Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Internet Shutdowns, Proportionality & Fundamental Rights

The case of Anuradha Bhasin v. UOI (2020) examined the limits of executive power in imposing internet shutdowns and restrictions on movement in Jammu & Kashmir. This case applies the proportionality test (which is first articulated in K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI) to restrictions on fundamental rights, and recognises that trade and commerce through the internet fall under Article 19. This case reflects an evolving judicial approach that attempts to balance national security concerns, technological complexity, and democratic freedoms.

Introduction

The case of Anuradha Bhasin v. UOI (2020) stands as a significant judgment emphasizing the increasing indispensability of the internet in modern society and placing checks on the government’s authority to impose blanket internet shutdowns. The matter arose from a petition filed by journalist Anuradha Bhasin, who argued that the suspension of internet services in Jammu and Kashmir prevented her from publishing her newspaper, thereby infringing on the freedom of the press.

Another petition was filed by Member of Parliament Ghulam Nabi Azad, who contended that the shutdown hindered him from interacting with his constituents. The Supreme Court heard both petitions together and delivered a landmark ruling, laying down crucial guidelines for administrative bodies to follow when issuing for internet suspension.^[1]

KEY ISSUES:

1. Whether the government can exempt itself from producing the restrictions orders issued under section 144 before the court?
2. Whether the freedom of trade and commerce through the internet comes under the scope of Article 19(1)(g)?
3. The consequent validity of the prohibition of internet access^[2]
4. Whether the imposition of section 144 of the CrPC was valid?
5. Whether the freedom of the press guaranteed under Article 19 was violated by these restrictions imposed by the government?

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES:

Petitioner’s Argument

• Petitioners argue that restrictions under section 144 fail to meet the constitutional standard of “reasonable and proportionality,” as no evidence supports the claimed threat to law and order.
• The internal suspension was procedurally flawed and overly broad, violating fundamental rights(19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) without adopting less restrictive measures.^[3]
• Petitioners contended that the internet suspension orders did not comply with the Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017.
• Nor any deadline fixed within which the suspension would be lifted.

Respondent’s Argument 

• Primary contentions were that the internet services can be used to spread flagrant misinformation, which can disturb public order.
• The internet restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir were necessary to counter terrorism, given the Internet’s boundless nature and potential misuse through social media and the dark web.
• A complete shutdown was deemed more effective than targeting specific websites. Claims of excessive stringency were unfounded, as the measures were proportionate to the security threat.^[4]
• The Section 144 CrPC were issued by the Magistrate based on local conditions and threat perceptions. These restrictions were gradually relaxed as the situation improved and media services resumed across all regions, including Srinagar. The absence of restrictions in Ladakh shows that the orders were situation-specific and not a blanket clampdown.
• It was impossible to segregate the troublemaker from ordinary citizens. 

COURT JUDGEMENT AND REASONING:

1. Publication & Transparency: The court held that the State must disclose all orders imposing restrictions, as their absence makes judicial review impossible. Citing Ram Jethmalani v. UOI (2011), it noted that Article 32 requires full disclosure so petitioners can effectively challenge State action, and that the right to information forms part of Article 19(1)(a).
2. Fundamental Rights: The court did not definitively assert that internet access is a fundamental right. But it acknowledged that restrictions on internet access can impact fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). Importantly, restrictions are allowed, but they must be reasonable; the reasonable restrictions test under Article 19 applies.
3. Doctrine of proportionality: The court employed the doctrine of proportionality, a principle derived from constitutional law traditions. It explained proportionality with reference to foreign jurisprudence:
   • German Model: test of legitimacy, suitability, less restrictive alternative, and balance between restrictions and impact.
   • Canadian “Oakes test”: compelling objective, rational link, minimal impairment, and proportionality in the strict sense.The Court stressed that restrictions must not be arbitrary or excessive: they should be justified, necessary, and measured.
4. Telecom Rules vs. Section 144 CrPC: The court held that the government cannot rely on IT Act Section 69A (which allows blocking particular websites) to justify a blanket internet shutdown, because 69A is for specific content, not entire connectivity. The Court held that the Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017, must be followed strictly. It also examined the use of Section 144 CrPC, finding that such orders must be bona fide, reasonable, based on material facts, not repetitive and not a tool for unchecked power.
5. Freedom of the Press: While the courts respected the importance of press freedom, it observed that petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to show a “chilling effect”. The court noted press operations resumed, so it declined to issue further orders but warned the government to act responsibly and facilitate journalistic work.

CONCLUSION

The judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. UOI marks a transformative phase in India’s fundamental rights jurisprudence. Anuradha Bhasin’s case ensured that restrictions on internet access and movement must be lawful, transparent, and proportionate. This judgments affirm that national security cannot override individual freedoms without proper justification, and that constitutional rights must continue to adapt to changing social and technological realities.  

Author: Priyanshi Tiwari, Student of Prestige Institute Of Management And Research, Gwalior

---

^[1] https://blog.ipleaders.in/anuradha-bhasin-v-union-of-india-case-analysis/

^[2] https://www.calj.in/post/anuradha-bhasin-v-union-of-india-an-examination-of-the-supreme-court-s-application-of-the-doctrine

^[3] https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/anuradha-bhasin-vs-union-of-india-2020

^[4] https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/anuradha-bhasin-vs-union-of-india-2020

Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/k-s-puttaswamy-right-to-privacy/