Critically evaluate the use of Internet suspensions and preventive detention to manage protests, in light of the proportionality doctrine.

Peaceful protest is a fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(a) and (b), to be regulated, not banned [2]. Under the proportionality doctrine, any curb must have a legitimate aim, be suitable, be the least restrictive option, and fairly balance rights against that aim. Internet suspensions and preventive detention can pass this test only when used narrowly.

Where these tools can be justified

• Public order is a legitimate aim: Art. 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions on assembly in the interest of public order.
• Short-term containment: suspensions can stop rumours and mobilisation for violence. A single order is capped at 15 days under the 2017 Suspension Rules (amended in 2020) [1].
• Preventive detention has a constitutional basis: Art. 22 permits it, with safeguards such as advisory boards.

Where they fail the proportionality test

• Vague triggers: "public emergency" and "public safety" are undefined in law, so shutdowns rest on subjective assessment [1]. This weakens the Anuradha Bhasin (2020) requirement of necessity.
• Not the least restrictive option: blanket shutdowns block the whole Internet instead of particular services. The Standing Committee (26th Report, 2021) recommended selective blocking [1].
• No balancing of costs: DoT and the Ministry of Home Affairs had not studied the impact of shutdowns on the economy, education, health or the press [1].
• Collateral harm to access to justice: in October 2026 the SCBA protested the detention of lawyers and an Internet suspension during anti-CEC protests near the Supreme Court [3].
• Weak review: the Committee found the 2020 amendments inadequate, and DoT lacked data on whether review committees existed in every state [1].

Way forward

• Define the grounds for suspension, require reasoned orders that are published, and prefer service-specific blocking [1].
• Fix protest sites and routes in advance, as Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan directed for central Delhi [2].
• Use preventive detention only on specific threat inputs, under judicial review that is quick and in public.

Both tools have a legitimate place in protecting public order, but in practice they tend to be used broadly and rarely reviewed. Placing them inside a framework of defined grounds, narrow targeting and transparent oversight would bring them in line with Art. 19 and Art. 21. That would protect both public order and the democratic value of dissent.