India continues to lead the world in internet shutdowns, with hundreds of such instances recorded over the past decade. From the early reliance on Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the formulation of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017 ("2017 Rules"), and now the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024 (hereinafter the ‘2024 Rules’), the legal framework surrounding shutdowns has evolved significantly. These measures, while grounded in concerns of public safety and emergency, have frequently drawn criticism for lack of transparency, indefinite durations, and disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights.

Historically, internet shutdowns were often imposed using Section 144 of the CrPC which empowered a magistrate to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. However, this provision of the CrPC lacked specificity with respect to telecom suspensions. Recognizing this gap, the Central government notified the 2017 Rules under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. These rules required that shutdowns be ordered by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs or the State Home Department and included a provision for review by a committee. While this framework enabled suspension of telecommunication services on grounds of public emergency or public safety, it lacked procedural safeguards and transparency mechanisms.

In December 2023, the Indian Parliament enacted the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (hereinafter ‘Telecom Act’), replacing the colonial-era Telegraph Act. Pursuant to this revision, the Central Government notified the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024 (hereinafter the ‘2024 Rules’) under Section 20(2)(b), read with Section 56(2)(t) of the new Act. These Rules, which came into force on 22 November 2024, formally superseded the 2017 Rules and introduced several procedural refinements intended to address judicial concerns raised in landmark cases such as Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. 

The 2024 Rules were introduced with the stated objective of providing procedural clarity, mandating the publication of shutdown orders, limiting the duration of suspensions, and establishing a structured review process. However, a review of internet shutdowns across India post-enactment of the 2024 Rules reveals continuing gaps between the law on paper and its implementation in practice. By tracing major instances of internet shutdowns since the promulgation of the 2024 Rules, this piece makes an attempt to highlight patterns of significant implementation gaps across Indian states.

Tracing Constitutional Standards for Internet Shutdowns

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court delineated the legal standards governing internet shutdowns. The Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression over the internet is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a), and that any restriction on this right must satisfy the following conditions:

  • Legality: The action must be authorised by valid law.
  • Necessity: There must be a legitimate aim justifying the restriction.
  • Proportionality: The measure must constitute the least restrictive means available.
  • Time-bound and reasoned: Orders must be limited in scope and duration and be accompanied by detailed reasoning.
  • Transparency and oversight: Orders must be 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. 

Even prior to Bhasin, in PUCL v. Union of India (1997), the Court emphasised that emergency powers under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act were intended for targeted interception and not blanket shutdowns. While the 2024 Rules attempt to codify these constitutional principles, their design continues to vest broad discretion in the executive, particularly in defining and assessing “public order” threats. Across India, this has resulted in an inconsistent pattern of implementation. While some state governments have transitioned to the new legal framework, others continue to cite the repealed laws. This discretion has, in many instances, enabled broad, preventive suspensions rather than carefully tailored responses to specific incidents.

Internet Shutdowns in India (2025-26)

Despite the enactment of the 2024 Rules, various states in India continue to impose internet shutdowns in ways that are inconsistent with both the new legal framework and established judicial standards. A review of orders issued between 2025 and 2026 reveals several concerning patterns.

1. Reliance on Obsolete Legal Frameworks

A significant number of shutdown orders issued by various state governments since late 2024 continue to invoke Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the 2017 Rules, despite their formal supersession by the Telecom Act and the 2024 Rules.

For example:

  • 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 Telegraph Act read with rule 2(1) of the 2017 Rules.
  • The Superintendent of Police, Jamui, Bihar on February 16, 2025 issued an order which inter alia  suspended internet services to prevent the spread of rumours on social media without citing any applicable legal provisions.
  • Secretary, Home Department, Manipur on June 7, 2025 issued an order suspending mobile data, VSAT and VPN services by relying on provisions of the 2017 Rules. 
  • The Deputy Commissioner of Baksa, Assam issued an internet suspension order on October 15, 2025, under the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the erstwhile 2017 Rules applicable to the entire district.
  • Internet services were similarly suspended in Karbi Anglong and West Karbi Anglong districts of Assam on December 23, 2025 and in Kokrajhar on January 20, 2026, citing the same outdated legal provisions. 

Surprisingly, none of these orders explicitly reference the 2024 Rules or Section 20 of the 2023 Act, raising serious questions about their legal basis. By continuing to rely on repealed or superseded statutory provisions, state authorities have effectively sidestepped the 2024 Rules’ procedural safeguards, which formally require stricter justification, defined time limits, and public disclosure.

2. Indefinite Duration of Suspensions

While most states have issued shutdown orders with specified durations (see here, here and here),  suspension orders in the state of Assam continue to use vague phrasing such as “with immediate effect and until further orders,” effectively resulting in de facto indefinite shutdowns. This directly contravenes Rule 3(2)(b)(iii) of the 2024 Rules, which limits the duration of any internet suspension to a maximum of 15 calendar days. The Supreme Court, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, has also held that indefinite suspension orders are unconstitutional.

Orders issued in Karbi Anglong and West Karbi Anglong districts of Assam where mobile internet was suspended for multiple days in response to unrest illustrate this open-ended approach, with the shutdown lifted only after a review of the security situation rather than pursuant to a specified statutory timeline.

3. Excessive Geographic Scope

The 2024 Rules mandate that suspension orders be restricted to “clearly defined geographical area(s)” that are the minimum necessary to address the underlying concern. However, in Assam, authorities have frequently imposed suspensions across entire districts rather than narrowly defined localities affected by specific incidents.

This practice is inconsistent with the principle of proportionality, which requires that restrictions on fundamental rights be narrowly tailored. Rather than targeting localized flashpoints, recent practice in several states shows a preference for sweeping district-wide bans, treating connectivity itself as a security threat rather than a fundamental human right. Such blanket suspensions disproportionately affect peaceful residents, students, businesses, and workers with no connection to the alleged disturbance.

4. Vague and Generic Justifications

Shutdown orders from across various states as observed above often rely on broad and indistinct language such as “serious apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquillity,” or “in the interest of public safety or adverting public emergency” or “concerns that social media may be used to spread inflammatory messages and rumours”. 

While the 2024 Rules require orders to be “reasoned,” they do not specify the level of detail or evidentiary standard required. As a result, boilerplate language is repeatedly treated as sufficient compliance, suggesting a template-driven approach rather than case-specific reasoning. These generic phrases fail to meet the Supreme Court’s requirement in Anuradha Bhasin that the reasons for suspension be clearly articulated and factually supported.

5. Transparency and Accessibility Failures

Rule 3(2) of the 2024 Rules requires that suspension orders be published and forwarded to the relevant Review Committee within 24 hours. In practice, most shutdown orders have not been proactively published in the public domain; instead, they have been circulated only to internal government departments and telecom service providers.

While the Rules formally require transparency, they do not establish a centralised public repository or meaningful penalties for non-publication. Consequently, citizens frequently learn about shutdowns only after services are disrupted, with little ability to scrutinise or challenge the decisions. The absence of publicly available orders also impedes judicial review, as affected individuals, journalists, and civil society groups face practical barriers to accessing the necessary documentation.

Conclusion

The internet shutdowns imposed by various states across the country between 2025 and 2026 reveal systemic gaps in the implementation of the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024. Orders continue to:

  • cite repealed or superseded laws,
  • be open-ended in duration,
  • extend across excessively broad geographic areas,
  • rely on vague and generic justifications, and
  • remain inaccessible to the general public.

While the 2024 Rules represent a formal procedural improvement over the 2017 framework, their effectiveness ultimately depends on faithful adherence by state authorities. A shutdown regime that fails to comply with constitutional principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality not only violates fundamental rights but risks normalising a state of digital exception.