Skip to main content

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): Supreme Court Declares Internet Access a Fundamental Right Under Article 19

Introduction

In the digital age, access to the internet is more than a luxury — it’s a necessity. The landmark case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) revolutionized the interpretation of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, affirming that internet access is integral to the right to freedom of speech and expression. This judgment not only shaped digital rights in India but also set a powerful precedent for constitutional interpretation in the 21st century.


Background of the Case

In August 2019, following the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, the government imposed a complete communication and internet shutdown in the region. This indefinite suspension disrupted lives, affected the press, education, and healthcare, and hampered economic activity.

Anuradha Bhasin, the Executive Editor of the Kashmir Times, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the legality of the restrictions and alleging that the press could not function due to the internet shutdown.

Key Issues Raised

  1. Does freedom of speech and expression include internet access?

  2. Whether the government’s restrictions constitutionally valid and proportionate?

  3. Is indefinite suspension of internet services permissible under Indian law?


Court’s Observations and Findings

The Supreme Court’s ruling was a turning point for digital rights:

1. Internet as a Fundamental Right

  • The court held that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) extend to the internet as a medium.

  • This meant any restriction on internet access would be considered a restriction on fundamental rights.

2. Test of Proportionality

  • Restrictions must pass the proportionality test, i.e., they must be necessary, suitable, and the least restrictive way to achieve the intended objective.

  • Blanket and indefinite suspensions fail this test.

3. Legal Framework for Suspension

  • The court emphasized that restrictions on the internet must adhere to the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

  • Authorities must publish valid, reasoned orders, and indefinite shutdowns were held to be unconstitutional.

4. Right to Know

  • Citing previous judgments, the court reaffirmed the “right to know” as part of Article 19(1)(a), stating that an informed citizenry is crucial for democracy.


Impact of the Judgment

✅ Recognition of Internet Access as Essential
✅ Limitations on Arbitrary Shutdowns
✅ Strengthened Digital Freedom in India
✅ Guidelines for Future Restrictions

This judgment laid the foundation for further discourse on digital rights, surveillance, data protection, and the balance between national security and individual freedoms.

Criticism and Limitations

  • While the court declared internet access a fundamental right, it did not restore 4G services immediately in Jammu and Kashmir.

  • Critics argue that the judgment lacked immediate enforcement and left implementation largely to the executive.


Conclusion

The Anuradha Bhasin case remains a cornerstone in the evolution of digital constitutionalism in India. It reiterates that the internet is not a privilege, but a fundamental enabler of rights. As India steps deeper into a digitally interconnected future, this judgment safeguards the democratic ideals enshrined in the Constitution.

At The Legal Catalyst, we believe in making law accessible, relatable, and impactful. Stay informed with us as we decode landmark judgments and their significance in modern India. 

FAQs 

Q1: What was the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India case about?

A1: The case challenged the internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370, arguing it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and trade.

Q2: Did the Supreme Court declare internet access a fundamental right?
A2: Yes, the court held that internet access is essential for exercising rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g).

Q3: Can the government impose internet bans in the future?
A3: Yes, but only temporarily, with valid legal justification, and in compliance with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and transparency.

Q4: Why is the Anuradha Bhasin judgment important?

A4: It marked a historic moment where digital access was constitutionally recognized as part of the right to free speech and expression, reshaping digital rights in India. 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more