An internet shutdown does not look violent from a distance.
No building falls. No smoke rises. No siren announces the damage. There is only silence: phones stop loading, messages fail, online payments collapse, students cannot attend classes, journalists cannot file reports, families cannot check on each other, doctors cannot access digital systems, small businesses lose customers, and citizens inside a crisis are cut off from the rest of the world.
The state may call it temporary. Officials may call it necessary. Police may call it preventive. But for the person inside the blackout, the effect is immediate and deeply personal.
The internet is no longer a luxury service. It is the operating system of modern life.
That is why internet shutdowns have become a major human rights concern. They are not only technical disruptions. They affect freedom of expression, access to information, education, healthcare, work, emergency response, financial inclusion, press freedom, political participation and the right to live with dignity.
A government may shut down the internet in the name of public order. But it also shuts down the citizen’s ability to speak, seek help, document abuse, earn money, study, transact and know what is happening.
In the digital age, disconnection is not merely inconvenience. It is control.
The shutdown is now a global governance problem
Internet shutdowns are no longer rare emergency measures. They have become a recurring instrument of state power.
Access Now and the #KeepItOn coalition documented 313 internet shutdowns across 52 countries in 2025, the highest number recorded since the organization began tracking such data in 2016. The same 2026 report noted that internet shutdowns in 2025 exceeded the already serious levels seen in 2024 and 2023.
This matters because the practice is spreading across different political systems. Authoritarian regimes use shutdowns to suppress dissent and conceal abuses. Democracies use shutdowns during protests, communal tensions, religious events, exams and law-and-order crises. Conflict actors use shutdowns to isolate populations. Security states use shutdowns to prevent coordination, but often end up punishing entire communities.
The geography may differ, but the logic is similar: when the public sphere becomes difficult to manage, the network is cut.
That is a dangerous precedent. A state that can disconnect citizens from one another at will can reshape the balance between government and society.
India’s experience is central to the debate
India is one of the most important countries in the global shutdown debate because it is both a digital power and a frequent user of shutdowns.
Access Now’s 2025 report recorded 65 shutdowns in India, the country’s lowest annual figure since 2017 but still the highest among democracies. The report also stated that of the 2,102 shutdowns recorded globally by Access Now since 2016, 920 occurred in India.
This contradiction is central to India’s digital future.
India wants to be seen as a digital democracy: UPI, Aadhaar-linked services, Digital India, online education, e-governance, startup innovation, AI ambition and large-scale digital public infrastructure. But frequent internet shutdowns weaken the same digital ecosystem that India proudly builds.
A country cannot ask citizens to depend on digital systems and then repeatedly disconnect them from those systems.
When banking, welfare, education, business, healthcare and identity verification move online, internet access becomes a public utility. Cutting it is no longer like closing a website. It is closer to switching off a civic bloodstream.
The legal problem: necessity and proportionality
No serious society can deny that governments face real security challenges. Rumours can spread fast. Violence can be coordinated online. Hate speech can inflame communities. Terror networks can use encrypted platforms. Exam cheating rackets can exploit messaging apps. Public order is a legitimate concern.
But human rights law does not ask whether the state has concerns. It asks whether the restriction is lawful, necessary, proportionate, time-bound, transparent and subject to review.
India’s Supreme Court addressed this issue in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. The Court held that indefinite suspension of internet services would be illegal under Indian law, that shutdown orders must satisfy necessity and proportionality, that restrictions must be made public, and that such orders are subject to judicial review.
This is the correct constitutional direction. The internet can be restricted in exceptional circumstances, but not casually. A shutdown cannot become a routine administrative shortcut.
The problem is implementation.
A parliamentary committee summary by PRS noted that India’s 2017 shutdown framework was criticized for open-ended provisions, lack of defined parameters for “public emergency” and “public safety,” and executive-heavy oversight. It also recorded concerns that shutdowns had been ordered for routine policing and administrative purposes, including preventing exam cheating and local crime.
That is where the human rights concern becomes serious. If “public safety” is interpreted too broadly, almost any inconvenience can become a reason to disconnect citizens.
The exam-cheating argument shows the danger of normalization
One of the most revealing uses of internet shutdowns is during exams.
A state may argue that shutting mobile internet prevents cheating, paper leaks or coordinated fraud. At first glance, this may appear practical. But the logic is deeply troubling.
If a government shuts down the internet for an exam, it is admitting that it cannot protect exam integrity through targeted policing, secure paper systems, digital monitoring, strong invigilation, encryption, logistics reform or accountability. Instead, it punishes an entire population for an administrative failure.
This is collective inconvenience imposed for bureaucratic weakness.
The Internet Society’s 2025 policy brief observed that governments commonly justify shutdowns through public peace, security incidents, fake news and exam cheating, while warning that the practice is frequently ineffective and disproportionate regardless of the stated reason.
That should be the policy test: if a problem can be solved through targeted means, a shutdown is excessive.
Democracy cannot allow the most intrusive tool to become the easiest tool.
Shutdowns damage more than speech
The shutdown debate is often framed as a free-speech issue. That is correct, but incomplete.
Internet shutdowns affect speech because citizens cannot post, report, organize, criticize or access news. But they also affect survival.
A shutdown can block digital payments.It can stop small sellers from receiving orders.It can prevent patients from accessing telemedicine.It can cut students off from classes and exam updates.It can stop workers from using gig platforms.It can prevent families from locating relatives during violence.It can obstruct journalists from verifying facts.It can delay emergency response.It can hide police abuse, mob violence or conflict atrocities.
The UN human rights office has treated internet shutdowns as a broad human rights issue, not merely a technology issue. Its 2022 report examined shutdown trends, causes, legal implications and impacts across a range of human rights, including freedom of opinion and expression and the wider consequences for people’s lives.
This wider framing matters. The internet is now connected to nearly every major right. Cutting it affects the whole rights ecosystem.
The economic cost is also a rights issue
Internet shutdowns hurt economies, but the cost is not abstract. It is paid by shopkeepers, drivers, students, freelancers, traders, patients, workers and families.
Top10VPN’s 2024 global cost report estimated that major government-imposed internet shutdowns cost the world economy $7.69 billion in 2024, affected 648.4 million people, and caused more than 70,000 hours of government internet disruptions. The report also found that Pakistan, Myanmar and Sudan suffered some of the largest economic impacts that year.
These numbers are not merely macroeconomic indicators. They represent lost wages, failed transactions, delayed deliveries, broken contracts, missed classes, interrupted healthcare and destroyed trust in digital services.
For poor households, one day without connectivity can mean one day without income.
For small businesses, a shutdown is not a political event. It is a revenue shock.
For students, it is not only censorship. It is lost learning.
For workers dependent on app-based platforms, online orders or digital payments, shutdowns directly affect livelihood.
Economic freedom and digital access are now connected.
Shutdowns often hide what the public most needs to see
The most dangerous shutdowns happen during conflict, protest and communal violence because those are precisely the moments when information matters most.
When violence begins, citizens need verified information. Families need to check safety. Journalists need to report. Emergency workers need coordination. Civil society groups need to document harm. Courts and rights bodies later need evidence.
A shutdown weakens all of this.
It may reduce some rumours, but it can also create a larger rumour economy. When verified information disappears, fear fills the gap. People rely on hearsay, offline gossip, partisan claims and panic. The absence of the internet does not create truth. It often creates darkness.
This is why shutdowns can protect authorities from scrutiny as much as they protect public order.
If a video of abuse cannot be uploaded, the abuse becomes easier to deny. If journalists cannot report, the official version dominates. If victims cannot send evidence, accountability weakens. If communities cannot communicate, fear grows.
A blackout does not only stop misinformation. It can stop truth.
The Russia example shows how shutdowns enter national security doctrine
Internet shutdowns are increasingly being normalized as part of national security management.
On June 1, 2026, Reuters reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the prime minister and the FSB security service to ensure the operation of key medical, information and payment services during periods of limited mobile internet. Russia had sometimes shut down mobile internet services in 2026 and cracked down on foreign messenger apps, while officials justified disruptions as necessary to prevent terrorism and Ukrainian drone attacks.
This example shows a new stage in shutdown governance. The state does not deny that shutdowns disrupt basic services. Instead, it tries to preserve selected essential services while still retaining the power to limit the broader internet.
That may sound more responsible than a total blackout, but it also raises a deeper concern: governments may begin designing permanent “managed shutdown” systems.
In such systems, citizens may receive access to approved services while losing open communication, independent news, encrypted messaging, political speech or external platforms. The internet becomes a controlled pipeline, not an open network.
That is not digital security. It is digital sovereignty without digital freedom.
VPN restrictions show the next layer of control
When governments shut down or restrict internet access, citizens often turn to VPNs, satellite connections, proxy tools and alternative networks. Governments then respond by targeting circumvention tools.
This creates a cycle.
First, the state restricts access.Then citizens seek a route around restriction.Then the state criminalizes or blocks the workaround.Then the digital space becomes even more securitized.
Access Now’s 2025 reporting noted concerns about India’s targeting of circumvention tools, including restrictions on unauthorized VPN use in Jammu and Kashmir and reported penalties against users.
This is significant because VPNs are not used only by criminals. Journalists, activists, students, businesses, researchers and ordinary citizens may use VPNs to protect privacy, access blocked platforms or maintain communication during disruptions.
A blanket suspicion of circumvention tools can turn normal privacy behaviour into a policing issue.
The result is chilling: citizens begin to fear not only what they say online, but also how they connect.
Digital India cannot coexist comfortably with routine shutdowns
India’s policy challenge is especially sharp.
The country is building one of the world’s most ambitious digital public infrastructures. Citizens use digital payments for daily purchases. Welfare systems increasingly depend on digital authentication. Businesses rely on online transactions. Students depend on digital learning. Courts, hospitals, tax systems, government services and private commerce are increasingly digitized.
This makes the cost of shutdowns much higher than before.
In the early internet era, a shutdown mainly affected communication. Today, it affects governance itself.
If a vegetable seller cannot receive UPI payments, the shutdown enters the marketplace.If a student cannot download an admit card, it enters education.If a patient cannot access records, it enters healthcare.If a journalist cannot verify a rumour, it enters public safety.If a worker cannot log into an app, it enters livelihood.
The more digital India becomes, the more anti-development shutdowns become.
There is a contradiction in celebrating AI, fintech, e-governance and startup growth while treating connectivity as something that can be suspended repeatedly during tension.
Digital ambition requires digital trust.
The human rights issue is also about equality
Internet shutdowns do not hurt everyone equally.
The wealthy often have alternatives: multiple SIM cards, broadband connections, satellite access, private networks, political contacts, offline resources and financial buffers. The poor have fewer options. A shutdown traps them more completely.
A professional in a metropolitan city may switch networks or work around a disruption. A student in a remote district may simply lose access. A small trader may lose all business. A migrant worker may lose contact with family. A daily earner may lose income. A woman facing violence may be unable to call for help through digital channels. A patient may be unable to use online health services.
This is why shutdowns can become class-biased restrictions.
They are imposed in the name of public order, but the burden falls hardest on people with the least power.
A rights analysis must therefore ask not only whether a shutdown is legal, but who suffers most from it.
The state’s argument cannot be dismissed, but it must be disciplined
There are situations where governments face immediate and credible threats: riots, terrorist operations, targeted violence, organized misinformation, cross-border conflict or planned attacks. A responsible state must preserve life and order.
But the existence of a security threat does not automatically justify cutting off entire populations.
The state must answer hard questions:
What specific threat is being addressed?Why are existing laws insufficient?Why is a shutdown necessary?Why are targeted blocks not enough?Why must the entire district or state be affected?What is the exact duration?Which services will remain available?How will hospitals, payments, media and emergency services function?Will the order be published?Can citizens challenge it?Will the impact be reviewed afterward?
Without these questions, shutdowns become executive habit.
A democracy must never allow “law and order” to become a magic phrase that suspends rights without evidence.
The policy alternative: targeted, transparent, time-bound action
The answer is not that governments should do nothing during crises. The answer is that governments should use narrower tools before using the broadest one.
Instead of shutting down the internet, authorities can target specific unlawful content, increase on-ground policing, improve rumour-monitoring cells, issue verified public updates, work with platforms for emergency takedowns, arrest those inciting violence, secure exam systems, protect vulnerable localities, deploy community mediators, and keep emergency communication channels open.
If a shutdown is absolutely unavoidable, it must follow strict conditions.
It should be geographically narrow.It should be time-bound.It should be publicly reasoned.It should be reviewed independently.It should preserve emergency services.It should protect hospitals, payments and essential communication.It should be subject to judicial challenge.It should be followed by public impact assessment.
The Internet Society has recommended that policymakers weigh economic and social impacts alongside security needs and prioritize targeted, rights-respecting solutions instead of blunt shutdowns.
That should become the baseline of democratic governance.
Internet access is becoming part of citizenship
Citizenship used to mean legal status, voting rights, tax obligations and protection by the state. In the digital age, it increasingly also means access to the network through which the state and society function.
A citizen without internet access may be formally equal but practically excluded.
They may not access welfare portals.They may not use digital payments.They may not receive official updates.They may not participate in online debate.They may not document injustice.They may not compete economically.They may not study effectively.
This is why internet access is becoming part of substantive citizenship.
The state may not have to provide unlimited internet as a fundamental right in every form. But when the state itself makes governance digital, it assumes a duty not to disconnect citizens casually.
A digital state must respect digital continuity.
The final question: safety or control?
Every shutdown is justified as safety. But every shutdown also increases control.
Sometimes safety may be genuine. Sometimes control may be the real purpose. Often, both are present. That is why the law must be strict.
The question is not whether rumours are dangerous. They are.The question is whether cutting everyone off is the least harmful solution.
The question is not whether violence must be prevented. It must.The question is whether silence prevents violence or hides it.
The question is not whether the state has responsibility for order. It does.The question is whether order can be maintained by suspending the tools of modern life.
Internet shutdowns become a human rights concern because they reveal the vulnerability of citizens in a digital society. The more dependent people become on the internet, the more powerful the state becomes when it can remove access.
The future of freedom will not be decided only by whether people can speak in public squares. It will also be decided by whether they can connect, communicate, verify, transact, organize and document online.
A democracy that cuts the internet too easily teaches citizens a dangerous lesson: their rights exist only until the state finds them inconvenient.
That is why internet shutdowns must be treated not as routine administrative measures, but as exceptional constitutional emergencies.
Because in the twenty-first century, when the state switches off the internet, it does not merely switch off data.
It switches off voice, evidence, livelihood, education, safety and trust.
And a society that accepts that too casually may wake up digitally connected in technology, but politically disconnected from freedom.
