Digital rights group flags lack of transparency in internet shutdowns

Internet shutdown orders continue to suffer from inadequate transparency, an annual report by the Delhi-based Software Freedom Law Centre said. “Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, which established the principles of necessity and proportionality in restricting internet access, implementation remains inconsistent, with limited transparency and accountability,” the report said.

“The absence of a structured oversight mechanism increases the risk of misuse, with shutdowns potentially being employed for purposes beyond legitimate security concerns,” the report says. Advocate and human rights activist Vrinda Grover pointed out that in spite of a Supreme Court order explicitly requiring a review committee to look at internet shutdown orders, “there are no review committee orders in the public domain, or you dig them out from I don’t know which nook and cranny of which website.”

India is a frequent deployer of internet shutdowns as a tool to enforce public order. The Hindu reported in December that the number of shutdowns in 2024 declined from the previous year, a rare reversal of a mostly growing trend. Shutdowns were predominantly imposed in Manipur and Haryana on law-and-order justifications. 

Also read | India has highest number of internet shutdowns in 2023

While the numbers have gone down, SFLC pointed out that procedural deficiencies persisted in the execution of shutdowns. In Jainoor, Telangana, mobile internet was shut down from September to October last year after outrage following the alleged rape of a tribal woman. No blocking order was published, SFLC said, and a Right to Information application to obtain one yielded no results.

The Department of Telecommunications has repeatedly informed Parliament that it has not conducted an impact assessment study of internet shutdowns. SFLC has recommended that this be done soon, as this would “ensure that the assumption that shutdowns contribute to law and order is substantiated by evidence, thereby promoting a more balanced approach to digital governance.”