Internet shutdowns obstruct universal access to internet, hindering freedom of expression, the right to information and right to peaceful assembly, economic security, education and health services for the citizens.  Nonstop access to internet remains essential for political parties, activists, and marginalised communities to organise demonstrations, expand and spread their narratives, expose abuses, and hold the government accountable.

Bangladesh witnessed wilful full blackout of internet for 5 days consecutively and 11 days for mobile internet across the country during the ‘Quota Reform Movement’ to quell the July-August mass uprising in 2024. In addition, the then government had sweeping powers to shutdown or slowdown internet on numerous occasions without providing any valid legal cause. As a result, there is a growing demand for an alternative, modern, and resilient connectivity solution beyond traditional internet service infrastructure.

Despite that, there is scope for wiretapping and shutting down internet under the draft telecommunication law and the Regulatory and Licensing Guidelines for Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) Satellite Services Operator in Bangladesh prepared by the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission.

The United Nations (UN) recognised internet access as a fundamental human right in 2016. Subsequently, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a non-binding resolution titled the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet in 2021. Along with 42 other countries, Bangladesh also voted in favour of this resolution. Although the resolution is non-binding but it’s a commitment from the signing state parties to uphold the value of the resolution.

The ramifications of internet shutdowns on human rights can be severe and extensive. State censorship and surveillance through internet and telecommunications have detrimental impact on the human right to seek, receive, and disseminate information. Hence, international human rights instruments and standards uniformly reject internet shutdowns as a means of information control. Restricting access via a partial or complete internet blackout is characterised as indiscriminate and disproportionate restrictions. Any restrictions on information dissemination systems must comply with the three-part tests for restrictions on freedom of expression i.e. legality, legitimacy and proportionality. The responsibility to justify the tests is with the State attempting to limit the rights.

The legality principle provides any restriction must be provided by law and perhaps that is why Bangladesh is also interested to keep a scope in the law. However, the law must be concisely drafted, and it must be accessible to the public. The law should mandate strict oversight over the scope of such restriction and facilitate forum for judicial review to prevent any misuse. Additionally, the law must clearly specify the extent of discretion granted to public bodies and the manner of executing the discretion. Therefore, the proposed law should fulfil these criteria, as if a law fails to explicitly explain the relevant circumstances and conditions for internet shutdowns is detrimental for human rights.

The legitimacy rule stipulates any limitation on freedom of expression and other rights safeguarded by international law must aim to achieve a reasonable objective consistent with the identified grounds and be essential for attaining that objective. When states implement internet shutdowns or interrupt access to communication platforms, the legal basis for their actions is mostly undefined. A 2022 report of the OHCHR on internet shutdowns stated that the official justification for the shutdowns was unidentified in 228 instances across 55 countries from 2016 to 2021.

Finally, the proportionality criteria prescribe a restriction must be the least intrusive alternative and must not undermine the substance of the right. An appropriate evaluation of the efficacy of the restrictions and the danger of excessive blocking is to be made. This evaluation should ascertain whether the restriction may result in a disproportionate prohibition of access to internet or specific content, and whether it represents the least restrictive method to achieve the stated lawful objective.

Nonetheless, international law does not prohibit internet shutdowns completely; states may cut off internet during an actual state of emergency, or for national security and public order, but under strictly necessary circumstances and the least restrictive means. Most of the time internet shutdowns are indiscriminate, and disproportionate, cutting off citizens from access to information, education, emergency services, and more. As such, they typically fail the proportionality and legitimacy tests due to their arbitrary and extensive effects.

After the sacrifice of students and people, this is high time for a more actionable, realistic, and effective way of securing internet access in Bangladesh. Consequently, urgent review of the draft law and revision of the already issued guideline are essential to ensure they meet the above criteria to uphold human rights and free flow of information.