Background

In Assam, suspension of internet services is often adopted as a first resort measure to curb violence between communities and prevent destruction of property. A cursory perusal of media reporting on internet shutdowns in Baksa, Karbi Anglong and now in Chirang and Kokrajhar show a few glaring irregularities from a legal and constitutional standpoint (apart from non-publication of the orders by the State Government). For instance, the Home and Political Department, Government of Assam (“the Department”) imposed an internet shutdown of internet/mobile service providers in the districts of Karbi Anglong and West Karbi Anglong on 23^rd December 2025 with immediate effect. Interestingly, the Department enforced this measure citing Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency and Public Safety) Rules, 2017 (“2017 Rules”) — a law that has been superseded by the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (“Telecom Act”) and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Telecommunication Services) Rules, 2024 (“2024 Rules”). In this blog post, SFLC.in aims to provide key observations on the legality of these measures and how it is indicative of a troubling trend for internet shutdowns in Assam.

Internet shutdowns imposed under an old law

In 2024, the Ministry of Communications had issued a press release stating that the TelecomAct will repeal Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Wireless Telegraph Act, 1933 ‘owing to huge technical advancements in the telecom sector and technologies’.

Despite the enforcement of the Telecom Act, the Department chose to impose internet shutdowns based on Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act read with the 2017 Rules, that has now been replaced by newer legislation. Given the wider ambit of the Telecom Act, it is uncertain why the Department ordered this shutdown based on a legislation that has been superseded and is no longer in force.

Indefinite internet shutdown orders are impermissible

Another concerning feature of the recent shutdown instances in Assam is that they were imposed from immediate effect, with no end time and date specified. 

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court of India had established (amongst other guidelines) that an order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible under the 2017 Rules. Later, this requirement was also incorporated into the 2024 Rules.  An extract of the relevant Rule can be found below -

(2) Any suspension order issued under sub-rule (1) shall be published and,-

(a) clearly state the reasons for such order; and

(b) be limited to- 

(i) addressing the specific reasons for such order;

(ii) clearly defined geographical area and type of telecommunication service required to be suspended; and

(iii) a specified duration, not exceeding fifteen days.

Internet restricted based on apprehension of inflammatory content/misinformation on social media platforms

Even with the latest shutdown imposed on 20^th January 2026, SFLC.in observes a continuation of a trend where such measures are undertaken based on rationale that relies on anticipated or apprehended series of events, instead of substantive reasons that explicitly state the justification behind restricting access to the internet — a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. In all three instances of shutdowns in Assam, the order to suspend mobile internet services was based on the apprehension to prevent dissemination of inflammatory messages and misinformation  on social media platforms. However, the Department failed to comprehend that such communication can also spread through other channels as voice calls and broadband internet were not restricted during such instances. Having said that, restricting a specific form of internet service or all telecommunication/internet services can severely impede a person’s ability to access public information and essential services — can mark the difference between life and death scenarios for an ordinary citizen, especially when such shutdowns are triggered by communal violence. Disconnecting internet services has a serious effect on education, banking and work. In the wake of the latest internet shutdown in Kokrajhar, numerous testimonies revealed how students were unable to access lectures, notes and requisite materials to prepare for examinations. A social worker also explained how such internet shutdowns tend to cause a more severe disruption to people who rely on mobile internet services more than broadband internet. 

Further, such justifications often fall short of legal and constitutional standards as well.  Each shutdown order must include crucial details such as the date, time, and the specific area where the suspension will be in effect. Currently, the scope of the order is limited by the Telecom Act along with the 2024 Rules to ensure that restrictions are not imposed arbitrarily. For the order to be valid, it must provide clear reasons and supporting evidence demonstrating the necessity of the shutdown. More importantly, publication of such orders is a legal requirement under Rule 3(2) of the 2024 Rules as well as notable legal precedents such as Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India.

Conclusion

For a period of four days, Kokrajhar and Chirang districts were shrouded under a mobile internet blackout. Indefinite disruption to internet access imposed under an old law undermines public transparency and accountability and can have serious implications on fundamental rights as well as the economy.

SFLC.in urges the State Government of Assam to consider the concerns outlined in this blog post. Such measures tend to have an impact on the general public, who often rely on the internet as a medium to access public information, digital communications, banking and essential services.

Background

On 15th December 2025, internet services were reportedly restored after a week in the Malkangiri district of Odisha. This internet shutdown stemmed from the events of 4th December, when the body of a 51-year–old Koya tribal woman, Lake Padiami, was discovered near the Potteru river in Rakhelguda village. As per a media report, a few days later, the body was identified by the Koya tribal community, based on clothing and jewellery. This discovery triggered an incident of violence. Based on the belief that the people from the village were involved in the killing of Lake Padiami, the infuriated tribal community attacked MV-26 village on 7th December.

On the evening of 8th December 2025, the State Government of Odisha (“State Government”) imposed a suspension of telecommunication services along with an express prohibition on the usage of social media platforms. As cited in the official notification (text of which was reproduced in a media report), the State Government is empowered to impose such measures under Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (“the Act”) along with the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Telecommunication Services) Rules, 2024 (“Rules”). In this blog post, SFLC.in aims to analyze the legality of these measures, based on relevant statutory law and established precedents of the Supreme Court of India.

In order to provide a timeline for the imposition of internet shutdown, one can peruse the table below -

Public transparency undermined: Non-publication of orders by the State Government

As extensively discussed in SFLC.in’s Let the Net Work 2.0: Internet Shutdowns in India 2023-2024 (“Internet Shutdowns Report”), any internet shutdown order must be a reasoned order with a clearly defined justification. The law permits shutdowns based on certain grounds, including threats to the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and the need to prevent incitement to offenses.

Each shutdown order must include crucial details such as the date, time, and the specific area where the suspension will be in effect. The scope of the order is limited by the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (“the Act”), and the governing rules to ensure that restrictions are not imposed arbitrarily. For the order to be valid, it must provide clear reasons and supporting evidence demonstrating the necessity of the shutdown. More importantly, publication of such orders is a legal requirement under Rule 3(2) of the Temporary Suspension Rules as well as notable legal precedents such as Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India.

However, in practice, many shutdown orders fail to meet these legal requirements, lacking specific explanations or justifications, which raises concerns about their misuse and lack of transparency. This stems from the fact that the Rules, in their current form, fail to prescribe adequate procedural safeguards such as a legal mandate for State Governments to proactively publish internet shutdown orders in real time.

On 8th December, certain media outlets reported on the occurrence of the internet shutdown. In some of these reports, the text of the internet shutdown order was provided. However, the same was nowhere to be found in the Official Notifications/Orders webpage of the State Government. While the Rules do not prescribe a legal mandate for the manner of publication, it is imperative that State Governments comply with the said legal requirements in the interest of public transparency, fairness and justice. This can be reasonably achieved by the State Government publishing these orders (the first order as well as subsequent ones relating to extension of such measures) on their designated website as well as official social media handles. This would ensure that people are well-informed of such restrictions and can take suitable measures to prepare themselves to access essential services in such scenarios.

The Critical Quotient of Necessity and Proportionality: Did this internet shutdown meet established legal requirements?

The State Government failed to provide adequate rationale behind the necessity of imposing these internet shutdowns. As per media reports as well as the orders made available in the public domain, the State Government imposed measures based on the ‘situation of rapidly escalating usage of platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook and X to circulate false, provocative and inflammatory messages by anti-social elements’. Despite reports of the situation stabilizing, the State Government reportedly extended it as a precautionary measure to prevent ‘any resurgence of violence’. Authorities enforce these measures to prevent the spread of misinformation, restrict coordination of protests, or curb any anticipated violence. These are often based on intelligence inputs and are intended to preemptively maintain public order (Internet Shutdowns Report, page 16).

While the possibility of such escalations is a legitimate concern, such blanket prohibitions and restrictions hinders a person’s ability to access important information such as news, in real-time as well. Violence can still resurface due to two reasons — firstly, false, provocative and inflammatory messages can flow through word of mouth or phone calls as well. Secondly, people will find it virtually impossible to access authentic and verified information and distinguish it from its provocative and false counterparts.

Consequently, the Malkangiri instance has become another addition to a deeply troubling trend. Digital India doesn’t just thrive on the digital infrastructure but also essential values such as right to access information, freedom of speech and expression and right to life and dignity. Such measures result in unfair outcomes, especially for vulnerable sections of society such as students, and small businesses, while broadband users, often wealthier individuals and institutions, remain unaffected. Such measures often ignore the prevailing digital divide and inequitable access to opportunities and resources, especially in regions where imposition of such measures is frequent and prolonged.

Amongst all impacts, the most debilitating one - is on access to emergency healthcare, education, and public safety. Patients relying on telemedicine and emergency assistance face life-threatening delays, while students, especially in rural areas are cut off from online learning. Public safety is compromised when people are unable to report crimes, receive disaster alerts, or access navigation services (Internet Shutdowns Report, page 18).

Conclusion

The Malkangiri internet shutdowns were imposed without offering a clear yet lawful justification. Furthermore, it failed to meet the criteria mentioned in the parent Act and the Rules. The Internet Shutdowns Report indicates that almost all the states have been following a similar pattern of imposing internet shutdowns without a reasoned order and by merely relying on generic statements, which do not satisfy the legal thresholds established by relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents (page 20).

While access to internet services has been reportedly restored, SFLC.in urges the State Government to consider the concerns presented in this blog post before imposing such measures in future. In the interest of public transparency, SFLC.in has also filed a Right to Information request with the State Government, in an attempt to better understand the rationale (particularly the necessity and proportionality aspects) behind imposing such measures.

Revisiting India’s Internet Shutdown Regime Through the Lens of Legal Reform and Ground Realities

The enactment of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 has reshaped the legislative foundation for regulating India’s telecom sector. Among the first instruments introduced under this new law was the Telecommunication (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “2024 Rules”), notified on November 22, 2024 [1]. These new rules formally replace the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 [2], (hereinafter referred to as the “2017 Rules”) which previously governed the suspension of internet and telecommunication services across India. Coming on the heels of mounting legal challenges and public criticism, the 2024 Rules were presented as a step forward—bringing greater clarity, accountability, and procedural rigor.

Yet, as with many reforms in India’s digital governance ecosystem, the devil lies in the enforcement. While the new rules improve the language of internet shutdown orders, they have not yet transformed the substance of state practice.

The Legal Shift: From the 1885 Telegraph Act to a “Modern” Framework

India’s internet shutdown powers historically stemmed from Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, an antiquated provision never designed for regulating the digital age. In 2017, rules were introduced to provide a regulatory scaffolding under this law but they were vague, enabling indiscriminate and prolonged suspensions, often without public accountability.

The Telecommunications Act, 2023 was meant to modernize this regime. Under Section 20, both the Central and State governments can suspend telecom services, but now subject to clearer procedural guardrails. The 2024 Rules, particularly Rule 3(2)(b)(ii), mandate that suspension orders must specify the geographical region wherein the telecom services are being restricted.

At first glance, this appears to be a significant reform. But the core question remains: Does this procedural improvement translate into more rights-respecting governance, or is it just old wine in a new bottle?

Case Studies in Contrast: Jammu & Kashmir and Manipur

Jammu & Kashmir: Detailed Orders, Same Justifications

The post-2024 shutdown orders in J&K show some cosmetic evolution. Orders from January, February, and April 2025 reference the exact rule invoked (Rule 3(1)), specify the location (e.g., specific regions by kilometer radius or cell towers in Gund, Billawar, Bhaderwah), and distinguish between 2G and high-speed mobile data. They even mention time frames and network types.

However, the justifications remain identical to earlier years: vague references to “anti-national elements,” “social media misuse,” and “public order concerns.” This templated language persists despite judicial pronouncements requiring reasoned, proportionate, and narrowly tailored suspensions, particularly in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India [3].

Furthermore, these orders are rarely made preemptively public. Citizens often rely on RTI filings, media leaks, or after the suspension has expired to access them, raising fundamental concerns about transparency and access to remedy.

Manipur: Rule of Law in Abeyance

In Manipur, the story is even more troubling. Since May 3, 2023, the state has seen one of the longest and most opaque shutdowns in Indian history. Orders were repeatedly renewed every five days, each copy-pasting the same justification, despite the prolonged nature of the disruption.

After judicial intervention in June 2023 [4], shutdown orders began reflecting limited restoration efforts (e.g., tower-based reactivations in unaffected districts). But these efforts failed to extend meaningful access to the general public, and orders were not proactively published, undermining the supposed gains of the new rules.

The Manipur case illustrates a key point: no amount of procedural reform matters when the culture of governance is non-transparent and unaccountable.

Rulebook Without Teeth: Structural Gaps in Enforcement

While the 2024 Rules improve the form, the substance remains untouched due to three structural deficits:

1. Opaque and Unaccountable Review Process

The Review Committee under Rule 6 is an in-house bureaucratic body, comprising Home and Law Department officials. Its deliberations are not public. There is no judicial member, no public reporting, and no citizen oversight. This transforms what should be a procedural safeguard into a rubber stamp.

2. Lack of Mandatory Disclosure

There is no requirement under the 2024 Rules to proactively publish shutdown orders in real time. This severely limits a citizen’s ability to challenge unlawful suspensions. How can a right be enforced if its infringement is hidden?

3. No Consequences for Abuse

Even when shutdowns are found to be excessive or unjustified, there are no penalties or disciplinary actions against the issuing officers. This creates a regime of zero accountability, where shutdowns are used as default responses to unrest, often more out of administrative convenience than legal necessity.

A Comparative Note: How India Compares Globally

Globally, internet shutdowns are widely condemned as disproportionate responses that disproportionately harm marginalized communities. Courts in Pakistan, Kenya, and Indonesia have, at various points, struck down blanket suspensions for violating freedom of expression and access to information.

In contrast, India, despite its democratic institutions and constitutional protections remains the global leader in internet shutdowns, often without providing specific evidence or alternative approaches.

Toward a More Accountable Shutdown Regime

The 2024 Rules should not become another symbolic legal document. Their potential must be unlocked through complementary reforms that center citizen rights:

• Mandatory real-time publication of all shutdown orders on Home Department websites in regional languages.
• Inclusion of independent members (retired judges, civil society experts) in the Review Committee.
• Time caps and geographic limitations on orders, with automatic judicial review for any shutdown exceeding 24 hours.
• Penalty provisions for misuse or unjustified renewals of shutdown orders.
• Annual transparency reports by state governments disclosing the number, duration, and justification for each shutdown.

Conclusion: A Rulebook Read Aloud in an Empty Room?

The Telecommunication (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024 promise clarity, but they fall short on accountability. Without systemic transparency, oversight, and legal redress, the new rules risk becoming a performative upgrade, replacing one opaque regime with another.

As India becomes increasingly digital, internet access is no longer a luxury, it is a precondition to free expression, education, economic participation, and democratic engagement. If connectivity is to be treated as a constitutional right, not a dispensable privilege, then shutdown governance must be rights-based, not regime-based.

The move from the 2017 to the 2024 Rules will be meaningful only when the law ceases to be performative and begins to be protective.

References:

[1] Vide G.S.R. 724(E), dated 22nd November, 2024, published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, Sec. 3(i), No. 665, dated 22nd November, 2024.

[2] Vide G.S.R. 998(E), dated 7th August 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, Sec. 3(i), No. 679, dated 8th August, 2017.

[3] (2020) 3 SCC 637

[4]  Manipur High Court Order dated 07.06.2023, WP(C) No. 329 of 2023.

The suspension of internet services in India has become a recurring issue, often imposed under the guise of maintaining public order and security. The legal framework governing internet shutdowns, originally established under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 and now governed by the Temporary Suspension of Telecommunication Services Rules, 2024 (2024 Rules), which came into force on November 22nd, 2024 under the Telecommunication Act, 2023, sets out specific criteria that must be met before such extreme measures can be taken. However, an analysis of recent internet shutdown orders indicates that authorities are frequently exceeding their vested powers, issuing blanket suspensions that do not adhere to the legal requirements of necessity, proportionality, and reasoned justification.

The Legal Framework: Conditions for Internet Shutdowns

An internet shutdown can be imposed by the Central Government, State Government, or an officer specially authorised by either, under specific conditions. These include the occurrence of any public emergency or considerations related to public safety. Additionally, shutdowns may be enacted if deemed necessary or expedient in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence and security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any offence.

Any such shutdown order must adhere to the prescribed procedures and safeguards, be issued in writing with clearly recorded reasons, and specify the duration and manner of enforcement. Additionally, the order must include essential details such as the date, time, and the specific area affected by the suspension. The governing provisions, as outlined in the Telecommunications Act, 2023, aim to ensure that such orders are not imposed arbitrarily. However, despite these legal requirements, many government-imposed internet shutdowns continue to fall short of the prescribed standards.

Failure to Meet Legal Requirements

An examination of shutdown orders issued in various states highlights a disturbing pattern of non-compliance with legal mandates. For instance, two internet shutdown orders issued in Manipur on 08/11/2023 and 23/11/2023 relied on a generic justification, stating:

"There is apprehension that some anti-social elements might use social media extensively for transmission of images, hate speech, and hate video messages inciting the passions of the public which might have serious repercussions for the law and order situation in the State of Manipur."

Out of the numerous internet shutdown orders issued, only a limited number have been made public—many of them disclosed solely due to our applications filed under the RTI Act. These publicly available orders, like many others issued across states such as Jammu & Kashmir, Haryana, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Odisha, lack specific reasoning or supporting evidence to justify the necessity of an internet shutdown. Instead, they are often based on vague apprehensions, falling short of the high threshold established by law and reiterated by judicial precedent.

Furthermore, data recorded by SFLC.in indicates that almost all states mentioned above have been following a similar trend—issuing shutdown orders based on generic statements without substantive justification. This practice raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and the potential for misuse.

Overreach of Powers: The Case of Bihar

An analysis of Internet Shutdown orders from the State of Bihar shows an even more concerning pattern. Apart from the deficiencies mentioned above, the shutdown order dated 27/03/2023, among a number of other such orders, exceeds the powers granted under the 2024 Rules by not only suspending internet services but also blocking websites and mobile applications. More alarmingly, these orders lack proper application of mind, as they block applications such as Google+, Viber, and WeChat—platforms that are no longer in existence in India.

Apart from showing non-compliance with statutory rules, such actions not only exceed the permissible scope of shutdown orders but also demonstrate a clear disregard for the principles of necessity and proportionality. The blocking of outdated or non-operational applications illustrates the arbitrary nature of these orders, raising critical questions about whether they are issued with due diligence or merely as a routine administrative exercise without meaningful scrutiny.

Implications for Fundamental Rights

The absence of a clear, specific, and legally sound justification in these orders directly undermines the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to access information. Any restriction on this fundamental right must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, as established by the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 25. The Court emphasized that:

"Suspension of internet services indefinitely is impermissible. The restrictions must be necessary and proportionate."

The continued issuance of vague and arbitrary shutdown orders directly contradicts this judicial directive. By imposing such restrictions without adequate reasoning, authorities are violating constitutional rights and setting a dangerous precedent for the unchecked use of executive power.

The Way Forward

To curb the misuse of internet shutdown powers, the following steps must be taken:

1. Strict Adherence to Legal Requirements: Authorities must ensure that all internet shutdown orders meet the criteria laid down in the Rules and are supported by specific, documented reasons. Further, it must be ensured that the internet shutdowns are imposed strictly as per the conditions detailed in the Shutdown Order.
2. Judicial and Administrative Oversight: Independent review mechanisms should be established to scrutinize shutdown orders before they are enforced, ensuring compliance with constitutional principles and measures must be set in place against the District Administrators that do not comply with the newly prescribed rules.
3. Transparency and Accountability: The government must make all shutdown orders publicly accessible, preferably on the Home Department website of each state, providing clear explanations for the suspension of services in regional language.
4. Periodic Review of Shutdown Orders: Orders must be time-bound and reviewed periodically to prevent unnecessary extensions.

Conclusion

The increasing misuse of internet shutdown powers, as evidenced by the arbitrary orders issued across multiple states, highlights the urgent need for stricter enforcement of legal safeguards. The law mandates that internet suspensions must be reasoned, proportionate, and used only as a last resort. However, the prevailing practice of issuing vague and sweeping shutdown orders not only violates constitutional rights but also sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. Unless corrective measures are implemented, the erosion of fundamental freedoms will continue, undermining the very principles of democracy and the rule of law in India.

The Internet is a key enabler of many fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression. SFLC.in, through internetshutdowns.in has been recording instances of internet shutdown since 2012. This blog post documents internet shutdowns and content takedown during the farmers' protests, which began on February 13th, 2024.  The farmers' movement had undertaken a call for a march on February 13th, 2024, to press their demands for Minimum Support Price (MSP), justice for Lakhimpur Kheri violence, load waivers, and other issues. 

These protests have once again highlighted a troubling trend: the use of internet shutdowns and social media bans to curtail communication and suppress dissent. While the government cites security concerns, these measures raise serious questions about the democratic space in India.

Similarly, silencing voices on social media through account suspensions and content takedowns restricts the free exchange of ideas and undermines the right to peaceful assembly. These actions create a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from expressing their opinions and participating in online discourse.

While maintaining public order is crucial, stifling legitimate dissent through digital restrictions is counterproductive. Open dialogue, even when uncomfortable, is essential for a healthy democracy. The government must engage with the farmers' concerns and address them through constructive conversations, not through censorship.

Furthermore, internet shutdowns disproportionately impact vulnerable communities, disrupting access to essential services like healthcare and education. These measures undermine the freedoms they claim to protect, hindering India's progress towards a truly inclusive and equitable society. We have collected several such instances as part of our Internet shutdowns tracker here.

There were instances of widespread shutdowns in 2021 during farmers' protests as well, where many parts of Haryana and the NCT of Delhi faced internet shutdowns[1]. SFLC.in had moved to Punjab and Haryana High Court to challenge these shutdowns as well. 

Here is a timeline of events: 

February 12th, 2024, Monday, the Delhi Police invoked Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code and banned large gatherings across the National Capital Region till March 12th, 2024, as a precautionary measure[2]. 

February 12th, 2024 Monday, the government of Haryana imposed an internet shutdown in seven districts bordering Delhi-Haryana, namely, Kurukshetra, Ambala, Katihal, Jind, Hisar, Sirsa, and Fatehabad[3]. The shutdown was imposed from  06:00 AM on 11/02/2024 to 11:59 PM on 13/02/2024 and was followed by an imposition of Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code banning all large gatherings. 

February 13th, 2024, Tuesday, SFLC.The legal director, Prasanth Sugathan, wrote to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Haryana to reconsider and take down the order banning mobile internet services in select districts of Haryana[4]. 

February 13th, 2024 Tuesday, the Twitter(X) Handles of farmer leaders who had previously been having discussions with the Union Minister were blocked. The Twitter handles are as follows: @phool_surjeet, @rammanmaann1974, @bkuSbs, @PandherSarvan, Tveer_13, and @tractor2twitr_i[5].

February 13th, 2024, Tuesday, the government of Rajasthan imposed an internet shutdown in 3 districts bordering Punjab-Haryana, namely Hanumangarh, Sri Ganganagar, and Anupgarh. The internet shutdown order was imposed for a day between 13/02/2024 and 14/02/2024 and was followed by an imposition of Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code banning all large gatherings[6].

February 13th, 2024, Tuesday, the Twitter(X) and Instagram handles of Kisan Ekta Morcha were blocked upon a legal request by the government[7]. 

February 13th, 2024, Tuesday, the government of Haryana extended internet shutdown till 11:59 PM on 15/02/2024 in seven districts bordering Delhi-Haryana, namely, Kurukshetra, Ambala, Katihal, Jind, Hisar, Sirsa, and Fatehabad[8]. 

February 14th, 2024, Wednesday, SFLC.in’s Legal Director, Prasanth Sugathan wrote to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Rajasthan to reconsider and take down the order banning mobile internet services in select districts of Rajasthan[9].

February 14th, 2024, Wednesday, the Twitter(X) of news outlet Gaon Savera (@GaonSavera) as well as that of Punjab-based local journalist Sandeep Singh (@PunYaab) was reportedly withheld based on a legal request by the government[10].

February 15th, 2024, Thursday, the Twitter(X) Handles of @FarmersFront @mandeeppunia1 @PunYaab @PandherSarvan @bkuSbs, and @ashokdanoda were reportedly withheld based on a legal request by the government[11].

February 16th, 2024, Friday, as per news reports, the Union Government issued two orders on February 10th and February 12th respectively to shutdown internet services in seven districts of Punjab, namely, Patiala, SAS Nagar, Bathinda, Sri Mukhtsar Sahib, Mansa, Sangrur, and Fatehgarh Sahib till February 16[12].

February 16th, 2024, Friday, the Ministry of Home Affairs imposed an extended internet shutdown in seven districts of Punjab, namely, Patiala, SAS Nagar, Bathinda, Sri Mukhtsar Sahib, Mansa, Sangrur, and Fatehgarh Sahib till February 17th[13].

February 19th, 2024, Monday,  the government of Haryana extended internet shutdown till 11:59 PM on 19/02/2024 in seven districts bordering Delhi-Haryana, namely, Kurukshetra, Ambala, Katihal, Jind, Hisar, Sirsa, and Fatehabad[14].

February 20th, 2024, Tuesday,  the government of Haryana extended internet shutdown till 11:59 PM on 20/02/2024 in seven districts bordering Delhi-Haryana, namely, Kurukshetra, Ambala, Katihal, Jind, Hisar, Sirsa, and Fatehabad[15].

February 21st, 2024, Wednesday,  the government of Haryana extended internet shutdown till 11:59 PM on 23/02/2024 in seven districts bordering Delhi-Haryana, namely, Kurukshetra, Ambala, Katihal, Jind, Hisar, Sirsa, and Fatehabad[16].

February 22nd, 2024, Thursday, the Twitter(X) Handles of @FarmStudioz, @Rattan1990, @TribalArmy, @HansrajMeena, @ManojSinghDuhan, @KMajdoormorcha, @AnujSinghBKU, and @FarmStudiozz were reportedly withheld based on a legal request by the government[17].

February 26th, 2024, Monday, the Twitter(X) Handles of @guranmeet, @Tractor2twitr_P, @bhavjitsingh_, @ramanmann1974, @APillania, @Tractor_Times, @du_jat were reportedly withheld based on a legal request from the Government[18]. 

February 27th, 2024, Tuesday, the government of Haryana imposed an internet shutdown in Ambala district till 11:59 PM on 29/02/2024[19].

February 27th, 2024, Tuesday, the Union Government imposed an internet shutdown in Sangrur and Patiala district of Punjab from 12:00 AM on 28/02/2024 to 11:59 PM on 01/03/2024[20].

March 01st, 2024, Friday, the Union Government imposed an internet shutdown in the Sangrur and Patiala districts of Punjab from 12:00 AM on 02/03/2024 to 11:59 PM on 05/03/2024[21].

March 5th, 2024, Tuesday, the Twitter(X) Handles of @garvitgarg15 were reportedly withheld based on a legal request from the Government[22].

SFLC.in has sent a letter to the Haryana Government to reconsider its decision to impose an internet shutdown for 3 days in seven districts. It is stated in the order that the shutdown of the internet is being imposed because of the call for farmers' march/agitation given by certain organisations and, there is an apprehension of causing tension, annoyance, agitation, damage to public & private property, and disturbance of peace & tranquillity in the said districts.

It is to be noted that this suspension of Internet services across the State is bound to impact livelihood, education, and health care for lakhs of people in the State as 96 percent of the population in India depends on mobile Internet services. It is requested that the Government to reconsider its decision to impose an internet shutdown for 3 days in the select districts. Such a measure is disproportionate and excessive for multiple reasons.

The letter can be accessed at SFLC.in's Letter to the Hon'ble CM of Haryana