Anuradha Bhasin Case (2020)

– Internet Shutdowns and Fundamental Rights

Background of the Case

Following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, the Union Government imposed:

• Severe restrictions on movement
• Suspension of internet services in Jammu & Kashmir

Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, challenged these restrictions, arguing that:

• Indefinite internet shutdowns cripple journalism
• They violate freedom of speech, trade, and profession

Core Constitutional Questions

1. Does the use of the internet enjoy protection under Article 19?
2. Can the government impose an indefinite internet shutdown?
3. What standards must govern such executive action?

Supreme Court’s Judgement

The Supreme Court delivered a rights-sensitive yet security-conscious ruling.

(a) Internet Is Protected Under Article 19

The Court held that:

• Freedom of speech and expression via the internet is protected under Article 19(1)(a)
• Freedom to carry on trade, business, or profession online is protected under Article 19(1)(g)

Thus, the medium of the internet does not dilute constitutional protection.

(b) Restrictions Must Satisfy Articles 19(2) and 19(6)

The Court ruled that:

• Any restriction on internet access must:
  • Be imposed by law
  • Fall within grounds mentioned in Articles 19(2) and 19(6)
  • Satisfy the test of proportionality

This links the case directly to Puttaswamy (2017).

(c) Indefinite Internet Shutdowns Are Impermissible

The Court held that:

• Indefinite suspension of internet services is unconstitutional
• Under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017:
  • Suspension can only be temporary
  • Must be periodically reviewed

Thus, Emergency powers cannot be converted into permanent restrictions.

(d) Proportionality and Necessity

The Court emphasised that:

• Internet shutdown orders must:
  • Be necessary
  • Be least restrictive
  • Last only as long as required

Any extension must:

• Be justified with reasons
• Undergo fresh review

(e) Transparency and Review

The Court directed that:

• All internet suspension orders must be:
  • Published
  • Subject to judicial review

Secrecy in such orders undermines constitutional governance.

Constitutional Significance

This judgment:

• Recognised access to the internet as integral to Fundamental Rights
• Brought digital governance within constitutional scrutiny
• Strengthened:
  • Rule of law
  • Executive accountability
• Balanced:
  • National security
  • Civil liberties

Impact of the Judgement

(a) Emergence of Right to Internet Access

While the Court did not explicitly declare a standalone “right to internet”, it effectively held that → Access to the internet is indispensable for exercising Article 19 rights

This has been widely interpreted as →a functional fundamental right to internet access.

(b) Limits on Government Power

The judgment also:

• Recognised the government’s power to → Shut down internet services
  • But only:
    • Temporarily
    • Proportionately
    • With accountability

This dual recognition creates constitutional tension, but also checks abuse.

Place in Free Speech Jurisprudence

Case	Contribution
Shreya Singhal (2015)	Online speech protected
Puttaswamy (2017)	Proportionality test
Anuradha Bhasin (2020)	Internet access constitutionalised

Summary

The Anuradha Bhasin Case (2020) held that internet-based speech and trade are protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), ruled that indefinite internet shutdowns are impermissible, and mandated that all such restrictions must satisfy the test of proportionality.