Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India: Internet Indispensability

by

  Gauri Lamba

CyJurII Scholar

on 6 April 2026

Citation Number: (2020) 3 SCC 637.

Facts

Background and Internet Restrictions in Jammu & Kashmir 

In August 2019, after the abrogation of Article 370, the Government of India imposed various restrictions in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The restrictions included restrictions on movement, public gatherings, communication services, etc. The internet services, including mobile data and broadband services, had been suspended indefinitely. This had a huge impact on the lives of the people. The restrictions had a huge impact on the lives of people, especially journalists and the people at large. The internet services had been suspended indefinitely. Anuradha Bhasin, the Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Issues

1. Whether the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) includes access to the internet?

2. Whether the freedom to practice any profession guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) includes access to the internet?

3. Whether the imposition of an indefinite shutdown of the internet is constitutional?

4. Whether the restrictions are reasonable and proportionate within the parameters of Article 19(2)?

Rules

• Constitution Of India 2 Article 19(1)(a) Guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to acquire and disseminate information through modern media.

• Article 19(1)(g) Guarantees the right to practice any profession, trade, or business.

• Article 19(2) Permits reasonable restrictions on speech on certain specified grounds, such as public order and security of the State.

• Article 21 Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including dignity and access to livelihood.

• Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017 3 Rule 2 Allows suspension of telecom services during a public emergency or for public safety.

• Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 4 Section 5(2) Authorizes the government to intercept or suspend communication services in the interest of public safety and sovereignty.

Judicial Doctrines 

• Doctrine of Proportionality Restrictive measures must be necessary, suitable, and least restrictive.

• Doctrine of Reasonableness Restrictive measures must not be arbitrary or excessive.

• Transparency Requirement Restrictive orders on fundamental rights must be published.

Analysis/Application

a. The Supreme Court has recognized the fact that the internet has now become indispensable for the enforcement of fundamental rights such as access to information, freedom of speech and expression, and so on. Restrictions on access to the internet are substantial restrictions on these fundamental rights and have to be considered in a constitutional context rather than an administrative context.

b. The Supreme Court has applied these principles to trade and professions due to the internet& importance, which falls under Article 19(1)(g). It also ruled that indefinite internet restrictions are unconstitutional because rights restrictions must be temporary and reviewed periodically.

c. The Court also emphasized the concept of proportionality, where the State must ensure that it has adopted “necessary,” “adequate,” and “proportionate” measures. It cannot impose general restrictions without making a distinction between different levels of threats or considering other options that are less restrictive of individual rights. It must also ensure that the restriction is “indispensable,” without any alternatives that are equally effective but impose a lesser impact on individual rights.

d. The Court also emphasized the need for transparency by citing that the government was not able to provide orders for shutting down the websites. It also stated that “without transparency, the rule of law cannot be upheld,” and parties cannot challenge the legality of the orders.

e. The Court emphasized the need to periodically review restriction orders, failing which it would be considered “arbitrary” and “excessive.” It also stated that the government has the right to impose restrictions for security and safety purposes but not at the expense of individual rights.

Conclusion

The Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to access the internet as a means of communication.

It was further held that the right to freedom to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) includes the right to access the internet for trade and business. The Court declared that the shutdown of the internet is unconstitutional as it violates the test of proportionality. It was held that all restriction orders need to be published to ensure transparency and accountability.

The Court held that such internet shutdowns need to be temporary and subject to periodic review. Though the Court did not specifically direct the restoration of internet services, it held certain binding guidelines for future cases.

References

1. Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 (India).

2. Temporary Suspensionof TelecomServices (Public Emergency or Public Safety), Rules 2017, r 2.

3. Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, s.5(2) (India).

4. Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353 (India).

5. State of Madras v V G Row AIR 1952 SC 196