Internet blocking and shutdowns in India and international human rights law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55763/ippr.2024.05.03.002Abstract
This paper examines the provision for Internet blocking and shutdowns in Indian law, and compares it with international human rights law (IHRL). It finds that IHRL potentially offers a useful lens through which to view these actions; that IHRL is widely accepted by the Indian state, including the judiciary; and that IHRL provides a useful complement to constitutional analysis. It also finds that the Indian laws and practices around Internet shutdowns and online content blocking fall short of IHRL in significant ways, including when it comes to the principles of legality, legitimate aims, necessity, proportionality, transparency, and remedies for violation of rights. Finally, it offers suggestions on how to improve the laws and practices in each of these areas, so as to comply with India’s IHRL obligations.
Keywords:
International Human Right Law, Internet shutdowns, Proportionality, Necessity, Transparency, Content blockingDownloads
References
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India. 2007 AIR 2008 SC 663.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union Of India. 2020 2019 SCC Online SC 1725. Supreme Court of India.
Barak, Aharon. 2012. Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations. Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Benvenisti, Eyal. 2008. ‘Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts’. The American Journal of International Law 102 (2): 241–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034538.
Bhardwaj, Shrutanjaya, Nakul Nayak, Sarvjeet Singh, Raja Venkata Krishna Dandamudi, and Veda Handa. 2020. ‘Rising Internet Shutdowns in India: A Legal Analysis’. Indian Journal of Law and Technology 16 (1): 122–58. https://www.ijlt.in/journal/rising-internet-shutdowns-in-india%3A-a-legal-analysis.
Brady, Alan D. P. 2012. Proportionality and Deference Under the UK Human Rights Act: An Institutionally Sensitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139003445.
Chandra, Aparna. 2017. ‘India and International Law: Formal Dualism, Functional Monism’. Indian Journal of International Law 57 (1): 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-017-0069-0.
———. 2020. ‘Proportionality in India: A Bridge to Nowhere?’ University of Oxford Human Rights Hub Journal 3 (2): 55–86.
Chandrachud, Abhinav. 2013. ‘Wednesbury Reformulated: Proportionality and the Supreme Court of India’. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 13 (1): 191–208. https://doi.org/10.5235/14729342.13.1.191.
Chaturvedi, Amit. 2012. ‘Five Arrested in Bangalore for Rumours, Social Media Told to Be Alert’. NDTV.com, 18 August 2012. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/five-arrested-in-bangalore-for-rumours-social-media-told-to-be-alert-497149.
Chima, Raman Jit Singh. 2008. ‘The Regulation of the Internet with Relation to Speech and Expression by the Indian State’. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1237262.
Chugh, Ashish. 2004. ‘Is the Supreme Court Disproportionately Applying the Proportionality Principle?’ SCC Journal 8: 33. https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/2004_8_33.htm.
Dara, Rishabh. 2011. ‘Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet’. Centre for Internet and Society. https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf.
Duarte, David, and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. 2018. Proportionality in Law: An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2.
‘Expedient’. 2021. In Wiktionary. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=expedient&oldid=63393589.
Expert Committee on Amendments to the IT Act 2000. 2005. ‘Report of the Expert Committee: Proposed Amendments to the Information Technology Act 2000’. https://www.meity.gov.in/content/report-expert-committee-amendments-it-act-2000.
Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala. 2019. Kerala HC.
Fuller, Lon Luvois. 1969. The Morality of Law. Yale University Press.
Grover, Gurshabad, and Torsha Sarkar. 2020. ‘Content Takedown and Users’ Rights’. The Leaflet. 12 February 2020. https://theleaflet.in/content-takedown-and-users-rights/.
Hariharan, Geetha, and Padmini Baruah. 2015. ‘The Legal Validity of Internet Bans: Part II’. Centre for Internet and Society. 8 October 2015. https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-legal-validity-of-internet-bans-part-ii.
Hegde, V. G. 2010. ‘Indian Courts and International Law’. Leiden Journal of International Law 23 (1): 53–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156509990331.
Hulsroj, Peter. 2013. The Principle of Proportionality. Vol. 7. SpringerBriefs in Law. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5775-2.
Huscroft, Grant, Bradley W. Miller, and Gregoire Webber. 2014. Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107565272.
Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules. 2021. https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2021/Intermediary_Guidelines_and_Digital_Media_Ethics_Code_Rules-2021.pdf.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1966. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.
Internet Freedom Foundation. 2020. ‘Amendment to the Telecom Suspension Rules Offers Little Protection Against Arbitrary and Prolonged Internet Shutdowns #KeepUsOnline’. Internet Freedom Foundation. 12 November 2020. https://internetfreedom.in/telecom-suspension-rules-amendment-15-day-time-limit/.
———. 2024. ‘Statement: The Ongoing Internet Shutdowns in the States of Haryana & Rajasthan, & Online Censorship in Response to Farmers Protest’. Internet Freedom Foundation. https://web.archive.org/web/20240610113059/https://internetfreedom.in/the-ongoing-internet-shutdowns-in-the-states-of-haryana-rajasthan-online-censorship-in-response-to-farmers-protest/. 13 February 2024. https://internetfreedom.in/the-ongoing-internet-shutdowns-in-the-states-of-haryana-rajasthan-online-censorship-in-response-to-farmers-protest/.
Jackson, Vicki C., and Mark Tushnet, eds. 2017. Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316691724.
Jayawickrama, Nihal. 2002. The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law: National, Regional and International Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494017.
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India. n.d. 1971 AIR 481. Accessed 8 December 2021.
Kaye, David. 2015. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, David Kaye’. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council. https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_HRD-9970-2016149.
———. 2016a. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’. A/HRC/32/38. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/32/38.
———. 2016b. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’. A/71/373. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council. https://undocs.org/A/71/373.
———. 2017. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’. A/HRC/35/22. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/35/22.
Khaitan, Tarunabh. 2008. ‘Beyond Reasonableness – a Rigorous Standard of Review for Article 15 Infringement’. Journal of the Indian Law Institute 50 (2): 177–208. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43952433.
Klatt, Matthias, and Moritz Meister. 2012. The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality. 1st ed. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.
Konaté v. Burkina Faso. 2014 [2014] AfCHPR 004/2013 50. African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Kremnitzer, Mordechai, Talya Steiner, and Andrej Lang, eds. 2020. Proportionality in Action: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives on the Judicial Practice. Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108596268.
La Rue, Frank. 2011a. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’. A/HRC/17/27. UN Human Rights Council. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/17/27.
———. 2011b. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue’. A/HRC/17/27. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/17/27.
———. 2011c. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’. A/66/290/E. UN General Assembly. https://undocs.org/A/66/290.
Locke, John. 1690. Second Treatise of Government. Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370/pg7370-images.html.
M. Nedunchezhian v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. 2015.
Malhotra, Gayatri. 2023. ‘Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Miscellaneous Application Seeking Compliance with Internet Shutdown Guidelines Laid Out in the Anuradha Bhasin Judgement’. Internet Freedom Foundation. https://web.archive.org/web/20240610112307/https://internetfreedom.in/sc-anuradha-bhasin-fmp-update/. 13 December 2023. https://internetfreedom.in/sc-anuradha-bhasin-fmp-update/.
Martin, Francisco Forrest, Stephen J. Schnably, Richard Wilson, Jonathan Simon, and Mark Tushnet, eds. 2006. International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases, and Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808746.
Md. Gulam Abbas v. Md. Ibrahim. 1977 1978 SCR (2) 419.
Mendel, Toby. 2015. ‘The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression: Progressive Development of International Standards Relating to Freedom of Expression’. In The United Nations and Freedom of Expression and Information: Critical Perspectives, edited by Tarlach McGonagle and Yvonne Donders, 235–68. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316018552.009.
Ministry of Communications and IT. 2005. ‘DIT Sets up Expert Committee on Information Technology Act’. Press Informaiton Bureau. 7 January 2005. https://pib.gov.in/newsite/erelcontent.aspx?relid=6372.
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India. 2003. IT Act Notification No 181. Vol. G.S.R.181(E). https://www.meity.gov.in/content/it-act-notification-no-181.
Ministry of External Affairs, India. 2020. ‘India and United Nations’. 1 June 2020. https://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/India_UN_2020.pdf.
Mishra, Anandita. 2021. ‘Behind the Great Indian Internet Shutdown’. The Hindu, 14 September 2021, sec. Comment. https://web.archive.org/web/20240612184126/https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/behind-the-great-indian-internet-shutdown/article62105487.ece. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/behind-the-great-indian-internet-shutdown/article62105487.ece.
Mohan, Archis. 2013. ‘India and the United Nations’. 20 September 2013. https://mea.gov.in/in-focus-article.htm?22231/India+and+the+United+Nations.
Munjal, Diksha. 2021. ‘In India, Are Internet Shutdowns in Accordance with Law? Not Always’. Newslaundry, 29 October 2021. https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/10/29/in-india-are-internet-shutdowns-in-accordance-with-law-not-always.
‘“Necessary or Expedient” Doctypes: Laws’. n.d. Indian Kanoon. Accessed 29 November 2021. https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=%22necessary+or+expedient%22+doctypes%3Alaws.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2022. ‘Internet Shutdowns: Trends, Causes, Legal Implications and Impacts on a Range of Human Rights’. A/HRC/50/55. https://web.archive.org/web/20240608185934/https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g22/341/55/pdf/g2234155.pdf?token=L9doL61eepdE5K1nxj&fe=true. https://undocs.org/a/hrc/50/55.
Padmanabhan, Ananth. 2014a. ‘Can Judges Order ISPs to Block Websites for Copyright Infringement? (Part 1)’. Centre for Internet and Society. 30 January 2014. https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-1.
———. 2014b. ‘Can Judges Order ISPs to Block Websites for Copyright Infringement? (Part 2)’. Centre for Internet and Society. 5 February 2014. https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-2.
Prakash, Pranesh. 2011a. ‘DIT’s Response to RTI on Website Blocking’. Centre for Internet and Society. 7 April 2011. https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-response-dit-blocking.
———. 2011b. ‘Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen’. Centre for Internet and Society. 14 December 2011. https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship.
———. 2012. ‘Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition)’. Centre for Internet and Society. 22 August 2012. https://cis-india.org/about/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism.
Pranesh Prakash. 2014. ‘Who to Blame for Blocking Sites Like Google Docs? Blame Should Fall on MarkScan, Multi Screen Media, the Lawyers, & Delhi HC. All Complicit.’ Tweet. Twitter. https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/486424696356098048.
PTI. 2012. ‘R-Day: Mobile Phone, Internet Service Jammed in Kashmir’. Governance Now, 27 January 2012. https://www.governancenow.com/gov-next/egov/r-day-mobile-phone-internet-service-jammed-kashmir.
PUCL v. Union of India. 1996, 1997 SC AIR 568. Supreme Court of India.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India. 2017 AIR 2017 SC 4161.
Rajan, M.S. 1973. ‘India and the Making of the UN Charter’. International Studies 12 (3): 430–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/002088177301200303.
Ramachandran, Chaitanya. 2014. ‘PUCL v. Union of India Revisited: Why India’s Surveillance Law Must Be Redesigned for the Digital Age’. NUJS Law Review 7: 105–19.
Ramdev v. Facebook. 2019. Delhi HC.
Ronen, Yaël. 2010. ‘Incitement to Terrorist Acts and International Law’. Leiden Journal of International Law 23 (3): 645–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156510000269.
Sheeran, Scott. 2013. ‘The Relationship of International Human Rights Law and General International Law’. In Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law, 79–108. Routledge.
Shibu Baby John v. State of Kerala. 2020.
Shiryaev, Yaroslav. 2012. ‘Cyberterrorism in the Context of Contemporary International Law’. San Diego International Law Journal 14 (1): 139. https://digital.sandiego.edu/ilj/vol14/iss1/5.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. n.d. AIR 2015 SC 1523. Accessed 8 December 2021.
Software Freedom Law Centre. 2016. ‘Legality of Internet Shutdowns Under Section 144 CrPC’. SFLC.in. 2 October 2016. https://sflc.in/legality-internet-shutdowns-under-section-144-crpc.
———. 2021. ‘Internet Shutdowns Tracker’. Internet Shutdowns Tracker by - SFLC.in. 2021. https://internetshutdowns.in/.
———. 2022a. ‘RTI Application Response from Rajasthan Shows Procedural Lapses and Arbitrary Orders’. SFLC.in. 17 January 2022. https://sflc.in/rti-application-response-rajasthan-shows-procedural-lapses-and-arbitrary-orders.
———. 2022b. ‘SFLC’S Writ Petition Challenging Arbitrary Internet Shutdowns During Examinations in the Supreme Court of India’. https://web.archive.org/web/20240610112710/https://sflc.in/sflcins-writ-petition-challenging-arbitrary-internet-shutdowns-during-examinations-supreme-court/. 14 September 2022. https://sflc.in/sflcins-writ-petition-challenging-arbitrary-internet-shutdowns-during-examinations-supreme-court/.
Stone Sweet, Alec, and Jud Mathews. 2019. Proportionality Balancing and Constitutional Governance: A Comparative and Global Approach. 1st ed. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198841395.001.0001.
Sullivan, E. Thomas, and Richard S. Frase. 2009. Proportionality Principles in American Law: Controlling Excessive Government Actions. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act. 1995. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1928/1/A1995-07.pdf.
The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom. 1979 [1979] ECHR 6538/74. ECHR (1979).
Times News Network. 2008. ‘Amid Din, LS Passes 8 Bills in 17 Minutes Without Debate’. The Times of India, 24 December 2008. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/amid-din-ls-passes-8-bills-in-17-minutes-without-debate/articleshow/3883245.cms.
———. 2018. ‘“No More Internet Ban During Exam”’. The Times of India, 29 November 2018. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jodhpur/no-more-internet-ban-during-exam/articleshow/66855691.cms.
Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. The United Kingdom. 1995 [1995] ECHR 25. ECHR.
UN Human Rights Committee. 2004. ‘General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant’. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. UN Human Rights Committee. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-87911-0.50085-4.
———. 2011. ‘General Comment No. 34’. CCPR/C/GC/34. Geneva: UN Human Rights Committee. https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/GC/34.
UN Human Rights Council. 2012a. ‘Resolution 19/36: Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law’. A/HRC/RES/19/36. https://web.archive.org/web/20240612173732/https://documents.un.org/doc/resolution/gen/g12/131/66/pdf/g1213166.pdf?token=IAeEgLCJLCwJUW96T8&fe=true. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/19/36.
———. 2012b. ‘Resolution 20/8: The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet’. A/HRC/RES/20/8. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/20/8.
———. 2013. ‘Resolution 23/2: The Role of Freedom of Opinion and Expression in Women’s Empowerment’. A/HRC/RES/23/2. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/23/2.
UN Human Rights Council. 2014. ‘Resolution 26/13: The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet’. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council. https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_HRD-9970-2016149.
UN Human Rights Council. 2021. ‘Resolution 47/16: The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet’. A/HRC/RES/47/16. Geneva. https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/HRC/RES/47/16.
UN Security Council. 2005. ‘Resolution 1624’. UN Security Council. https://undocs.org/S/RES/1624(2005).
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. 2015. ‘Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Responses to Conflict Situations’. Riga. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15921&LangID=E.
Urbina, Francisco J. 2017. A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing. Cambridge University Press.
Van der Vyver, Johan D. 2013. ‘Sovereignty’. In The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, edited by Dinah Shelton. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199640133.003.0017.
Verdirame, Guglielmo. 2013. ‘Human Rights in Political and Legal Theory’. In Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law, 25–47. Routledge.
Vice-Chair of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, and Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. 2019. ‘Letter from UN Human Rights Experts to Indian Government on Situation in Kashmir’, 16 August 2019. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24803.
Voule, Clément N. 2021. ‘Ending Internet Shutdowns: A Path Forward: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association’. A/HRC/47/24/Add.2. Geneva: UN Human Rights Council. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/47/24/Add.2.
X v. Union of India. 2021. Delhi HC.
Yap, Po Jen, ed. 2020. Proportionality in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862950.
