Overview of Internet Shutdowns in India, 2025

India recorded 65 internet shutdowns in 2025, marking the lowest annual figure since 2017, according to the Internet Shutdowns Report by Access Now (2026). These shutdowns predominantly occurred at the state level, invoking provisions under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The Asia Pacific region, including India, accounted for 195 shutdowns across 11 countries, underscoring the regional prevalence of this governance tool. Despite the reduction, India remains the global leader in internet shutdowns, reflecting persistent tensions between state security imperatives and digital rights.

• India’s internet user base exceeds 700 million (TRAI, 2024).
• Shutdowns disrupt critical digital services impacting e-commerce, digital payments, and IT sectors.
• Annual economic losses due to shutdowns estimated at $2.8 billion (Internet Freedom Foundation, 2023).

Legal Framework Governing Internet Shutdowns in India

The primary legal authority for internet shutdowns lies in Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which empowers the government to suspend telecom services during a “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety.” However, the Act lacks explicit definitions for these terms, allowing broad executive discretion. Until 2017, shutdowns were frequently imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which authorizes preventive restrictions to maintain public order, including communication bans.

• Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 introduced procedural safeguards:
• Mandates review of shutdown orders by an independent advisory board within 5 days.
• Requires periodic reporting and justification for the continuation of shutdowns.
• Supreme Court rulings: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) held that indefinite internet shutdowns violate the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• The Court emphasized proportionality, necessity, and judicial oversight in imposing shutdowns.

Economic Impact of Internet Shutdowns

Internet shutdowns impose significant economic costs on India’s rapidly expanding digital economy, projected to reach $1 trillion by 2025 (NITI Aayog, 2022). The disruption affects sectors reliant on continuous connectivity such as e-commerce, digital payments, IT services, and startups. According to the Internet Freedom Foundation (2023), shutdowns cost the Indian economy approximately $2.8 billion annually. The CISCO Annual Internet Report, 2023 estimates a daily loss of $96 million during shutdown periods.

• Shutdowns impact over 700 million internet users, curtailing access to information and services.
• Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) face operational paralysis, affecting livelihoods.
• Investor confidence in the digital sector is undermined by unpredictable connectivity disruptions.

Institutional Roles and Oversight Mechanisms

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) holds the authority to issue internet shutdown orders, often in consultation with state governments. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) monitors telecom sector performance but lacks direct authority over shutdown decisions. The Advisory Board constituted under the Temporary Suspension Rules reviews shutdown orders within 5 days to assess their legitimacy. The Supreme Court of India acts as the ultimate arbiter on the constitutional validity and procedural fairness of shutdowns.

• Advisory Board composition includes technical and legal experts, but its recommendations are not binding.
• Judicial oversight remains limited to post-facto challenges, as prior judicial approval is not mandatory.
• Transparency deficits persist due to lack of mandatory public disclosure of shutdown orders and rationales.

Comparative Analysis: India vs United Kingdom

Critical Gaps in India’s Internet Shutdown Regime

The absence of precise legal definitions for “public emergency” and “public safety” under the Indian Telegraph Act allows for discretionary and inconsistent use of shutdowns. The Temporary Suspension Rules mandate advisory board review but do not require prior judicial approval, weakening procedural safeguards. Shutdown orders often lack transparency, with minimal public disclosure or justification, undermining accountability. These gaps risk disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and access to information.

• Discretionary use without clear thresholds leads to potential misuse for suppressing dissent.
• Non-binding advisory board recommendations limit effective checks on executive action.
• Judicial review is reactive, often delayed beyond the shutdown period.

Way Forward: Strengthening Legal and Institutional Frameworks

• Amend the Indian Telegraph Act to define “public emergency” and “public safety” with clear, narrow criteria.
• Introduce mandatory prior judicial approval for internet shutdown orders to enhance checks and balances.
• Make advisory board recommendations binding or establish an independent oversight authority with enforcement powers.
• Mandate public disclosure of shutdown orders, including rationale and duration, to improve transparency.
• Encourage capacity building within law enforcement and judiciary on digital rights and proportionality principles.

Jharkhand & JPSC Relevance

• JPSC Paper: Paper 2 - Governance and Constitution; Paper 3 - Science & Technology
• Jharkhand Angle: Jharkhand has witnessed internet shutdowns during law and order situations, affecting tribal communities and economic activities.
• Mains Pointer: Highlight the impact of shutdowns on tribal access to information, local economy, and governance; suggest state-specific procedural safeguards.