The case of Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India [2020] set a precedent that requires the publication of internet access suspension orders to promote transparency and accountability around opaque internet shutdowns in India. However, of the 428 internet shutdowns recorded between 2020 and 2024, a majority of the state governments responsible for these shutdowns continued to not publish the orders for the public to access. This failure violates not only the apex Court’s judgment in Bhasin, but also  principles of natural justice. Here, we call for the establishment of a centralised database for shutdown and review committee orders to facilitate informed public recourse.

In the case of Bhasin, the Supreme Court of India ruled that all orders directing the suspension of internet services must be made ‘directly’ and ‘reliably’ available to the public at large [96]. This will enable the public to (a) make appropriate alternative arrangements that ensure their lives and livelihoods are not disproportionately affected by the suspension of internet services; and (b) challenge the suspension order and the subsequent review committee orders if they constitute unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights.

In Bhasin, the Supreme Court perpetuated an ostensible shift towards fostering transparency and accountability regarding internet shutdowns [15-16]. The case mandated the publication of shutdown orders, even though the parent statute (Telegraph Act) and rules (Telecom Suspension Rules) do not specifically prescribe it [96]. Yet, the gap between the apex Court’s decision and its implementation reveals a persistent challenge.

Data collated by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) in their 2023 report suggest that between January 2020 and December 2022, 127 internet shutdowns were reported in India. Of the 28 Indian states, 18 states shut down the internet on at least one occasion. Interestingly, 11 out of the 18 did not publish suspension orders as directed by the Supreme Court (see the Parliamentary Standing Committee report ). In their Report, the IFF and HRW found that not only are orders suspending internet access unpublished, but subsequent orders by review committees are also not made publicly available. Review committees are a critical safeguard in preventing authorities from arbitrarily misusing their power to suspending internet services. The committees, which exist at both the state and central government levels, are required to record their findings on whether suspension orders are lawful, necessary, and proportionate.

This systematic non-disclosure severely impedes the public’s ability to judicially challenge both the orders/directives to block internet access and the review committee orders which affirm them. Without access to suspension orders, through a website or database, citizens are compelled to file right-to-information (RTI) queries with the government. However, government officials can take up to 30 days to respond to queries. They can also decline to respond by invoking an exemption from disclosure of information on the ground that it would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. Therefore, this is not a practical solution in the case of most internet shutdowns, as the shutdown will have likely been lifted by the time an RTI is received.

The repercussions of this opacity have spurred legal action. Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhasin, several petitions (see here, here and here) have been filed seeking, inter alia, publication of suspension and review committee orders. For example, in Biradar (2022), the Petitioner challenged the West Bengal Government’s order suspending all forms of internet access to prevent cheating during school examinations. It was only once the petition was filed that the state government published the shutdown order and the findings of the Review Committee. Upon perusal of the orders, the High Court stayed the shutdown because it did not meet the proportionality test affirmed in Modern Dental College (2016) and Puttaswamy (2017). Publication helped the court to judicially review shutdowns imposed in the state. Furthermore, the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its dicta when deciding an application filed by Foundation for Media Professionals in 2024.

A failure to publish shutdown orders undermines judicial review and natural justice. In pursuance of the rules set in Bhasin, the Telecom Suspension Rules can be utilised to implement a centralised digital database which is managed by representatives from the central and state governments [152a]. The aim of this database would be to catalogue shutdown orders and subsequent review committee orders. Doing this would foster transparency and ensure affected individuals have access to relevant information concerning the legal basis of internet shutdowns.