Discuss whether internet shutdowns and pre-emptive content down-ranking are proportionate tools for maintaining public order in a democracy.

In Anuradha Bhasin (2020), the Supreme Court held that internet restrictions must be lawful, necessary and the least restrictive option available [2]. In October 2026, Delhi Police imposed a 24-hour shutdown over a 4-km radius. On the same day, a MeitY advisory asked platforms to "limit reach" of content likely to cause disorder [1]. Together, these test that standard.

Case for these tools

• Legitimate aim: "public order" is a ground for restriction under Art. 19(2). Viral rumours can mobilise crowds within minutes.
• Speed: blocking under Section 69A requires a committee process. Down-ranking acts in real time, and platforms were asked to prioritise complaints from authorised agencies [1].
• Lighter touch: down-ranking keeps content online rather than deleting it.

Why they often fail proportionality

• No criteria: the Parliamentary Standing Committee (2021) found shutdowns ordered on "subjective assessment", even for exams and routine policing [3].
• Collateral harm: a zone in central Delhi cuts payments, hospitals and gig work for people who are not protesting [1]. The Committee flagged harm to the economy, press, education and healthcare [3].
• Least-restrictive test: a targeted advisory issued the same day [1] shows that milder means existed. This weakens the case for a full network cut [2].
• Invisible restriction: users are rarely told that their reach was cut, and Section 79(3)(b) notices are not published. A user cannot appeal a restriction they do not know about.
• Chilling dissent: the protests targeted the Chief Election Commissioner [1], so the State was judging speech against its own authority. MeitY's Secretary warned that notices must not mimic Section 69A blocking orders, and that powers must be used prudently enough to survive judicial scrutiny [4].

Way forward

• DoT to issue uniform State guidelines and block selected services rather than the whole internet [3].
• Publish shutdown orders with reasons, and review them periodically [2].
• Route content blocking through Section 69A's safeguards [4]. Publish notice statistics and tell users when their reach is cut.

Both tools serve a legitimate aim. They are proportionate only when narrow, time-bound, reasoned and open to review. The Standing Committee urged a shift from blanket shutdowns to targeted, transparent content action [3]. That shift would reconcile public order with Art. 19(1)(a) and protect the space for dissent that democracy needs.