Examining internet shutdowns in India, especially Jammu and Kashmir, show how vague laws and proportionality enable routine digital repression.
Authors
Raouf Ahmad Peerzada, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
Amrita Sharma, Associate Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
Samyuktha Kannan, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
Summary
This paper examines the legal and political anatomy of internet shutdowns in India, with Jammu and Kashmir as its most extreme and emblematic site. Tracing the evolution from colonial-era statutes to present-day regulations, it argues that the absence of a clear legal definition enables a culture of discretionary censorship. Focusing on Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the first Supreme Court judgment on internet restrictions, the paper reveals how constitutional language (particularly proportionality) has been used to mask, rather than limit, state power. Shutdowns are used not just as temporary responses; instead, they are techniques of rule, calibrated to silence, fragment, and pre-empt collective life. Drawing on patterns of recurring blackouts, selective access, and opaque justifications, the paper contends that digital repression has become routine and a normalization of the State of Exception (Agamben). It concludes that Indian constitutional jurisprudence has failed to meaningfully constrain executive overreach, allowing law itself to become the medium through which silence is institutionalized and normalized.
Published in: Human Geography (United Kingdom)
To read the full article, please click here.
