Author: Nehal Saxena, Third year Law student at Christ University, Delhi NCR
To the Point
The judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) marked a turning point in Indian constitutional law by affirming that access to the internet is essential for exercising the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court recognized that in the digital era, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to carry on any trade or business, necessarily involve access to the internet. In the wake of the internet and communication blackout imposed in Jammu & Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, journalist Anuradha Bhasin challenged the legality and proportionality of the shutdowns. The Court did not immediately restore the services but emphasized that such restrictions must be temporary, proportionate, and subjected to periodic review. It mandated the publication of shutdown orders and reiterated that freedom of expression cannot be curbed arbitrarily. The ruling has since shaped the legal framework for addressing digital rights and state-imposed internet restrictions in India.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Anuradha Bhasin case involved several key legal doctrines and constitutional principles that are central to public law jurisprudence. The Court examined the matter from the perspective of fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom to engage in any profession, trade, or business as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g). It employed the doctrine of proportionality, a well- established legal standard used to determine whether restrictions on fundamental rights are justified, taking that the measures taken must be suitable, necessary, and the least restrictive means available. The Court also stressed the significance of judicial review and natural justice, directing that shutdown orders must suffer scrutiny by a high- position review commission within seven days. Terms like public order and public security were assessed precisely to distinguish genuine pitfalls from arbitrary administrative action. also, the judgment addressed the chilling effect similar mask shutdowns can have on democratic freedoms, reinforcing the principle that all executive actions must conform to the rule of law. The legal logic extended to an evaluation of the Temporary suspense of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, which handed the statutory base for the arrestment. These principles inclusively established a robust frame for judicial oversight of internet restrictions in India.
The Proof
The background of the case lies in the blanket restrictions imposed by the government of India on the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019. These restrictions included a complete communication blockade and the suspension of internet services, justified on the grounds of national security and public order. Anuradha Bhasin, the Executive Editor of the Kashmir Times, approached the Supreme Court seeking relief from these restrictions, contending that they violated her right to freedom of speech and the freedom to practise her profession. The petition was later joined by other individuals and civil society actors who highlighted the impact of the shutdowns on healthcare, education, journalism, and economic activity.
On January 10, 2020, a three-judge Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy, and B.R. Gavai heard the case and gave a landmark ruling. While the Court did not issue a direct order lifting the internet ban, it laid down important procedural and substantive safeguards. Firstly, it recognized that the right to access the internet is embedded within the freedoms under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), and that any restriction on these rights must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Secondly, the Court mandated that all shutdown orders must be made public and be subject to judicial review. Thirdly, it emphasized that such restrictions cannot be indefinite and must be periodically reviewed by a government-appointed Review Committee. These directions significantly altered the legal landscape by ensuring that any future attempt to suspend internet services must undergo rigorous scrutiny and justification.
The Court also interpreted the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, highlighting the requirement for proportionality and transparency. In the years following the judgment, including in incidents of renewed shutdowns in states like Manipur and Punjab, the principles of this case have been relied upon to challenge arbitrary actions and to demand accountability and procedural compliance from the state. l to public law jurisprudence. The Court examined the matter from the perspective of fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom to engage in any profession in Article 19(1)(g). It employed the doctrine of proportionality, a well- established legal standard used to determine whether restrictions on fundamental rights are justified, taking that the measures taken must be suitable, necessary, and the least restrictive means available. The Court also stressed the significance of judicial review and natural justice, directing that shutdown orders must suffer scrutiny by a high- position review commission within seven days. Terms like public order and public security were assessed precisely to distinguish genuine pitfalls from arbitrary administrative action. also, the judgment addressed the chilling effect similar mask shutdowns can have on democratic freedoms, reinforcing the principle that all executive actions must conform to the rule of law. The legal logic extended to an evaluation of the Temporary suspense of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, which handed the statutory base for the arrestment. These principles inclusively established a robust frame for judicial oversight of internet restrictions in India.
Abstract
This article examines the Supreme Court’s decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), which addressed the constitutionality of internet shutdowns imposed in the aftermath of the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir. The case is significant because it clarifies how India’s fundamental liberties and digital access interact. The petitioner, a journalist, challenged the communication blackout as being violative of her rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The judgment did not order immediate restoration of services but laid down clear procedural guidelines, affirming that internet access has become integral to the exercise of fundamental rights. Through the application of the doctrine of proportionality, the Court ensured that executive actions are bound by constitutional limitations. The article analyzes the case’s legal impact, the interpretative strategies adopted by the Court, and how it sets a precedent for future challenges to digital censorship and restrictions on free speech. The ruling has significant implications for governance, accountability, and the digital dimensions of constitutional rights.
Case Laws
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
The Information Technology Act’s Section 66A was overturned by the Supreme Court in this case, concluding that ambiguous limitations on online speech were in violation of Article 19(1)(a).
In Shreya Singhal, the Court distinguished between discussion, advocacy, and incitement, holding that only incitement can be curbed under Article 19(2). This laid down a strong jurisprudential foundation that the state must demonstrate a direct nexus between speech and public disorder. In Anuradha Bhasin, this principle was extended to argue that blanket internet shutdowns, which indiscriminately affect all speech, do not meet this standard and are therefore unconstitutional unless narrowly tailored and justified.
PUCL v. Union of India (1997)
This case dealt with telephone tapping under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. The Supreme Court in PUCL emphasized the need for procedural safeguards such as prior authorization and periodic review to prevent abuse of executive power. This case became foundational in ensuring that surveillance and restrictions on communication are not left unchecked. In Anuradha Bhasin, the Court adopted similar reasoning to hold that any order suspending internet services must be published, must state clear reasons, and must be reviewed periodically by a high-level committee. Thus, the procedural safeguards laid down in PUCL directly informed the Court’s insistence on transparency and accountability in the Anuradha Bhasin ruling.
These precedents played a critical role in shaping the contours of constitutional protections in the digital age and were effectively used to evaluate the legality and proportionality of the communication shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir.
Conclusion
The Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India judgment represents a significant judicial effort to reconcile the tension between national security interests and fundamental rights in the digital age. The Supreme Court stressed constitutional accountability and firmly established procedural safeguards, even if it did not immediately remove the internet limitations in Jammu & Kashmir. By declaring that freedom of speech and trade under Article 19 necessarily includes access to the internet, the Court set a crucial precedent for protecting digital rights in India. The reliance on earlier landmark rulings like Shreya Singhal and PUCL reinforced the need for clarity, transparency, and proportionality in restricting access to digital communication platforms. The case continues to serve as a reference point for evaluating internet shutdowns and executive overreach, pushing for a more rights-oriented approach to governance. It signals a judicial recognition that in an increasingly digital democracy, access to information and communication tools is indispensable for the realization of civil liberties and the strengthening of democratic values.
FAQS
What was the primary issue in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India?
The case challenged the legality and constitutionality of the internet and communication shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir imposed after the abrogation of Article 370.
Did the Supreme Court order immediate restoration of internet services in the case?
No, the Supreme Court did not order immediate restoration but laid down guidelines emphasizing periodic review, proportionality, and publication of shutdown orders.
What fundamental rights were considered in this case?
The rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to carry on trade or business) were at the forefront.
What is the doctrine of proportionality, and how was it applied here?
The doctrine ensures restrictions on rights are necessary and minimally intrusive. The Court applied it to ensure internet bans were not arbitrary or indefinite.
