Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India

The story

In August 2019, as the government stripped Jammu & Kashmir of its special status, it plunged the region into an unprecedented communications blackout—no internet, no phones, no free movement. Anuradha Bhasin, a journalist trying to keep her newspaper running amid the silence, took the fight to the Supreme Court, arguing that an entire population was being punished without explanation or end date. The government countered that security concerns justified secrecy and indefinite restrictions. The Court refused to accept a blank check for executive power. It held that even in matters of national security, orders curbing fundamental freedoms must be reasoned, published, and reviewed—not hidden indefinitely. It recognized, for the first time so explicitly, that the internet is not a luxury but a medium through which people speak, trade, and live their constitutional lives. Though the Court stopped short of immediately restoring services itself, it forced the government to review and justify every restriction, embedding transparency and proportionality into future shutdowns. For ordinary citizens across India, the ruling meant that darkness imposed by the state could no longer be indefinite or unaccountable.

The facts

Following the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, the Jammu & Kashmir administration imposed a communications blackout, including suspension of internet services, mobile networks, and restrictions on movement under Section 144 CrPC. Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of the Kashmir Times, filed a writ petition contending that the shutdown crippled press freedom and normal life, and sought access to the orders authorizing the restrictions. The government resisted disclosure, citing national security concerns.

The question before the court

Whether indefinite suspension of internet services and movement restrictions violate the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and to carry on trade or profession under Article 19, and whether such executive orders must be published and are subject to judicial review.

The holding

The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to carry on trade or business through the medium of the internet are constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), subject to the reasonable restrictions permitted under Articles 19(2) and 19(6). It ruled that any restriction on these rights, including internet suspension, must satisfy the doctrine of proportionality, be the least restrictive measure, and cannot be imposed for an indefinite period. The Court directed that all orders imposing such restrictions must be published, be subject to periodic review by a Review Committee, and be amenable to judicial scrutiny.

The principle it stands for

Access to the internet is instrumental to the exercise of fundamental rights under Article 19 and cannot be curtailed indefinitely or without procedural safeguards. Any restriction on speech, movement, or trade must meet the constitutional standard of proportionality and necessity, and the orders imposing such restrictions must be disclosed to enable judicial review.

Provisions this case shaped

• Art. 19Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etcinterpreted — Internet access held to fall within freedom of speech (19(1)(a)) and freedom of trade (19(1)(g))
• Art. 21Protection of life and personal libertyinterpreted — Restrictions on movement and communication tested against proportionality under Article 21