Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India

In early August 2019, the Home Department of the Civil Secretariat of Jammu and Kashmir issued a security advisory asking tourists and Amarnath pilgrims to cut short their stay and return as soon as possible. An order then shut educational institutions and offices until further orders. On 4 August 2019, internet, mobile and landline services were all shut down.

On 5 August 2019, the President issued Constitution Order 272. The process of making Article 370 inoperative began, and the special status of Jammu and Kashmir came to an end. In the name of security, Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code was imposed in many areas. (This power is now found in Section 163 of the B.N.S.S.)

The validity of the removal of Article 370 was not in question in this case; that was separately upheld by a Constitution Bench in December 2023. This case dealt only with the restrictions.

The petitioner, Anuradha Bhasin, was a senior journalist and executive editor of Kashmir Times. She said that because of the communication blackout, the Srinagar edition of her newspaper could not be printed or distributed. She filed a writ petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32, invoking Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to carry on a profession). The petition of Ghulam Nabi Azad was heard along with it.

1. Could the government avoid making public the orders under Section 144 CrPC and the orders suspending the internet?

2. Are free speech and the practice of a profession through the internet protected as fundamental rights under Part III?

3. Was the internet shutdown legally justified?

4. Were the restrictions under Section 144 CrPC valid and lawful?

5. Had there been a violation of press freedom?

Petitioners: The restrictions were unreasonable. The use of Section 144 was neither reasonable nor proportionate. No concrete evidence of a threat to law and order was shown. Proper procedure was not followed in suspending the internet, and the orders were vague and overbroad (spreading far wider than necessary). Less restrictive options, such as blocking only certain targeted websites, were available, so there was no need to shut down the entire internet. The restrictions also had a chilling effect on the press.

Government: National security came first, and there was a real threat of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. It was necessary to prevent misuse of social media and the dark web. Blocking a few specific sites would not give the same benefit, so a complete shutdown was the safer option. Given the security situation, the measures were proportionate.

The judgment was written by Justice N. V. Ramana, with Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice B. R. Gavai on the bench.

1. Transparency: The government must make public all orders imposing restrictions so that citizens can challenge them in court. An order affecting life, liberty and property cannot be kept hidden.

2. Internet and Article 19: Freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to carry on any profession, trade or business, through the medium of the internet are constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). Restrictions can be imposed only within the conditions of Article 19(2) and 19(6).

3. Temporary suspension only: Internet suspension can only be temporary; an indefinite ban is illegal. Under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017, which applied at that time, the Review Committee must review the orders every seven working days. The government was directed to immediately review all suspension orders and revoke those that did not meet the standards of the judgment. Where the internet could not be restored quickly, it was to immediately consider allowing essential services such as hospitals, government websites and limited e-banking.

4. Section 144 CrPC: The power exists to prevent danger in an emergency-like situation, not to suppress legitimate dissent. Orders must state material facts, remain open to judicial scrutiny, and repeated orders will be treated as an abuse of power.

5. Proportionality: Restrictions must pass the proportionality test.

6. Press freedom: The Court found no concrete evidence of a chilling effect, and since the newspaper had resumed printing, it gave no separate finding on this point. But it said responsible governments must respect press freedom at all times and there is no justification for keeping a sword hanging indefinitely over the press.

The Court did not declare internet access itself to be a separate fundamental right, since no counsel had argued this; it gave no opinion on that question.

Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a); Article 19(1)(g); Article 19(2); Article 19(6); Article 32; Article 370; Constitution Order 272 (2019); Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 163, B.N.S.S.); Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017; Telegraph Act (now replaced by the Telecommunications Act, 2023)

This case is the foundation of digital rights in India. It established that speech and trade through the internet fall under Article 19, that no government can impose an indefinite internet ban, and that only transparent, proportionate and temporary restrictions are valid. Even though the Telegraph Act has been replaced by the Telecommunications Act, 2023, the constitutional standard for testing shutdown orders still comes from this case. It also clarifies the limits of Section 144 CrPC (now Section 163 B.N.S.S.) and applies the proportionality test. Students must also remember the exam trap: the Court did not hold internet access itself to be a fundamental right; the Kerala High Court in the Faheema Shirin case (2019) linked internet access to Article 21.

Hypothetical: A district magistrate orders a complete internet shutdown in a district 'until further orders' after a protest, and does not publish the order. Prince, who runs an online tutoring business, and Zoya, a local journalist, cannot work. Applying Anuradha Bhasin, they can argue that the order is invalid because it is indefinite, unpublished, and not proportionate, since less restrictive options such as blocking specific sites were available. The authorities must publish the order, keep it temporary, have it reviewed periodically, and justify it with material facts.