Until 2017, India did not have a codified law to order internet shut downs. A general power was vested in District Magistrates in this regard. The Magistrate could issue an order ordering a shut down if a ‘speedy remedy’ (extending to internet shut down) is desirable for ‘immediate prevention’ of an event. The Magistrate had to be satisfied that the order is ‘likely to prevent or tends to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of public tranquillity’. The Magistrate’s order cannot be for longer than two months.

In 2017, new rules to order internet shut downs were introduced taking the power away from the Magistrate. These rules — the Temporary Suspension Rules — state that internet shut downs can only be ordered by the Home Secretary of the Union or State Governments. Only in “unavoidable circumstances” can the passing of orders be delegated to someone lower than the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India. And even in this case, the official must be authorised by the Centre or State Home Secretary. Shut downs can be ordered where ‘necessary’ or ‘unavoidable’ during a ‘public emergency’ or in the ‘interest of public safety’. Shut down orders must necessarily detail the reasons to shut down the internet. The orders must also be sent to a review committee under the state or central government within 24 hours. The committee must then review them within five working days. The rules state that apart from the Chief Secretary and Legal Secretary, the committee can comprise a secretary other than the home secretary.

In January 2020 the Supreme Court passed its judgement in the case of Anuradha Bhasin. The judgement in this case explicitly recognised two things: that the freedom to access information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (which protects the freedom of speech and expression); and that the freedom to conduct your trade, profession or business over the internet is also a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India (which protects the freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business). Every time the internet is suspended, it is quite obvious that it is a violation of these rights. These rights can only be curtailed in the interest of the ‘sovereignty and security of the state, integrity of the nation, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence’.

The Supreme Court’s judgement in Anuradha Bhasin’s case had also underlined that shut down orders must clearly provide reasons for the shut down and they must be publicly available.

[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “In India, are internet shut downs in accordance with law? Not always”, by Diksha Munjal, News Laundry]

In the above instance, the order was passed by the Communications Minister of the Indian Central Government. The Communications Minister is below the rank of Joint Secretary. The Home Secretary was away for a conference in Geneva and thus was not present in Delhi when the decision to pass the order was made. However, the Home Secretary could be contacted by phone or email. She had, in fact, explicitly said that she should be contacted if any need arises, however minor. As she had taken measures to make herself available virtually, the Home Secretary did not authorise any other official to exercise her functions. Against this, consider the following statements:
i. The Communications Minister had the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.
ii. The passing of the order by the Communications Minister was avoidable.
iii. The power to pass the order remained with the Home Secretary.
iv. The Communications Minister did not have the power to pass the order under the 2017 Rules.
Which of the following statements are false?