freedom of trade and profession exercised through the internet are constitutionally protected, so a suspension order must be published, satisfy necessity and proportionality, be limited in scope and duration rather than indefinite, and remain subject to review by the committee and the courts. The Court did not declare internet access itself a separate fundamental right; it disciplined the power to withdraw the medium, a discipline later enforced in Foundation for Media Professionals and reflected in the fifteen-day cap added to the Suspension Rules.

4. Related Topics

Topic 91: Constitutional Dimensions. The shutdown doctrine in context.
Topic 118: Online Free Speech Cases. The wider speech case line.