No assessment of the economic and social impact of internet shutdowns in the country has been conducted by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Union Minister of State for Communications Dr. Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar told Parliament on March 12. The minister made this statement in response to an unstarred question raised in the Lok Sabha regarding internet shutdowns.
Notably, the minister avoided answering a question about the number and details of internet shutdown orders issued under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, between January 2023 and January 2025. The Union government’s stance is that, as per the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, police and public order fall under State jurisdiction. Therefore, the DoT does not centrally maintain the details of internet suspension orders issued by state governments and union territories (UTs).
However, it is important to note that state police forces do not have the authority to order internet shutdowns independently under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017. These rules empower only the central and state governments to suspend internet services.
According to the nonprofit organization Access Now, India has led the world in internet shutdowns for six consecutive years. Access Now’s data shows that in 2023 alone, India recorded 116 shutdowns, with conflict being the leading cause globally.
In 2021, a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology submitted a report titled Suspension of Telecom Services/Internet and its Impact. The committee observed that before the notification of the 2017 Rules, telecom and internet shutdowns were ordered arbitrarily under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2017 Rules also lacked adequate safeguards. Following this judgment, the Union government introduced some amendments, but the standing committee found them insufficient, noting that many provisions remained open-ended.
The committee further highlighted that internet shutdowns affect the national economy, press freedom, education, and healthcare services. It recommended that the DoT and the Ministry of Home Affairs conduct a study on the impact of internet shutdowns and their effectiveness in addressing public safety and emergencies. However, the minister’s response indicates that the government has yet to act on these recommendations.
Under the 2017 Rules, telecom or internet shutdowns may be ordered on the grounds of public emergency and public safety. However, these terms have not been defined in either the 1885 Act or the 2017 Rules. The Standing Committee also noted that no clear parameters exist to assess the necessity of internet shutdowns, leading to orders being issued based on subjective assessments.
In November 2024, the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, came into effect, making it mandatory to publish all internet suspension orders. These orders must clearly state the reason for the suspension, specify the geographical area affected, and identify the type of telecommunication service to be suspended. The new rules also mandate that the duration of the suspension be specified, with a maximum limit of 15 days.
Additionally, under the new rules, a copy of the suspension order must be forwarded to the concerned Review Committee within 24 hours of its issuance.
Although the new law provides for access to suspension orders, the Supreme Court, in an order issued on February 23, 2024, clarified that the deliberations of the Review Committee may not necessarily be made public. Notably, permissions granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for the temporary suspension of telecom services are now published on the MHA website.
However, nonprofit organizations such as the Internet Freedom Foundation argue that access to Review Committee orders is also crucial” for affected parties to challenge suspension orders before the appropriate forum, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.”
