Net shutdown adds to massive disruption in capital

The use of internet shutdowns raises fundamental questions about Fundamental Rights under the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India case (2020) ruled that the right to access the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession). The court stated that shutdowns cannot be indefinite and must adhere to the principles of proportionality (the measure must be necessary and least restrictive). The current shutdown order, marked 'Top Secret' and not publicly published, violates Rule 3 of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, which mandates public notification. This lack of transparency undermines accountability and prevents affected individuals from challenging the order in court. UPSC often asks about the balance between national security and individual rights, specifically focusing on the legal framework governing internet shutdowns.

Internet shutdowns have profound economic consequences, particularly in a rapidly digitizing economy. The disruption severely impacts digital public infrastructure, leading to a halt in digital payments and causing significant losses for businesses. Crucially, the shutdown disproportionately affected gig economy workers (freelancers or independent contractors operating through platforms like Swiggy or Uber), who rely entirely on mobile data to receive orders and navigate. This highlights the vulnerability of workers in the informal sector who lack social security nets and face immediate income loss during such disruptions. The economic impact extends beyond immediate losses, damaging investor confidence and hindering the growth of the digital economy. From a UPSC perspective, understanding the economic ramifications of digital disruption is essential, especially concerning employment and the push for a cashless economy under initiatives like Digital India.

The incident underscores the challenges of public order management in the digital age. While authorities often cite the need to prevent the spread of rumors and violence, research (such as the study by Jan Rydzak mentioned in the article) suggests that shutdowns may actually increase violent collective action by hindering communication and organizing efforts. The accompanying censorship of political figures' social media accounts raises concerns about state overreach and the suppression of political dissent. The Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 69A, grants the government power to block public access to information, but its use must be justified and proportional. The incident highlights the need for robust governance frameworks that balance security imperatives with the protection of democratic norms and civil liberties. For mains, this provides a case study on the ethical and practical dilemmas faced by civil servants in managing protests and enforcing communication blackouts.