Anuradha Bhasin v. Union Of India (2020)

Case Name: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union Of India (2020)

Citation: AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1308, (2020) 1 MAD LJ 574, (2020) 1 SCALE 691, (2020) 77 OCR 784, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 17

Bench:  B. R. Gavai, R. Subhash Reddy, N.V. Ramana

Date of Judgment: 10 January 2020

Parties Involved: Anuradha Bhasin and Gulam Nabi Azad as Petitioner(s) and Union of India &Others as Respondent(s)

Factual Background

Following the abrogation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir government issued a security advisory, advising tourists and Amarnath Yatra pilgrims to leave the region for safety reasons. Soon after, schools, offices, and communication services (mobile, internet, landlines) were shut down, and movement was restricted in some areas.
 Writ Petition No. 1164/2019 – Ghulam Nabi Azad

Filed to assess the impact of restrictions on daily wage earners.

The Supreme Court allowed Mr. Azad to visit Srinagar, Anantnag, Baramulla, and Jammu, but with the condition that he must not engage in political activities.

The Union and State were directed to respond to other parts of the petition within two weeks.

Writ Petition No. 1031/2019 – Anuradha Bhasin

Challenged the communication blackout.

On 16.09.2019, the Court directed the State to restore normalcy, especially access to healthcare, education, and communication, based on national security considerations.

On 01.10.2019, the Court restricted further intervention applications, but the submission of documents was allowed.

On 16.10.2019, the Solicitor General stated that some restrictions were being relaxed, especially on mobile and landline services. He refused to provide copies of the restriction orders to the petitioners, claiming privilege, but agreed to submit them to the Court.

Concerns Raised

Can the government hide the orders it passed?

The petitioners asked: If the government shut down the internet and restricted movement, shouldn’t people be allowed to see those orders? How can anyone challenge them if they don’t even know what the rules are?

Is internet access part of our fundamental rights?

The Court was asked whether using the internet for speech, business, or news is protected under the freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and freedom of profession (Article 19(1)(g)).

Was shutting down the internet completely even legal?

The Court had to decide whether banning the internet across an entire area, for an unlimited time, was allowed by law, and if it followed the correct procedure.

Were the curfews under Section 144 CrPC valid?

The government used Section 144 (a law to prevent public unrest) to restrict people from gathering or moving. The question was whether this was done fairly and lawfully, or if it was just used to silence the public.

Was press freedom violated?

Anuradha Bhasin, a journalist, said that due to the internet ban and restrictions, she couldn’t publish her newspaper. The Court had to decide whether this hurt the freedom of the press, which is part of free speech.

Arguments by Petitioners

Lack of Justified Emergency or Threat

The petitioners argued that the government imposed extreme restrictions without any visible or credible threat to law and order.

According to the Constitution, emergency powers can only be used in cases of “internal disturbance” or “external aggression.” No such condition was proved in this case.

The counsel said the government cannot act as if it’s an Emergency without officially declaring one.

Misuse of Section 144 Cr.P.C.

Section 144 allows authorities to prevent public disorder by restricting the movement of individuals or public gatherings.

However, in this case, it was applied across entire districts, impacting millions of people, rather than targeting specific threats.

The lawyers argued that: No evidence of actual disturbance was cited.

The entire state was brought to a standstill, which is not how Section 144 is meant to be used.

The orders were generic, with no application of mind or clear reasoning.

Violation of Freedom of the Press

Ms. Anuradha Bhasin, the editor of Kashmir Times, claimed she couldn’t publish her newspaper after 5 August 2019.

Internet shutdowns, curfews, and restrictions crippled journalism and access to information.

This was a direct violation of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).

Internet Ban Was Overbroad & Disproportionate

The internet shutdown affected not only journalists, but also Business owners, Students, and Healthcare providers.

The petitioners stated that instead of completely cutting off the internet, the government could have only blocked specific apps or websites (e.g., Facebook, WhatsApp) known for spreading misinformation.

Past instances (e.g., in Bihar or earlier in J&K) showed the use of targeted bans, which were less harmful to the general public.

Principle of Least Restrictive Means

Lawyers emphasized that any restriction on fundamental rights must pass the test of proportionality. As per the K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy) judgment, any restriction must: Serve a legitimate goal, Be necessary, Use the least restrictive method possible, Balance individual rights with public interest. Blanket shutdowns violated this principle.

Impact on Trade & Business

The internet ban didn’t just affect communication—it halted businesses, online services, e-commerce, and even banking.

The right to carry on trade or profession (Article 19(1)(g)) was violated.

The lawyers said freedom to trade using the internet is now essential in modern times.

Chilling Effect & Fear Among Citizen

The petitioners argued that long-term restrictions (over 100 days) created fear and uncertainty in people’s minds.

Citizens felt they could be punished or restricted without warning, which goes against democratic values.

Arguments by Respondents 

Internet Ban Was for Public Safety

The internet and communication blackout were needed to prevent terrorism, riots, and fake news.

The government said social media could be used to spread hate, misinformation, and incite violence, especially in a sensitive region like Kashmir.

Precaution, Not Punishment

These steps were preventive, not punitive.

There were serious threats to law and order after the abrogation of Article 370, so precautionary restrictions were necessary.

No Blanket Ban in Entire State

The government argued that some areas, like Jammu and Ladakh, were not under a complete shutdown.

So, it wasn’t a state-wide blanket ban.

Limited Technology for Selective Ban

They claimed it wasn’t technically possible at that time to block only certain websites (like WhatsApp or Facebook) while keeping the rest of the internet running.

The State Has the Power Under Law

They relied on Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act and the Suspension Rules of 2017, which give the State power to suspend telecom services in cases of public emergency or safety.

Also referred to as Section 144 of the CrPC, which allows restrictions when there is a potential threat to peace.

Freedom of Speech Is Not Absolute

The government argued that fundamental rights like free speech (Article 19) can be reasonably restricted in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, and public order.

National Interest Comes First

They emphasized that individual rights can be limited if the larger interest of national security demands it.

Preventing violence and saving lives is a legitimate aim.

Temporary Measure

The government maintained that the restrictions were not permanent and were being reviewed regularly.

Court’s Decision 

The right to the Internet is Part of Fundamental Rights.

The Court held that access to the Internet is a part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and freedom to practice any profession or trade (Article 19(1)(g)), especially when it’s used for business, education, and communication.

However, like all rights under Article 19, it can be reasonably restricted under Article 19(2).

Restrictions Must Be Lawful, Necessary, and Proportionate

The government cannot impose indefinite internet shutdowns.

Any restriction must: Be based on law, Be necessary in a democratic society, Be proportionate to the situation (i.e., not too extreme)

Section 144 CrPC Can’t Be Used Excessively

The Court said Section 144 (used to restrict gatherings or movement) cannot be used as a blanket measure across entire regions without proper justification.

The government must explain why such orders are needed, and they must be based on real and immediate threats, not just vague fears.

 Government Must Publish All Orders

The Court ordered the government to make all future internet shutdowns and Section 144 orders public.

This is so that citizens can challenge them in court if needed.

No Indefinite Internet Shutdowns

The Court criticized the prolonged shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir and said:

“An indefinite suspension of internet services would be impermissible.”

Suspension must be temporary, reviewed regularly, and revoked when no longer needed.

Court Did NOT Restore 4G Immediately

Importantly, the Court did not immediately order the government to restore full internet services.

Instead, it left it to a government review committee to decide whether restrictions should continue.

The Court upheld the importance of internet access under fundamental rights.

It set strict legal rules for future shutdowns and restrictions.

However, it did not immediately strike down the restrictions in J&K, which was seen as a cautious move.

In short, the court held that the government cannot refuse to produce an internet suspension order before the court. Moreover, the court must regularly review the suspension order, and it cannot suspend the internet services. While the internet services can be suspended to safeguard public order, the restrictions on internet services cannot be arbitrary and excessive. The court ordered the government to publish or notify the internet suspension orders in the public domain.

Legal Reasoning Applied by the Court

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to access the internet is a part of the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the right to practice any profession or trade (Article 19(1)(g)). The Court said that these rights can be restricted, but only through reasonable and proportionate measures. It applied the “proportionality test” from the Puttaswamy judgment, which means that any restriction must be necessary, suitable, and the least harmful way to achieve the government’s goal, like maintaining public order. The Court also criticized the misuse of Section 144 of the CrPC, saying it cannot be used to impose indefinite or overly broad restrictions, and the government must justify why it is being used. Moreover, the Court stressed that any order related to internet shutdowns or movement restrictions must be made public so that people can challenge it. The judgment strongly emphasized that fundamental rights cannot be suspended indefinitely and must always be protected, even in difficult situations like those in Jammu and Kashmir.

Significance of this case

The Anuradha Bhasin case is a landmark judgment that clarified the scope of fundamental rights in the digital age. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to carry on any trade or business through the internet are protected under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It emphasized that any restriction on these rights must be lawful, reasonable, proportionate, and must not be excessive. The case also reaffirmed the importance of transparency in government decisions, stating that any order restricting rights must be publicly available and subject to judicial review. Another significance of this case is that it declared the right to access the internet as a fundamental right.

This judgment is extremely relevant today, especially when internet shutdowns and communication restrictions are often used for national security reasons. The Court struck a careful balance between liberty and security, reminding authorities that restrictions should be the last resort, not the default. It is a vital precedent for protecting democratic freedoms while addressing modern challenges like terrorism and public disorder.

Reference(s)

Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79353056 accessed 29 July 2025.

1. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

Constitution of India 1950, arts 14, 19, 21.

Rishita Gupta, Varsha Agarwal, and Gautam Badlani, ‘Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, 2020: case analysis’ (iPleaders blog, 21 February 2024) https://blog.ipleaders.in/anuradha-bhasin-v-union-of-india-case-analysis accessed 29 July 2025