Internet shutdowns have become an increasingly common tool used by governments around the world to control information flow and suppress dissent, particularly in times of political unrest or conflict. These shutdowns can range from targeted blocking of specific websites or social media platforms to complete blackouts of Internet connectivity. While governments often justify these measures as necessary for maintaining public order or national security, they can have severe impacts on human rights, economic activity, and daily life for affected populations.

In quantifiable terms, network disruptions have cost the Indian economy over $1.3 billion in 2019. While internet shutdowns are a pan-India problem impacting diverse regions, the region of Jammu & Kashmir has been the worst affected. This geo-politically sensitive region has witnessed the longest internet shutdown imposed by any democratic government4 with ongoing restrictions on internet access crossing 360 days.

The case of Jammu & Kashmir in India stands out as one of the most prolonged and extensive Internet shutdowns in recent history. In August 2019, following the revocation of the region's special constitutional status, the Indian government- imposed a near-total communication blackout, including Internet services. This shutdown lasted for several months, with some restrictions continuing well into 2020 and beyond.

According to a report by the Software Freedom Law Center, India, Jammu & Kashmir experienced 55% of all Internet shutdowns ordered in India between 2012 and 2019[1]. The economic impact of these shutdowns has been significant, with one study estimating losses of around $2.4 billion for the period from 2012 to 2017 in India as a whole[2].

Right to Internet Access

Disconnecting people from the internet violates their human rights and is illegal according to a 2011 United Nations report. The report also highlights "the novel and revolutionary quality of the Internet in facilitating people's exercise of their freedom of opinion and expression, as well as various other human rights, and in advancing the advancement of society overall." Although Kashmir has had internet outages in the past, this total block of all communication channels is unprecedented in the modern era. Since 2012, the internet has been entirely shut down in various places more than sixty-two times. South Asia appears to have had the most number of shutdowns worldwide between April 2017 and May 2018, according to a UN assessment.

The majority of the shutdowns occurred in India, with the Kashmir Valley accounting for half of all shutdowns in that country. The right to internet access was deemed to be a derivative fundamental right that permits the exercise of primary fundamental rights, but the Court's characterization of this right has surprisingly received little scholarly attention. In 2018, India accounted for 67% of the world's documented shutdowns.

In human rights theory, derivative rights include auxiliary rights which facilitate exercise of a primary right .Adopting a similar approach, the Court in Anuradha Bhasin relied on its past precedent in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal[3] and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[4] to hold that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to wide dissemination of information through different mediums.

The Court then recognized the importance of the internet as a tool for for dissemination of information and for trade and commerce in modern times, and finally concluded that "the right to freedom of speech and dissemination of information and for trade and commerce in modern times, and finally concluded that "the constitutional protections for the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to do any trade or enterprise via the internet under Article 19(1)(g)."

Why the Shutdowns?

Regular internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir are justified as a way to stop militant organizations from communicating, but in reality, they serve to cover up security forces' violations of human rights. Similarly, theinternet shutdown issued in Haryana during the September farmer protestsagainst the newly implemented "Farm Bill" was also less than transparent.The government used the need to prevent fake news from inciting riots and violence as justification for the internet shutdown, but it also worked to impede organized protests, making them appear disorderly, and demonize the protesting farmers on live television, which decreased support for their cause.

The states of Meghalaya and Rajasthan have experienced more internet outages recently. These shutdowns have been implemented without satisfying the standards of necessity set forth by the Supreme Court in the Anuradha Bhasin ruling; some of the reasons given for limiting internet access are as insignificant as trying to stop test cheating.

State governments have a significant influence over the officers entrusted with implementing shutdowns, therefore the regulations governing internet shutdowns are routinely broken and those with the authority to do so are easily influenced. Thus, the Union government arbitrarily and indiscriminately denies the internet to its residents, in spite of what may be seen reasonable norms safeguarding freedom of expression online.

Internet Shutdowns In Jammu and Kashmir

The longest broadband interruption in the entire history of any government commenced on August 5, 2019, in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), and terminated on January 15, 2020. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, which had been approved by the Andrea Settimo Indian Parliament, abolished Articles 370 and 35a of the Indian Constitution, which established the state's area an exceptional, partially independent status.
Furthermore, a significant percentage of J&K's municipal and political leadership was improperly and indefinitely incarcerated.

The people of Jammu and Kashmir were provided with the right to hold a referendum on their favorite model of government by the United Nations in 1948, a year after the region's constitutional monarchy acceded to India. Nevertheless, since India's independence, no new administration has acknowledged the UN resolution. Rather, J&K's special status was withdrawn by the current right-wing Hindutva-minded government in India, which also separated the state into two union territories that would be governed independently from New Delhi.

The whole population of Kashmir was placed under lockdown by the Indian government, and hundreds of people, including young children as young as nine, were imprisoned in jails with no access to legal representation. On top of shutting down all means of communication, including landline and mobile phones, the Indian government shut down the internet in J&K, crippling researchers and students in schools, colleges, and universities across the mountainous state.

The communications and internet shutdown has severely hamperedthe work of journalists and media. Among the effects of the communications shutdown are the closure of media outlets, a drop in advertising revenue, job losses, wage reductions, a lack of professional safety, self-censorship, and a broad restriction on the right to free speech. Even those journalists who have managed to stay in the field are having trouble finding and modifying images and videos on the internet, gathering information, and doing fact checks and online research.

All educational establishments, including secondary colleges, universities, medical schools, and engineering colleges, were shut down on August 5, 2019, with no official declaration. Parents were left to educate and care for their children within the confines of their homes. At the two central universities and nine state universities in J&K, all work stopped, affecting an estimated two hundred researchers. These establishments include research institutes that conduct scientific, medical, and humanities research, as well as technology centers and colleges of medicine and veterinary medicine. The University of Kashmir's medical schools, which housed research and offered healthcare, were also closed.

Administrators had 48,000 high school pupils take examinations without finishing the required practical work or the syllabus after the school was closed for more than three months. The most concerned was that their learning would be under physical and virtual attack, which would hinder their performance. After four months of internet shutdown, the local administration run by the state's Lieutenant Governor decided to provide some internet access to students in the local deputy commissioner's office at district headquarters. However, just thirty computers were available for the 24,000 applicants who wanted to take the extremely competitive National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) in order to be admitted to medical schools in India.

Internet Shutdowns beyond Jammu and Kashmir

In the northeastern states of India, shutting down the internet is a common and controversial solution implemented by state authorities to deal with security concerns, civil protests, and unrest. Affected states like Assam and Manipur have experienced shutdowns lasting anywhere from several hours to several weeks. Authorities assert that the internet must be shut down to deal with orders or threats; otherwise, rumors will spread and cause even more unrest.

From the governor of Assam to the district magistrate of Lilong in Manipur, shutting down the internet has become a go-to option for dealing with disturbances. The justification given for this extreme step is in terms of maintaining public order and threatening no access to the internet will maintain some semblance of peace on the street.

Human rights and digital rights groups have condemned the shutdowns for violating the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and access to information. They have also resulted in considerable economic losses for the region. The authorities in this part of India seem intent on using this tool; there's no let-up in the frequency or use of internet shutdowns here. The international community is watching. Shutdowns of any sort are far from innocuous.

They carry implications for security as well as for economic development. And in this part of India, where there's a heavy military presence and a long history of conflict, that makes the use of shutdowns an even more controversial tool as far as balancing civil liberties with security needs goes.

Conclusion
Internet shutdowns are deeply problematic because they deprive people of a critical tool for free speech, restricting their access to information and limiting their ability to communicate. In today's digital age, the internet serves as a universal medium of expression, providing a platform for discourse, debate, and the free flow of ideas. When governments shut down the internet, they effectively gain control over this "marketplace of ideas," stifling dissent and protecting themselves from public criticism.

This creates an environment where political parties can manipulate public narratives, evade responsibility, and suppress opposition, all while maintaining a façade of legitimacy. By limiting access to information, governments can obscure their actions and policies from scrutiny, which in turn weakens democracy and public accountability.

The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of speech and expression. Internet shutdowns, especially when used arbitrarily, violate these rights. However, in the absence of legislative measures to curtail such shutdowns, the judiciary must step in to protect citizens' rights. The courts have a duty to uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution, ensuring that the government cannot use internet shutdowns as a means to suppress speech and control public discourse.

Unfortunately, the judiciary's response to these shutdowns has been inadequate, as seen in the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) case, where the court established standards that were too lenient and allowed the government considerable leeway to impose shutdowns under the guise of maintaining public order.

There is an urgent need for stricter judicial scrutiny of internet shutdowns by both state and federal governments. The judiciary should adopt more robust standards, ensuring that shutdowns are imposed only when absolutely necessary and in a manner that minimizes the infringement on citizens' rights. Furthermore, the development of a fundamental right to internet access is essential. Internet access is no longer a luxury but a necessity for exercising civil liberties, including the right to free speech, the right to information, and the right to education. The government should be held accountable for imposing unreasonable restrictions that infringe on these rights, often in the name of political agendas or maintaining control.

In this context, the Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology has made several important recommendations. For example, there is a need for clear, well-defined parameters for what constitutes a "public emergency" or "public safety"-the conditions under which the government currently justifies internet shutdowns. Additionally, the committee recommends that review bodies, which assess the necessity of shutdowns, should include non-official members like retired judges or public representatives to ensure greater transparency and accountability in decision-making.

Moreover, instead of blanket bans on internet access, the government should consider more targeted measures that limit access to specific services or platforms contributing to misinformation, rather than shutting down the entire internet. Such an approach would balance the goal of reducing misinformation with the need to ensure minimal disruption to the daily lives of citizens, preserving their rights to access information, education, and essential services.

In conclusion, the misuse of internet shutdowns not only infringes upon individual freedoms but also undermines democratic values. More stringent legal and regulatory frameworks are urgently required to prevent the arbitrary imposition of these shutdowns, while ensuring that civil liberties, including the right to access the internet, are respected and protected.

End Notes:

1. Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in). "Living in Digital Darkness: A Handbook on Internet Shutdowns in India," 2020. URL: sflc.in/living-digital-darkness-handbook-internet-shutdowns-india
2. Kathuria, R., Kedia, M., Varma, G., Bagchi, K., & Sekhani, R. "The Anatomy of an Internet Blackout: Measuring the Economic Impact of Internet Shutdowns in India," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), 2018. URL: icrier.org/pdf/Anatomy_of_an_Internet_Blackout.pdf
3. Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161
4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1