Internet shutdowns and Section 144 restrictions must be reasoned, temporary, and proportionate to protect constitutional freedoms.

Fundamental rights extend to speech, expression, and trade conducted through the Internet, so any restriction must satisfy reasonableness and proportionality under Article 19. Internet shutdown orders are lawful only if issued by the competent authority under the Suspension Rules, supported by recorded reasons, forwarded for review, and kept temporary with less restrictive alternatives considered; indefinite suspension is impermissible. Section 144 CrPC may be used preventively in urgent situations, but only on objective material, with a reasoned order, limited duration and area, and least intrusive measures. The text also states that orders curtailing rights should ordinarily be produced for judicial review, while no separate direct press violation was conclusively found on the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government could refuse production of orders passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Suspension Rules; (ii) Whether freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to carry on trade or occupation through the Internet are protected under Part III of the Constitution; (iii) Whether the Internet shutdown orders were valid and proportionate; (iv) Whether the restrictions imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were valid; (v) Whether the freedom of the press was violated by the cumulative effect of the restrictions.

Issue (i): Whether the Government could refuse production of orders passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Suspension Rules?

Analysis: Orders that curtail fundamental rights must ordinarily be placed before the Court so that the affected persons can challenge them effectively. Transparency, access to reasons, and judicial review are integral to the constitutional process. A blanket refusal to produce such orders, absent a specific and justified claim of privilege supported by affidavit, is inconsistent with those requirements.

Conclusion: The Government could not validly withhold the orders on the grounds urged.

Issue (ii): Whether freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to carry on trade or occupation through the Internet are protected under Part III of the Constitution?

Analysis: The medium of the Internet has become a significant platform for dissemination of information and for trade and commerce. Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to disseminate information through that medium, and the freedom to carry on trade or business also extends to its use. Any restriction must therefore satisfy the standards of reasonableness under Article 19 and be tested on proportionality.

Conclusion: Yes, those freedoms are constitutionally protected when exercised through the Internet.

Issue (iii): Whether the Internet shutdown orders were valid and proportionate?

Analysis: A complete or indefinite suspension of telecom services is a drastic measure. The Suspension Rules require a reasoned order by the competent authority, confirmation where an authorised officer acts in unavoidable circumstances, forwarding to the Review Committee, and periodic review. The power must be exercised only for a temporary duration, with consideration of less restrictive alternatives and with proportionality as the governing standard.

Conclusion: Indefinite Internet suspension is impermissible, and existing orders had to be reviewed and tested against proportionality and procedural safeguards.

Issue (iv): Whether the restrictions imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were valid?

Analysis: Section 144 is a preventive and remedial power available even on apprehension of danger, but only in urgent situations and for preventing obstruction, annoyance, injury, or disturbance of public tranquillity. The order must disclose material facts, be founded on objective material, be non-mechanical, remain limited in duration and area, and satisfy proportionality. Repetitive and blanket restraints are not permissible.

Conclusion: The power under Section 144 could be invoked in principle, but the restrictions had to comply with the stated safeguards, including reasoned orders and least intrusive action.

Issue (v): Whether the freedom of the press was violated by the cumulative effect of the restrictions?

Analysis: Freedom of the press is part of Article 19(1)(a). On the material placed, no specific order directly targeting the press was challenged, and the complaint rested on the alleged cumulative impact of the shutdown and movement restrictions. The Court recognised the importance of press freedom and cautioned against indefinite restraints, but did not record a separate finding of direct infringement on the facts proved.

Conclusion: No separate direct violation of press freedom was conclusively found on the record.

Final Conclusion: The petitions resulted in constitutional declarations protecting Internet-based expression and trade, strict procedural requirements for telecom suspension and Section 144 orders, and directions for review and publication of restrictive orders, while declining to grant an across-the-board finding of direct press suppression.

Ratio Decidendi: Restrictions on fundamental rights through Internet shutdowns or Section 144 orders must be lawful, reasoned, temporary, proportionate, and supported by objective material, with less restrictive alternatives considered and judicial review preserved.

---