Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, decided by a 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice B.R. Gavai) on 10 January 2020, held that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade over the medium of the internet under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution attract constitutional protection. Orders suspending internet services or imposing restrictions under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must satisfy the proportionality test, be published, be limited in time and subject to periodic review. This case is essential for CLAT, Judiciary Prelims and Mains, AIBE, UGC-NET and UPSC Law Optional — it supplies the constitutional framework for every internet-shutdown challenge in India.

Case snapshot

Background facts

On 5 August 2019, the Government of India revoked the special status of the State of Jammu & Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution and bifurcated the State into two Union Territories. In anticipation, the Government imposed complete restrictions on mobile phone networks, internet services, and landline connectivity across Jammu & Kashmir. District Magistrates also issued orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 restricting movement and public assembly.

The restrictions continued for several months, causing severe hardship to residents, journalists, businesses, students and the legal community. Two principal petitioners approached the Supreme Court. Ms. Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, challenged the restrictions as making publication of a newspaper impossible — violating Article 19(1)(a). Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, then a Member of Parliament, challenged the mobility restrictions as violating Article 19(1)(d) on the freedom of movement. The Supreme Court tagged both petitions along with connected matters.

Issues before the Court

1. Whether the Union Government and the State of Jammu & Kashmir were required to place all orders imposing internet suspension and mobility restrictions in the public domain?
2. Whether the freedom of speech and expression and freedom of trade and commerce over the internet are protected under Part III of the Constitution?
3. Whether the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 — made under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 — lay down sufficient safeguards?
4. Whether the orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were valid — were they proportionate, reasoned and open to judicial review?

Holdings (simplified)

1. Internet access is a facet of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). The Court held that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) extends to the medium of expression — including the internet. The right to carry on any occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) likewise applies to online commerce. Any restriction must satisfy the test of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) / 19(6) — including the proportionality test as articulated in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1: the measure must (a) have a legitimate goal; (b) have a rational nexus to that goal; (c) be necessary (no less restrictive alternative); and (d) be proportionate in its effect.

2. Publication of suspension orders is mandatory. The Court held that every order imposing an internet suspension or Section 144 restriction must be placed in the public domain. Secret orders defeat the right to challenge them under Article 226 and offend the rule of law. The State cannot claim blanket privilege over such orders, though specific portions may be redacted where genuinely necessary for security reasons.

3. The Suspension Rules 2017 lay down safeguards — but they must be complied with. The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 require a reasoned order from a competent authority, a review by a Review Committee, and cannot authorise indefinite shutdowns. The Court directed that the Review Committee must review every suspension order within seven working days.

4. Indefinite shutdowns are impermissible. The Court held that an internet shutdown cannot continue indefinitely under the Suspension Rules 2017. Orders must be limited in time, reasoned, and repeatedly reviewed. A blanket, perpetual suspension is a disproportionate restriction on Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

5. Section 144 CrPC orders must be proportionate. Drawing on Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (1970) 3 SCC 746 and later precedent, the Court held that a Section 144 CrPC order cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression and must be proportionate, reasoned, and subject to judicial review. The order cannot be a blanket preventive instrument; it must be tailored to a specific threat.

Why it matters

Anuradha Bhasin is the foundational internet-shutdown judgment in Indian constitutional law. It delivers four lasting doctrinal moves:

• It constitutionalises the internet as a medium of expression — every Indian resident can now plead Article 19(1)(a) against any State measure that restricts online access.
• It imports the Puttaswamy proportionality test into the Section 144 CrPC context, aligning digital rights jurisprudence with privacy jurisprudence.
• It mandates publication of restriction orders, overturning the earlier practice of secret or internally circulated shutdown orders.
• It caps indefinite shutdowns and creates a seven-working-day periodic review requirement under the Suspension Rules 2017 — a directly enforceable procedural safeguard.

The judgment is cited alongside Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 as the twin pillar of Indian digital rights jurisprudence. Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of J&K, (2020) 5 SCC 746 applied Anuradha Bhasin four months later to order restoration of 4G internet in Jammu & Kashmir.

Exam Angle

Sample MCQ

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Supreme Court held that the freedom to access the internet is protected as part of which fundamental rights? (a) Article 19(1)(a) only. (b) Article 21 only. (c) Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). (d) Article 19(1)(d) and Article 19(1)(e).

Answer: (c)

Sample descriptive question

'The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India subjected internet shutdown orders to a strict constitutional test.' Discuss with reference to Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the proportionality test, and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017. How does the test apply under the Telecommunications Act, 2023? (Judiciary Mains / UPSC Law Optional, 20 marks)

Five facts to memorise

1. Case: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India; Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 637.
2. Bench: 3-judge — Justice N.V. Ramana (presiding), Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice B.R. Gavai JJ.
3. Date of judgment: 10 January 2020.
4. Articles: 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) cover internet speech and internet commerce respectively; 19(2) provides reasonable restrictions.
5. Four directions: proportionality, publication of orders, time limits on shutdowns, periodic review within seven working days by the Review Committee.

Syllabus mapping

Related cases to study together

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 — 2-judge Bench. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 struck down; Article 19(1)(a) / 19(2) framework for online speech; Anuradha Bhasin quotes Shreya Singhal on the chilling effect.
• Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of J&K, (2020) 5 SCC 746 — 3-judge Bench. Applied Anuradha Bhasin to direct restoration of 4G services in Jammu & Kashmir (May 2020).
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — 9-judge Constitution Bench. Supplies the proportionality test that Anuradha Bhasin applies to internet restrictions.
• Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 2976 — Kerala High Court. Right to access the internet is a part of the right to education under Article 21A and the right to privacy under Article 21.
• Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, (1970) 3 SCC 746 — Constitution Bench foundational authority on Section 144 CrPC; relied on in Anuradha Bhasin.

Frequently asked questions

Is Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India in the CLAT syllabus?

Yes. Anuradha Bhasin is a core CLAT constitutional law and legal reasoning case on fundamental rights in the digital sphere. It is also regularly tested in judiciary prelims and mains, AIBE, UGC-NET Law and UPSC Law Optional. Memorise: citation (2020) 3 SCC 637; 3-judge Bench of N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai JJ.; judgment date 10 January 2020; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031 of 2019; core principle — internet access is part of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g); Section 144 CrPC orders must be proportionate, published and periodically reviewed.

Did Anuradha Bhasin declare internet access to be a fundamental right?

The Supreme Court did not declare the internet itself to be a standalone fundamental right. It held that the freedom of speech and expression over the medium of the internet is protected under Article 19(1)(a), and the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade over the internet is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The Kerala High Court in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 2976 went further and recognised internet access as part of the right to education under Article 21A and privacy under Article 21.

What was the bench strength and why does it matter?

Anuradha Bhasin was decided by a 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice N.V. Ramana (presiding), Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice B.R. Gavai JJ. A 3-judge Bench has precedential weight greater than a 2-judge Bench and binds all High Courts and smaller Supreme Court benches. Because the judgment applied the proportionality test drawn from K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (9-judge Bench), it has strong doctrinal authority despite being decided by three judges.

What are the four key directions the Court issued in Anuradha Bhasin?

The Supreme Court issued four key directions. First, any order imposing restrictions under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) must be proportionate — least restrictive measure that achieves the State's aim. Second, any order suspending internet services under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 must be published so it is open to judicial review. Third, indefinite internet suspensions are impermissible; orders must be limited in time. Fourth, the Review Committee constituted under the 2017 Rules must conduct periodic review within seven working days of every suspension order.

Does Anuradha Bhasin still apply after the Telecommunications Act, 2023?

Yes. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 — under which the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017 were made — was repealed by the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (Act 44 of 2023). However, Section 20 and Section 24 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 preserve the power to intercept messages and suspend telecommunication services on Article 19(2) grounds. The proportionality, publication and periodic-review requirements laid down in Anuradha Bhasin are Article 19(1)(a)/(g) requirements that attach to the power itself, not to the particular parent statute, and therefore continue to apply to any order issued under Section 24 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. Section 144 CrPC has been replaced by Section 163 BNSS, 2023; the same proportionality test transfers.

Source

Primary source: Supreme Court of India — judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031 of 2019 with connected matters, decided 10 January 2020, reported at (2020) 3 SCC 637. Statutory references drawn from Constitution of India and statutes on India Code. This analysis is provided for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.