Police officers barricade the road to Jantar Mantar ahead of a youth-led demonstration in New Delhi on Saturday.
| Photo Credit: PRAKASH SINGH

The story so far: Mobile Internet services were shut down in parts of Central Delhi during the Chalo Sansad protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). Thousands of people, led by the CJP, gathered on the opening day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament to demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan following repeated instances of examination paper leaks in connection with the administration of the National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET), among other demands. The Internet shutdown, which remained in place until the evening, drew condemnation from the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the Software Freedom Law Centre, India (SFLC).

Reportedly, signal jammers had been deployed to disrupt access to the Internet during the protest. Protesters faced difficulties uploading videos and using navigation apps.

What is an Internet shutdown?

According to web rights advocacy organisation Access Now, an Internet shutdown is defined as “an intentional disruption of Internet or electronic communications, rendering them inaccessible or effectively unusable, for a specific population or within a location, often to exert control over the flow of information.” They take many forms, from full network disruptions to slowing down Internet speed (“throttling”) or blocking platforms.

Most Internet shutdowns are ordered when large numbers of people are expected to gather for political reasons, peaceful demonstrations, violent protests or religious celebrations, according to the International Federation of Journalists. Some are preventive measures imposed in anticipation of an event, while others are introduced to control ongoing incidents.

When can the government legally suspend Internet services during a protest?

Under Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, telecommunication services may be suspended only on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, on the grounds specified in that provision, and for reasons recorded in writing.

“A protest, by itself, is not a lawful ground for suspending Internet services. Under Section 20(2) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, a suspension may be ordered only during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, and only for specified purposes such as maintaining public order. The order must be reasoned, published, limited in area and duration, and issued by the competent authority under the Telecommunications Suspension Rules, 2024. The government must also consider whether less restrictive measures would be sufficient,” said Apar Gupta, Advocate and Founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation.

Which law governs Internet shutdowns?

Internet shutdowns in India were earlier governed by Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017. These have now been replaced by Section 20 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024.

“The publication of such Internet suspension orders is necessary and mandatory for ensuring transparency, accountability and proportionality, as required by Rule 3(2) of the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, read with Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The law states that each order is not only required to be published but should also include crucial details such as the date, time, duration, and the specific area where the suspension will be in effect,” SFLC said in a statement.

Despite the updated legal framework, a review by the Digital Defenders Network found that several shutdown orders issued by State governments since late 2024 continue to invoke Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the 2017 Rules.

For instance, the Secretary, Home Department, Uttar Pradesh, issued an Internet suspension order applicable to the district of Bareilly on October 2, 2025, invoking Section 7 of the Telegraph Act read with Rule 2(1) of the 2017 Rules. Similarly, the Secretary, Home Department, Manipur, on June 7, 2025, issued an order suspending mobile data, VSAT and VPN services by relying on the 2017 Rules.

By continuing to rely on these outdated provisions, some States appear to have bypassed the procedural safeguards introduced under the 2024 Rules. When it comes to jamming of Internet shutdown, “the authority for implementing network jamming is purportedly exercised and claimed sometimes by the local police under criminal law” said Mr. Gupta.

The current suspension order accessed by The Hindu as released by the Ministry of Home Affairs, was imposed across 150 cell sites according to an Industry source. It stated that the order was imposed under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of The Telecommunication Act, 2023 read with 2024 Rules. In the interest of public safety, public order, averting public emergency, and preventing incitement to offences.

Where does India stand in terms of Internet shutdowns?

India continues to record one of the highest numbers of Internet shutdowns in the world. Access Now’s 2025 report recorded 65 shutdowns across 12 States and Union Territories. While this was lower than in previous years, the scale remains exceptional for a constitutional democracy.

Historically, Jammu & Kashmir has recorded the highest number of Internet shutdowns in the country, with about 449 since 2012, followed by Rajasthan (115) and Manipur (62), according to the SFLC Internet Shutdown Tracker.

India has recorded about 24 shutdowns in 2026 (as of July 22).

What limits has the Supreme Court placed on Internet shutdowns?

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that access to the Internet is closely connected to the freedoms of speech and trade under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

The Court held that any shutdown must be backed by law, pursue a legitimate objective, be necessary and proportionate, and be the least restrictive measure available. Orders must also be limited in scope and duration, accompanied by detailed reasons, published and reviewed by a competent committee.

The Court further held that indefinite shutdowns are impermissible and that any order suspending internet services must be reviewed by a multi-member Review Committee within five working days.

The Court observed that “complete broad suspension of telecom services, be it the Internet or otherwise, being a drastic measure, must be considered by the State only if ‘necessary’ and ‘unavoidable’. In furtherance of the same, the State must assess the existence of an alternate less intrusive remedy.”

Mr. Gupta pointed out that the Review Committee can direct the government to withdraw an unlawful order. However, IFF’s RTI findings show that shutdown orders and review records are often not published consistently, weakening these safeguards in practice.

The case set a precedent requiring the publication of shutdown orders. However, according to the Oxford Human Rights Hub, out of the 428 internet shutdowns recorded between 2020 and 2024, a majority of the State governments responsible for these shutdowns continued not to publish the orders for public access. This failure violates not only the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anuradha Bhasin, but also principles of natural justice.

Can the orders be challenged in court?

Yes. A shutdown may be challenged before a High Court under Article 226 or, in an appropriate case, before the Supreme Court under Article 32. Courts can examine whether the order was lawful, necessary, proportionate and properly limited in area and duration.

“Indefinite suspensions are unlawful. The government must publish its orders, consider less restrictive alternatives and provide reasons capable of judicial review. Under the 2024 Rules, a suspension order cannot remain in force for more than 15 days,” Mr. Gupta said