Anuradha Bhasin Case and Internet Restrictions

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India placed constitutional limits on the State’s power to restrict Internet services. The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practise a profession or carry on trade or business through the Internet are protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), subject to the permissible restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(6). It did not declare access to the Internet, by itself, to be a separate fundamental right.

Constitutional test for Internet restrictions

Internet restrictions must satisfy the same constitutional standards that govern restrictions on the underlying freedoms exercised through the medium.

• A restriction must have a lawful basis and pursue a constitutionally permissible objective.
• The restriction must satisfy the test of proportionality: it must be necessary, suitable for its objective and no more restrictive than required.
• The competent authority must consider whether a less intrusive measure could achieve the intended objective.
• The restriction must remain open to judicial review.

Limits on suspension of Internet services

The Court examined suspensions under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.

• An indefinite suspension of Internet services is impermissible.
• A suspension may continue only for the period necessary to address the relevant public emergency or public-safety concern.
• Suspension orders must contain reasons and conform to the requirements of necessity and proportionality.
• The prescribed Review Committee must examine suspension orders in accordance with the rules.

Publication and use of Section 144

The Court also considered restrictions imposed through Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it then stood.

• Internet-suspension orders and orders under Section 144 must be published or otherwise made accessible so that affected persons can challenge them.
• Section 144 may be used preventively where there is sufficient urgency, but it cannot be employed to suppress legitimate expression or democratic activity.
• Repeated use of Section 144 orders for the same purpose can amount to an abuse of power.
• An order must disclose the material facts and reasoning necessary for meaningful judicial scrutiny.

How UPSC asks this

For Prelims, focus on the protected freedoms, proportionality, publication of orders and the prohibition on indefinite suspensions. For Mains, use the judgment to analyse how national security and public order concerns must be balanced with free speech, economic activity, transparency and judicial review.