Locking Freedom in the Name of Security?

In a democracy, just as lawful and peaceful protest is important, the free flow of information is equally fundamental. In the modern age, the internet is not merely a means of entertainment. It has become the backbone of freedom of expression, the right to information, education, employment, business, banking, emergency services, and public participation. Against this backdrop, the government's decision to suspend internet services in certain parts of Delhi during the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) protests has sparked a nationwide debate over its legality, necessity, and fairness. While security is undoubtedly important, the more crucial question is whether the method adopted is consistent with constitutional values.

The Constitution of India guarantees citizens the freedom of expression, the freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to information. In the digital age, these rights have become inseparable from internet access. Therefore, shutting down the internet is not merely a technical decision. It is an administrative action that directly affects the fundamental rights of citizens. Hence, whenever such a decision is taken, the government has the responsibility to exercise utmost caution, maintain transparency, and provide legal justification.

In India, the legal basis for internet shutdowns primarily lies in the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017. According to these rules, such powers may be exercised only in the interest of public safety or during a public emergency. However, since the terms "public safety" and "public emergency" have not been clearly defined, they are often interpreted according to the convenience of those exercising authority. As a result, powers intended for extraordinary situations are sometimes being used even in the context of ordinary public protests, leading to widespread criticism.

In this context, the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India assumes great significance. The Court made it clear that indefinite internet shutdowns are unconstitutional and that every shutdown order must satisfy the tests of necessity, emergency circumstances, and limited duration. It further held that all shutdown orders must be made public and should be open to judicial review. In other words, the Supreme Court emphasized that internet shutdowns cannot be treated as an unchecked executive power but must be subject to constitutional scrutiny.

However, the answer to whether these standards are actually being implemented in practice appears to be "no." In many cases, shutdown orders are made public only after considerable delay, the reasons are not clearly explained, and the geographical scope of the restrictions is not properly specified. These shortcomings point to a lack of transparency. While people are deprived of access to information, rumours often spread even faster. Completely blocking the flow of information may, at times, worsen the situation instead of resolving it.

The impact of internet shutdowns is not limited to protesters alone. Online classes, digital payments, hospital services, emergency communication, small businesses, freelancers, gig workers, and e-commerce systems are all severely affected. It is a clear policy contradiction that a country promoting the vision of Digital India simultaneously resorts to frequent internet shutdowns.

Globally, India continues to be counted among the countries recording the highest number of internet shutdowns. Reports by independent organisations, particularly Access Now, indicate that such actions occur far more frequently in India than in most other democracies. Every shutdown not only causes economic losses worth crores of rupees but also damages India's reputation as a digital destination that welcomes investment.

Undoubtedly, maintaining public order and security is the government's responsibility. However, using that responsibility as a justification to push entire populations into digital darkness should always remain the last resort. Restricting internet services only in specific areas, for clearly defined purposes, and for a strictly limited duration would be a far more democratic approach. At a time when modern technological alternatives are available, governments should prefer targeted measures instead of imposing complete internet blackouts.

The Delhi incident has once again raised a fundamental question. In a democracy, does the government have the authority to suppress dissent, or does it have the responsibility to protect peaceful dissent? Security and freedom are not mutually exclusive. There is no need to sacrifice one for the other. A proper balance between the two can be achieved only through lawful, transparent, and well-reasoned decisions. In the digital age, suspending internet services merely on police recommendations and at will is not just a matter of pressing a technical switch. It is an act that temporarily silences the heartbeat of democracy itself. That is precisely why such extraordinary powers must be exercised only in the rarest of circumstances and with the highest degree of responsibility.