The Gujarat High Court held that Section 144 Cr.P.C. can be used by the Government to effect internet shutdowns notwithstanding the existence of a dedicated regime under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

The Manipur High Court’s order explores the technological possibility of blocking only specified mobile applications rather than shutting down the entire internet and disrupting other uses.

In a pathbreaking order, the Gauhati High Court directed immediate restoration of mobile internet services in Assam, noting that a shutdown of the internet services virtually amounted to bringing life to a grinding halt.

This Kerala High Court judgment holds, in the context of college students, that the right to access the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).

The Court noted that any internet shutdown order must be well reasoned, proportionate, reasonable and the least restrictive alternative in the given facts and circumstances. Further, such suspension, the Court noted, cannot be indefinitely and must be temporary in nature. Finally, the Court held that Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and the Rules framed thereunder can only be used to block specific websites and not the whole web.

The judgment was rendered in context of the restrictions imposed in Jammu & Kashmir by the Central Government by allowing only 2G internet over mobile phones while not restricting broadband services. Despite finding a violation of the Anuradha Bhasin judgment, the Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter of internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir. Rather, the Court directed a Special Committee to be constituted comprising of Union Home Secretary, the Union Communications Secretary, and the Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir to examine the restrictions and consider allowing faster internet (3G or 4G) on a trial basis in certain locations.

The Supreme Court held that intermediaries would be obliged under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to take down information hosted by them only upon the receipt of a court order to that effect, and not based merely on intimation from a private person. The Court recognized the chilling effect imposed on free speech by entrusting private corporations with the task of determining the legal from the illegal.