Tag of internet shutdown capital of the world stems from lack of compliance with Supreme Court guidelines
On January 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of India said that Access to information through internet is a fundamental right Under the Indian Constitution. it was in the case of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, where the top court also ruled that any restriction on internet access by the government should be temporary, limited in scope, valid, necessary and proportionate. The Court reiterated that the orders of the Government restricting Internet access are subject to review by the Courts.
The hope was that the decision would limit instances of Internet suspension to only exceptional situations where there is a public emergency or a threat to public safety – legislatively mandated prerequisites for restricting Internet access. Unfortunately, these promises have remained unfulfilled. In the year following the decision, India saw more internet shutdowns than the previous year. India’s internet restrictions are also responsible for more than 70% of the total damage to the global economy in 2020, and India is infamous as the internet shutdown capital of the world.
recent bans
As we write this, the government of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has restricted access to mobile data in the Valley of Kashmir. A few days ago all internet services were stopped. These restrictions have been issued in the wake of the death of hardline separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Similar restrictions have been ordered by the Haryana government after farmers protested in five different districts. While in these instances, governments have published orders restricting access, such publication remains an exception and not the rule, regardless of the decision in such publication. Anuradha Bhasin (Haryana’s orders are on social media but not uploaded on government websites).
In July and August, the government of Jammu and Kashmir suspended internet services on five separate occasions in Baramulla, Pulwama and Shopian districts, according to an internet shutdown tracker maintained by the Software Freedom Law Center. The suspension orders of these cases are still not uploaded on the websites of the government. In May 2021 also, the J&K government suspended internet services in these districts on three occasions. In these cases, the orders were published only in June 2021 after considerable delay. Though the J&K government is most apathetic about internet restrictions, they are not the only culprits. compliance with Anuradha Bhasin It is less in other parts of India as well.
erodes trust
The importance of publishing Internet suspension orders cannot be underestimated. People aggrieved by the ban cannot approach the court to question the validity of an order in the absence of an order. At the most, if they do so, the court can direct the government to submit the order, but it will allow the government to delay the presentation of the order until the ban is over. This helps the government to get rid of illegal sanctions. This non-publication of orders also undermines public confidence in the government. The Internet is a necessity in this day and age, and restrictions without publicly disclosed reasons create a trust deficit.
There is also a deficit because even the central government has not done enough to give statutory recognition to the guidelines. Anuradha Bhasin. In 2020, it amended the Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017 to limit internet suspension orders to a maximum of 15 days. However, the amendment did not include any obligation on the government to publish the orders, nor did it include directions from the Supreme Court to periodically review these orders.
lack of awareness
As a result, it is difficult to understand government non-compliance with the law. To understand the obligations on the government, instead of looking at the rules, one has to study the judgment of the Supreme Court. The experience of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act has shown that if the judgments of the Supreme Court are not statutorily recognized, the authorities simply enforce the law in a wrong way because of lack of awareness. For example, the state of Meghalaya, in response to an RTI application, said it was not even aware of the decision. Anuradha Bhasin Even though eight months have passed since the Supreme Court’s decision.
wide impact
However, internet suspension also remains a problem independent of non-compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court. In 2020, 129 separate instances of internet suspension caused a loss of $2.8 billion to the Indian economy, affecting 10.3 million people. Internet is a source of information, entertainment, health care, education, livelihood and a platform for members of Indian society to interact with each other and the world.
The losses – economic, psychological, social and journalistic – from such suspensions outweigh any speculative gains. The internet ban should be imposed in times of emergency and not to obstruct the democratic exercise of the right to protest. At that time, internet is a necessity to seek help.
In addition, it is also a tool to verify rumours, and enables individuals and the government to spread the truth. On 2 September, the government of Jammu and Kashmir restricted access to any form of communication on the grounds that ‘inflammatory content on social media’ may mislead the general public and result in a law and order situation. Is.
One such reason was also cited for justifying the internet shutdown in Karnal, Haryana. While the government would be good to acknowledge that offline rumors can also ‘mislead the public’, individuals will not have access to the internet to independently determine the veracity of those rumours.
Internet restrictions are often justified on the grounds that they are limited to mobile data services. These controversies also miss the point. According to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) 2019 report on Indian Telecom Service Performance Indicators, mobile device users (dongles and phones) account for 97.02% of the total internet users. Only 3% of users have access to broadband internet. These numbers are unlikely to change significantly since then, as broadband Internet is still expensive. This leads to the conclusion that internet restrictions also have a more adverse effect on people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
Considering these issues, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court Anuradha Bhasinallowed the government to restrict Internet access only in limited circumstances. Parliament has also allowed these restrictions only in case of public emergency or when there is a threat to public safety. Yet, what is very disappointing is that internet restrictions are far more common than desirable and cannot be challenged due to a lack of transparency. Riding itself of the tag of “Internet Shutdown Capital of the World” and fulfilling the potential of Digital India requires more faithful adherence to Supreme Court guidelines on the part of the executive government.
Tanmay Singh is a litigation lawyer at the Internet Freedom Foundation. Anandita Mishra is Associate Litigation Council at Internet Freedom Foundation. Krishnash Bapat is a CCG Digital Rights Fellow hosted at the Internet Freedom Foundation
.