Quick answer
No. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (10 January 2020), the Supreme Court held that an order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible. Freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and freedom of trade or profession under Article 19(1)(g), when exercised through the internet, enjoy constitutional protection. Any restriction must satisfy Articles 19(2) and 19(6), including the test of proportionality, and all suspension orders must be published so that affected people can challenge them in court.
The case
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308, Supreme Court of India, 10 January 2020. Bench: N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai, JJ. The petitioner, Executive Editor of the Kashmir Times, said that after the August 2019 restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir she could not publish the newspaper's Srinagar edition. A connected petition was filed by Ghulam Nabi Azad. The Court did not strike down the restrictions outright; it laid down the law and directed the authorities to review all orders.
What the Court held
- Publication: all orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. (old law; now Section 163 B.N.S.S.) and orders suspending telecom services, including the internet, must be published so they can be challenged before a High Court or other forum.
- Internet and Article 19: speech, expression and business carried on through the internet are constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).
- No indefinite shutdown: under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017, suspension can be only for a temporary period.
- Proportionality: a suspension must be proportionate (no more restrictive than the legitimate aim requires) and must not last longer than necessary. Such orders are open to judicial review.
- Periodic review: the Review Committee under the Rules must review suspension orders every seven working days.
- Section 144 Cr.P.C.: this power cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or the exercise of democratic rights, and repeated orders would be an abuse of power.
What the case did not decide
| Point | Position in Anuradha Bhasin |
|---|---|
| Speech and trade through the internet | Protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) |
| Access to the internet as a separate fundamental right | Not decided. The Court said no counsel had argued it and expressed no view |
Example
Zoya runs an online tutoring business in a district where mobile internet is suspended. The order is not published, gives no end date and is never reviewed. Relying on Anuradha Bhasin, Zoya can argue that the order breaches her rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) because it is unpublished, indefinite and not shown to be proportionate.
Current law note
The power once found in Section 144 Cr.P.C. (old law) is now in Section 163 B.N.S.S., which deals with urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger; an order under it generally lasts no more than two months unless the State Government extends it. Suspension of telecommunication services is now provided for in Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, which requires reasons to be recorded in writing. The principles of publication, proportionality and temporary duration laid down in Anuradha Bhasin continue to guide courts. For a fuller summary, see the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India case summary.
Exam point
Anuradha Bhasin (2020): internet shutdowns must be published, temporary and proportionate; the Court protected Article 19 freedoms exercised through the internet but did not declare internet access itself a fundamental right.
