Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India
2020 INSC 31; [2020] 1 SCR 812 · Supreme Court of India · Decision date: 2020-01-10
Key issue
What constitutional and procedural limits govern internet suspensions and section 144 orders?
Facts
Petitions challenged communications shutdowns and movement restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir following August 2019 measures, including their impact on newspaper publication. Case number: W.P. (C) 1031/2019 with W.P. (C) 1164/2019
Holding
Speech and trade exercised through the internet enjoy Article 19 protection. Indefinite suspension is impermissible; restrictions require proportionality, publication and review. Reviewable reasons and less intrusive alternatives are essential to reconcile rights with legitimate security objectives. Repetitive section 144 orders cannot suppress democratic expression. Authorities were ordered to publish orders and review existing restrictions. The Court did not order unconditional, immediate restoration of all internet services. Single judgment by Ramana; no dissent recorded. Provisions considered at judgment date: Constitution: Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 19(2), 19(6); CrPC section 144; Telegraph Act section 5(2); 2017 Suspension Rules.
Pinpoints
PDF p. 127 — Paragraph 152: directions; PDF p. 128 — Suspension review; PDF p. 129 — Section 144 safeguards; PDF p. 130 — Disposition and signatures. PDF page numbers are 1-based and may differ from printed reporter pages.
Verification status
Source checked
Source note
Original TLG research note based on the linked official judgment, not an official court summary. Source identity and selected holding passages checked on 4 November 2026.
Current treatment
Describes the 2020 statutory framework. Later telecom suspension rules and replacement criminal-procedure legislation need separate current-law verification; no exhaustive treatment certificate is claimed. Historical case note; exhaustive subsequent treatment and current statutory application have not been checked.