Internet Shutdowns and Students’ Right to Education in India: A Constitutional Analysis | Author – Jyoti Jha | Volume VI Issue IV(Sep-Oct,2026)

Abstract

Internet shutdowns disrupt access to education opportunities at the time when school systems, universities and exams are becoming more digital. The constitutional challenge is not whether there are valid grounds for imposing limitations on public security, it is how one can be consistent with educational continuity and guarantees of equality, liberty and freedom of expression. In this study, using the doctrine of Indian Constitutional jurisprudence, the fundamental right of every child, according to the study to be enforced under Article 21A, is demarcated from the other fundamental rights to which the education interests belong. The Telecommunications Act,  2023, the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, and some of the cases of the High Court were examined. The current regulatory process is lacking an express student specific impact assessment, while judicial doctrine requires lawful, necessary, proportionate and reviewable restrictions. The institutional school-connectivity statistics, the national internet-use surveys and all independently documented shutdown counts show overlapping vulnerabilities, but fail to provide a causal estimate of learning loss. More direct, albeit limited, evidence of academic disruption comes from a qualitative study of medical trainees in Manipur. The analysis identifies certain concerns surrounding blanket and repeated suspension orders for admissions, examinations and students without a mobile connection. An education sensitive proportionality assessment, reasoned orders, time boundness of accommodation of academic deadlines, continuity with independently reviewable arrangements would successfully balance public safety with constitutionally meaningful access to education.

Keywords: Internet shutdowns; Right to education; Constitutional proportionality; Digital inequality; Judicial review.

1.1       Introduction

Access to Internet has now become an integral part of Indian educational infrastructure. There is a growing reliance on connectivity in school lessons, university libraries, scholarship announcements, admissions, and competitive exams, as well as communication with teachers. An interruption can thus hinder more than just convenience; it can hinder a student from reaching an official deadline, or even getting materials only available online. Meanwhile, there are genuine public-security emergencies in which India may find it necessary to take action on the necessity of any temporary restrictions in telecom services. The constitutional issue looks at the circumstances in which that power can be used, and what educational considerations should be taken into account prior to using it.

Articles 21A, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India give rights of free and compulsory education of children between the ages of 6 and 14, equality, expression and liberty. None of these provisions give the “right” to a specific Internet service with no restriction. Nor do there exist any emergency powers which are beyond constitutional controls. The central suspension framework is now provided by the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the rules that were issued in 2024. While judicial developments have reinforced the obligation to be published, proportional and the need for review, there is no consistent student-centric standard for determining when educationally access needs to be safeguarded as part of a network restriction.

The present study does not seek to make an extensive comparison across the world; it is an analysis of India. It takes into account the relation between the right to education and restrictions on the internet, existing guarantees in statutes, empirical implications of digital inequalities and the difference between recognising injury and providing judicially enforceable changes. The gaps identified using official statistics are used to identify vulnerabilities, rather than to measure learning losses associated with closures. The core thesis is that a legitimate public safety aim does not supplant the requirement to consider potential educational effects. A constitutionally-justifiable order must involve real consideration of alternatives and real arrangements for core academic activities, particularly where there is repetition of restrictions and/or broad geographical restrictions.

1.1.1    Literature Review

The next decade of works offer a set of constitutional theory, equality scholarship, political analysis and evidence on network restrictions. They are not considered to be interchangeable evidence of educational harm, but rather are considered for their contribution to the legal question.

Aharon Barak book “Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations” (2012), sets out a structured justification for limiting rights, separating proper purpose, suitability, necessity and balancing. It offers as its main contribution a means to assess whether extensive communication suspensions extend beyond a clearly identified security risk. It is not about school-calendars and the limits of educational exceptions.^[1]

The account of constitutional interpretation that Gautam Bhatia advanced in his book, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (2019), centres on freedom, equality and resistance to domination in the adjudication of rights. In this way, it focuses the inquiry into seemingly neutral shutdowns that have a greater impact on dependent users. This book does not consider the detailed procedural design of the 2024 suspension rules because the rules pre-date this publication.^[2]

The book “The Indian Constitution” (2012) by Madhav Khosla examines how the constitutional settlement of India has been designed and has been working ever since. It helps with the analysis of judicial review, legislative competence and the relation between administrative decisions and enforceable rights. Its wide-ranging approach to the constitution results in the lack of treatment for emergency telecommunications or education in the digital space.^[3]

As illustrated by Sandra Fredman’s book Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (2008), effective rights protection can involve much more than noninterference on the part of public institutions. If applied with caution to education this can also help when state action renders digital facilities unavailable. The work provides a general rights structure, not a rule in which are drawn the exact lines between powers of the Indian shutdown authority.^[4]

In light of this, Shreya Atrey’s book, Intersectional Discrimination (2019), demonstrates why it is important to take an intersectional approach and look at social factors together before any form of disadvantage is overlooked. It can be used as a framework to analyse that how factors of Gender, Residence, Disability and Economic position can interact and compound the factor of digital exclusion. However, blanket school and household data are not sufficient to determine the intersectional harm of a single school closure order.^[5]

In his article “The Authoritarian Practice of Issuing Internet Shutdowns in India: The Bharatiya Janata Party’s Direct and Indirect Responsibility” (2022), Kris Ruijgrok conducts interviews and analyzes subnational quantitative data to trace the decisions to issue shutdowns to the political and administrative processes at the state level. This calls into question theories that see restrictions as a purely central-government affair. It has historical data prior to the statute and its political findings do not equate with a finding that a particular suspension was unlawful.^[6]

Marika Miner article “Strategic Disruptions: The Subnational Targeting of Internet Shutdowns in India” (2025), analyses spatial patterns and political targeting within India. The challenge it throws out is that a geographically expansive order is not necessarily an objective response to an objectively similar threat. While not estimating the educational loss, the research gives an impetus to call for location-specific justification and not for generic reference to unrest.^[7]

Malika Galib Shah and Junaid ul-Shafi’s article titled “COVID-19, Internet and Education: Loss of a Generation” (2024) discusses the multifaceted impacts of curbing the internet and the dependency of the pandemic era on students in Jammu and Kashmir. It associates the limitations in the network with the identified learning difficulties and is based on interviews. However, due to regional/exceptional factors, the conclusions of this are not applicable to all Indian schools or to all types of suspension.^[8]

Md. Nurul Momen, Harsha S. and Debobrata Das In “Mediated Democracy and Internet Shutdown in India” (2021), internet shutdown has been positioned as an issue to address in the field of democracy and freedom-of-expression studies. The focus on political rhetoric underscores the broader rights’ price tag outside the actual order timeframe. It provides less direct information on the special time sensitivity of the application of examinations, academic assessment and school responsibilities.^[9]

1. Jyothi, Sneha Dhali, Brogen Singh Akoijam and Pangambam Amrita Devi’s article “Effect of Internet Shutdown on Postgraduate Trainees in Manipur: A Qualitative Study” (2024) captures instances of the loss of learning opportunities and the absence of communication across postgraduate medical trainees through interviews. It offers a very direct link to professional learning a shutdown causes, but its purposive sample and limited institutional context does not allow for a representative national incidence of education harms caused by such a shutdown.^[10]

1.1.2    Research Gap

The use of this term is already well known and has been discussed as politics of shutdowns, constitutional arguments for restrictions and consequences of digital exclusion. Whereas, a comprehensive study and analysis of the educational interests of students in the existing Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules 2024 are underdeveloped. The rules call for an assessment of alternative measures, for publication and review, but are silent as to how foreseeable disruption of examinations, admissions or compulsory education fits in the scale of events. Nor do the number of shutdowns available nationwide reflect the number of affected students, or lost hours of instruction. The resulting gap is therefore on the one hand doctrinal, in the sense that there is as yet no clearly articulated education-sensitive proportionality framework for courts and administrators; and on the other hand is evidentiary, as researchers lack matched data that can be used to distinguish the effect of shutdown from pre-existing connectivity deficits. Legal analysis is needed to explicitly distinguish the enforceable obligations from proposed institutional safeguards that close this gap.

1.1.3    Research Objectives

The present research pursues three connected objectives:

1. To analyse the constitutional and statutory standards governing internet shutdowns affecting educational access.
2. To assess judicial decisions and verified evidence of student vulnerability, distinguishing proven disruption from broader digital inequality.
3. To evaluate workable safeguards for maintaining essential academic functions during lawful temporary restrictions.

1.1.4    Research Methodology

Doctrinal and Analytical Legal method is adopted in the present study. The primary sources include the Constitution of India, statutory and delegated rules, official notifications and reports of Supreme Court and selected orders of High Courts. Secondary materials comprise verified academic monographs, peer-reviewed scholarship, government publications, institutional statistics and international rights guidance. This is done through the lens of statutory interpretation, constitutional proportionality reasoning, institutional competence considerations and critical comparative analysis of judicial remedies. The descriptive evidence used comes from published numerical series and is used as context, as is experience of educational disruption derived from a published qualitative investigation. The author did not conduct interviews, survey fieldwork, or collect primary data or conduct causal statistical modelling.

1.2       Internet Shutdowns: Nature and Regulation

Shutting down the internet is a not one-size-fits-all technical solution. They differ geographically, as to the length of time and services they would discontinue and, constitutionally, that’s significant. A mobile internet restriction in a district is different from a restriction on the national website or the temporary blocking of a specific website. First the interference must be ascertained by legal scrutiny before determining whether it is necessary.

1.2.1    Definition, Forms and Security Claims

An internet shutdown commonly refers to an intentional disruption of internet-based communications, making the internet inaccessible, or materially disrupting its use, by a specific population or in a specific geographic location. Many households depend on mobile rather than fixed broadband, so the impact of the suspension of mobile data on those households can be disproportionate. Limited speed restrictions can keep low-level conversation going but could preclude interactive classes, online testing and audio-visual learning content. A blocking of the website, based on various statutory powers, does not imply a territorial blocking of telecommunications services. The constitutionally relevant question is thus not whether an order is issued, but what that order does not allow students to do.

Public emergencies, public safety, and prevention of disorder, especially during violent disturbances or in the face of threats of mass mobilisation, are cited as grounds for these restrictions. Such interests are legitimate, though a purported need does not exhaustively serve as a justification for the need. The risks, potential alternatives and time horizons differ between stopping misinformation and preventing examination misconduct and between stopping misinformation and responding to immediate violence. An examination in a school is an event that does not inherently constitute a public emergency nor a district-wide security incident, which does not necessarily warrant the disabling of every district education connection. The order must be reasoned, and relate the selected network restriction to the threat to which it is legally relevant.

1.2.2    Documented Frequency and Duration

Despite fluctuations from year to year, India’s internet shutdowns are continuing to be recorded, with the Access Now and KeepItOn coalition logging 116 cases of internet shutdowns in the country during 2023, 84 in 2024, and 65 in 2025. Counts are reliant on a documentation methodology and are subject to change should incidents be discovered or reclassified. These counts are not equal to the number of suspension orders or affected districts or student-days without access or hours of lost teaching. This would then mask out the dimensions that may be most relevant to the right to education.^[11]

While the number of incidents recorded between 2023 and 2025 has decreased, this does not necessarily indicate that there has been a corresponding decrease in the disruption of education. For constitutional purposes, it might be more useful to know about the length, timing and the spatial extent of each measure than its national total. A limitation on the 5-day period during an admission window can give a unique blow despite being just one. Conversely, a short break (when alternative provision is working) could have a significantly less negative impact. Such asymmetries suggest that an exclusively quantitative measurement of the effectiveness of existing safeguards needs to be avoided.

Figure 1: Annual documented shutdown incidents, 2023–2025.

1.2.3    Telecommunications Act, 2023

Telecommunications Act, 2023: Section 20(2)(b) provides for the temporary suspension of telecommunications services under certain conditions of public emergency or public safety, in compliance with the Act and prescribed procedure. The power is considerable but limited by the statute. On analysis, its construction is such that it requires the particular triggering circumstances to be identified as well as the statutory interests served, and would not provide a general power to incapacitate all services when administrative convenience indicates this. The need to be based upon lawful purposes is the key to meaningful judicial review, as a suspension impacts on public communication, both on a large scale.^[12]

1.2.4    Suspension Rules, 2024

These Rules have been introduced to replace the existing Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 with the prescribed transitional saving. The competent authority is generally the Union Home Secretary/State Home Department Secretary concerned. Reasons, area, type of service, duration of services are written in the written order and the term of the order shall not exceed 15 days for one order. If authorised by another qualifying officer, the authorisation will be exceptional and must be confirmed within 24 hours. Orders must be published and sent to the review committee within twenty-four hours and the reviewing committee must consider the order within five days and the issuing authority must also consider reasonable alternatives that can achieve the objectives.^[13]

These provisions represent a step towards concretisation of an unconstrained executive discretion: An order shall be particularised and shall not be geographically or temporally unlimited. However, the 15 day limit does not, on its own, represent a limit on the length of successive orders. The framework also does not explicitly call for an educational impact statement or a policy that maintains academic application portals. Thus, while conformance with each procedural step is required, it is not necessarily enough to establish the constitutionality of any action taken. A decision could be reflected formally in writing, but be deemed to violate the substantive test, if it takes the form of a prohibition on educational activity in particular areas or at particular times where there is a materially lower security concern.

1.2.5    Review and Accountability

The statutory review committee is set up to offer executive oversight that a suspension meets the requirements of the governing Act. A suspension order must be reviewed in a timely and recorded manner and an unlawful order can be set aside. But the organisation of the review in the hands of the senior officials is not the same as an independent adjudication: the committee itself does not require an adversarial process, or the inclusion of a representative from the education sector, or the periodic publication of the reasoning. Courts are still needed to examine factual justification, unforeseen harm, and to offer relief. However, for effective review to take place, the original order must be available in public so that the affected students can challenge an order that is not readily understood in terms of the length of time it is in effect, the legal basis or geographical scope.

1.3       Constitutional Foundations of Educational Access

Students have a number of educational claims that have constitutional underpinnings, but the level of strength of each claim will depend on the age of the student, the State action being challenged, and the educational interest that is being impaired. So it is vital not to equate judicial affirmation of rights on the internet with a statement that anybody has an unqualified fundamental right to uninterrupted high-speed connection.

1.3.1    Article 21A and the Right to Education

The Constitution of India under Article 21A has laid an emphasis on providing free and compulsory education to kids between the age of 6 and 14 years in the manner as prescribed by law. It is not an issue about open access to all university courses and/or online services, but rather about the issue of elementary education. It is enshrined in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, in the form of duties on governments and local authorities, admission, attendance and completion of elementary education. Thus, a closure of the schools affecting the arrangements for education can also raise Article 21A issues even when the Constitution refers to none of the digital facilities.^[14]

Prior to the introduction of Article 21A, Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka pointed to the connection between education and dignity to the right to life.^[15] This enforceable right to free education till 14 years was further elaborated upon in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh where educative claims after 14 years were dealt with separately.^[16] This doctrinal history helps clarify the difference between how digital learning is understood in the case of elementary school children, and how it can be understood in the case of older students—it is crucial that a positive claim to digital learning cannot simply be appealed to by all students as a liberty, equality and expression right.

1.3.2    Freedom of Expression and Information

Article 19(1)(a) is about the communication and exchange of information. Those activities include accessing educational material, communicating with teachers, sharing academic work and official notification, for a student. Restrictions have to satisfy the constitutional requirements of Article 19(2) namely a legitimate enumerated ground and reasonableness. Not every service requirement is a fundamental right simply because it is transmitted via the Internet, which is a means of exercising an existing freedom. However, when the State interferes with an existing form of expression it is required to justify the interference in constitutional, not just administrative, terms.

Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India held that Internet-based expression and trade is covered by constitutional protection, ruled against indefinite suspension, the need to provide reasons, and the need to ensure proportionality and periodic review of suspension orders.^[17] It did not state a right to undisturbed use of the internet in all circumstances for free. This difference can be especially significant in the context of educational claims. The substantive educational right needs to have underpinning in the relevant constitutional provisions, applicable legislation and the concrete consequences of the order, while the judgment supplies a method of scrutinising restrictions and identifying less intrusive measures.

1.3.3    Life, Dignity and Equality

Article 21 guarantees life and personal liberty which in a long line of case law is given a substantial meaning as including dignity and conditions for meaningful human development. Such concerns can be involved where a scholarship deadline has passed, where there have been difficulties with communication during the public emergency or where there has been extended isolation from educational services. Article 14 also places a requirement on State action that it be non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory in the sense of being unconstitutional. These formally-equivalent limits can have different practical consequences because of different student device, resources, disabilities and alternatives. However, it is important to take account of the actual decision and the affected population and establish an unequal effect, and not presume it based on national connectivity averages.

Proportionality is an analytical link that connects these rights with legitimate security interests. Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh stated that purpose, rational connection, necessity and balancing are a detailed assessment to be conducted.^[18] That same method should be used for the restrictions to connectivity: If an authority took action, they need to explain not just what they had a legitimate reason to act on, but why they chose this specific service, territory and length of time and not something that could work. The school related dimension accentuates the balancing stage: appendage of an irrevocable examination or an application deadline may require more consideration than an inconvenience that can easily be corrected.

1.3.4    High Court Recognition and Its Limits

In Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court struck down prohibiting hostel students from accessing the Internet through their mobile phones in certain time periods, considering it to be closely related to education and privacy.^[19] This is a case that came about due to a hostel rule, and not a statewide public-emergency suspension. That its persuasive force is in its observation that access has educational significance, rather than because a college hostel decision is subject to the same legal test as a telecommunications emergency order. But it would be a mistake to view the ruling as having universal precedential value and a factual setting that purports it to be a ruling prohibiting shutdowns in all cases.

The Supreme Court in Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir had taken cognisance of the serious concerns related to slow internet speed and its impact on education, medicine and communication during the pandemic.^[20] Instead of immediately restoring high speed Internet, the Court called for a Special Committee to deal with the issues raised. It shows the differences between a judicial declaration that educational hardship is constitutionally relevant, and a merits decision on the factual need for a specific limitations. It also points to a potentially remedial problem: access to an executive reconsideration mechanism may not be able to be provided before academic deadlines have elapsed.

1.3.5    Recent Manipur Proceedings

In Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma v. State of Manipur, the High Court gave an interim order to allow a limited internet facility at specific places in view of the difficulty in public and student admissions due to restrictions.^[21] The order shows that judicially-scaled access arrangements are appropriate to consider without ruling that statewide restoration is always necessary. It is an interlocutory reply, which is based on the facts before the Court and should not be construed as an overall finding that examination and admission centres cannot have automatic exemption from closing.

In Wangkhemcha Shamjai v. State of Manipur, the petitioner challenged a related order dated 2025 for resuming its shutdown under the obsolete rules of 2017, which had been superseded by the entry into force of the 2024 rules.^[22] On lifting of the restriction, the High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, but expressly kept the Legal question open. The case is a very common scenario in emergency litigations: a court might issue a temporary order before it decides the merits. It is not to be relied on as conclusive recognition of illegality, but it does highlight the importance of speed of publication, easy access to records and speed of review.

1.3.6    International Interpretive Framework

The Convention on the Rights of the Child confirms children’s freedoms of information and expression (e.g. under Article 13) and their right to education (e.g. under Article 28). Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) education is a human right and education should be progressively available and accessible for all.^[23] (Article 13).^[24] While these instruments suggest that the medium of telecommunication service is important when it comes to delivering education, they do not necessarily supplant the specific language of the Indian municipal statutes, nor do they provide a clear, judicially enforceable right to telecommunications service.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in General Comment No. 25 has clarified the role of children’s rights in digital spaces and the necessity to tackle obstacles to learning online. This kind of interpretive material is coercive, not supplantive of domestic constitutional adjudication.^[25] It helps to pose a feasible question for Indian authorities: ‘Assuming education and public engagement are delivered via digital platforms, how can a reasonable continuity be planned so as to minimise predictable harm in cases where security necessitates restricted access’? Always be mindful of realistic technology, actual threats and the legal capacity of the decision maker.

1.4       Educational Consequences and Digital Inequality

Educational injury cannot be inferred from the occurrence of a shutdown alone. The relevant questions concern the activities suspended, affected students, alternatives available, timing of restrictions and possibility of making up lost opportunities. Distinguishing those elements permits the present study to use institutional data responsibly while acknowledging the limited national evidence directly measuring learning loss caused by shutdowns.

1.4.1    Classes, Admissions and Examinations

Loss of connectivity can limit access to taking live classes, accessing libraries, picking up instructions, uploading evaluated work, and/or discussing exams. They have varying levels of importance depending upon the type of learning: a lesson in primary school may be “recovered” by classroom instruction; a date for registering for an entrance test may be irretrievably lost. Its implications are also determined by the administrative design. A telecommunications portal that takes only submit online, and provides no offline or post-restoration procedure, gives an interruption of telecommunications the implications of an exclusion from academic opportunity. Such effects need to be part of the decision maker’s constitutional assessment even if the initial security goal is legitimate.

1.4.2    Expanding School Connectivity

Government data indicate that the percentage of Indian schools reporting an internet facility rose from 49.7 in academic year 2022–2023 to 53.9 in 2023–2024, 63.5 in 2024–2025 and 67.4 in 2025–2026. The upward trend shows that digital infrastructure available for instruction and administration is growing; it doesn’t guarantee continuity of home access or steady bandwidth. Furthermore, as more and more education is digitized, network suspensions could also impact a greater array of educational activities.^[26]

Figure 2: National school connectivity by academic year, 2022–2023 to 2025–2026.

1.4.3    Regional Connectivity Gaps

National averages: Behind these averages lie significant regional variations. According to National Institution for Transforming India, in 2024-25, Manipur had 36.6 per cent (below the national average of 63.5 per cent) of schools with internet facilities, while Kerala recorded 91.7 per cent of schools followed by West Bengal with 18.6 per cent. These descriptive differences have implications for the viability of learning options, but cannot determine if a school’s connection was affected for any listed school as a result of a shutdown. The range highlights that no two districts have the same level of institutional strength.^[27]

Table 1: Internet facilities in selected school systems, academic year 2024–2025.

1.4.4    Household Access and Gender

According to the telecommunications survey carried out by the National Statistics Office in 2025, the internet usage in the last three months among the age group 15-24 was 95.7 percent for males and 91.1 percent for females in rural areas and 97.0 percent for males and 95.0 percent for females in urban areas. These categories reveal measurable differences in how they used mobile and illustrate that nominal mobile coverage is not equal digital participation. These are not numbers belonging to the Article 21A age group and are not shutdown specific numbers.^[28]

Table 2: Reported recent internet use among persons aged 15–24, India, 2025.

Figure 3: Percentage reporting recent internet use, ages 15–24, India, 2025.

1.4.5    Interpreting Educational Harm

A more direct line of evidence exists from qualitative research with the postgraduate medical trainees in Manipur, who reported getting access to the latest academic materials and communication for professional learning was difficult during restriction. These narratives describe processes and mechanisms that cannot be detected through comprehensive surveys. But, a small purposive sample does not represent an effect estimate for the country. Likewise, the gap between rural and urban Internet use cannot be used as a measure of how much each shutdown contributes to increasing or decreasing that gap on a percentage basis. These types of evidence are complementary, not interchangeable, and make up an indispensable part of constitutional argument.

1.5       Constitutional Evaluation and Institutional Reform

The important legal issue is whether the State can show that the specific suspension, on those geographical and service lines, was ‘necessary in the circumstances’ and proportional to the rights at stake. This assessment cannot be divorced from that of procedural transparency: an order with reasons that are not provided in time cannot easily be challenged and an accessible order with flawed reasons can be challenged on the merits.

1.5.1    Education-Sensitive Proportionality

The basis for the proposed assessment has a valid statutory purpose and a particular description of harm. It next considers the question of whether the area or period selected for the restriction is a reasonable effort to address the harm identified; and whether a more limited area, more limited time, or a more limited service restriction or targeted security action is a reasonable alternative to achieve the goal of the restriction. The impacts on compulsory education, on admission portals and scheduled exams would be recorded by authorities at the balancing phase. It does not provide automatic preference to the educational activity in relation to the urgency of safety needs, but that the safety needs must be demonstrated and compared with rights burdens in a record that is subject to a review.

1.5.2    Feasibility of Continuity Arrangements

Some of the answers could be: facilities set aside for the public to use, controlled exceptions for essential admission services, submission offline, postponement of dates, community learning resources, and distribution of materials in the school. The limitations are that whitelisting might be technically burdensome, exemptions might compromise the security goal and offline access might not be available during violent disorder. NEP 2020 acknowledges the benefits of various modes of delivering education which may be digital or non-digital, and provides an applicable administrative planning framework but not a fresh constitutional exception.^[29]

1.5.3    Rapid Remedies and Public Records

Review must be more than superficial, and must occur in time for a temporary restriction not to become ‘irrevocable’. Publication facilitates judicial review, and reasoned records facilitate review of necessity and successive orders. In cases of suspension, there also could be a public register kept by the education authorities of the due dates and examination bodies could be asked to exercise their judgment on whether there was any hardship for an individual, without having to require them to litigate. The expedited judicial process would be particularly desirable in cases where the challenged limitation is likely to be cancelled before it is possible to engage in full argument. Such steps enhance accountability while affording decisionmakers their statutory emergency authorities.

1.5.4    Findings

The combined doctrinal and institutional analysis establishes the following findings:

1. Conditional statutory authority:Nor do the provisions of the 2023 Act and the 2024 Rules authorise temporary suspension except under specific statutory and procedural circumstances. They do not provide a blanket power to suspend internet connectivity for educational purposes merely for administrative convenience.
2. No absolute connectivity entitlement: Although constitutional decisions made in India have safeguarded certain guaranteed rights that are exercised via access to the internet, there is no guarantee of continuous high speed access. Any restriction must therefore relate to a clear constitutional or statutory right of student claimants.
3. Educational assessment omission: Although the current Rules require consideration of reasonable alternatives, they do not specifically require that an impact assessment be conducted from a student’s perspective. Therefore, academic deadlines and compulsory learning are dependent on the quality of the generalized proportionality inquiry.
4. Review timing problem: A short order could be lifted before any merits decision is made. The Manipur proceedings are an example of the fact that withdrawal does not necessarily result in a resolution of the legality issues.
5. Unequal resilience: There are wide variations in the digital-access statistics of schools and individual users across jurisdictions and demographic groups. Without matched data, they do not indicate a proportional change in learning loss due to shutdowns.
6. Available tailored responses: Designated access locations are legally significant, as shown by the courts. Their viability in a security emergency depends on the facts and circumstances.
7. Evidence limitation: Documented shutdowns as reported in the published data does not translate to number of students or hours education or assessment lost. National education data is not adequate to provide the missing causal dimension.

1.6       Conclusion

Internet shutdowns fall on a constitutionally-sensitive intersection of public safety, digital infrastructure and educational opportunity. The laws and legal obligations demand not that a reliable threat to public order should be ignored, but that there be a legal decision that is narrowly justified and subject to effective scrutiny. Articles 14, 19, 21 and 21A provide varying forms of protection including the strongest express protection on the right to education for children aged six to fourteen. There are three governing principles—proportionality, publication and periodic review—which the Supreme Court uses to determine whether interference with the exercise of those rights is permissible.

The present study concludes that the rules proposed for 2024 include an element of stated reasons, a maximum duration, and an identified geographical area but remain vague when it comes to debating what the consequences are for a student. The reality of educational hardship and the extent to which relief can be given until the end of emergency restrictions is brought back by judicial experience in Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur. Connectivity data provides insights about the varied capacity to absorb disruption; it is by no means definitive evidence of cause and effect or of loss in learning on the national level.

A more coherent way of doing the Constitution would have educational implications foreseeable as part of a written record of necessity and balancing assessments. Academic deadlines and ways to get education can be maintained if safety allows without undermining the State’s duty to protect. Also significant is the issuing of orders, and timely access from the courts to information on time/day etc. affected populations. These measures would subject educational continuity to constitutional challenges, but leave the difference between an enforceable legal right and an administrative political determination and proposed improvements intact.

1.7       Suggestions

The findings support the following operational recommendations for education-sensitive administration of lawful internet restrictions.

1. Mandate educational impact recording: Union Department of Telecommunications should revise the 2024 Rules to include a short-term estimate of the potential impact in the fields of education and exams/entrance tests. The issuing authority should document whether or not an urgent exception was required.
2. Identify narrower network options: Before placing blanket suspension, Home Departments are expected to record the geographic, service specific and time-based alternatives which have been considered. Justifications for the inability to incorporate a technically feasible narrower alternative should be retained for consideration.
3. Publish machine-readable orders: Union and State authorities should maintain an accessible public register containing the order, legal basis, start time, end time and affected territory. Corrections and withdrawals should be recorded promptly.
4. Protect admission deadlines: The University and Admission bodies should agree to a consistent extension or offline submission policy when there are clearly stated local restrictions. Where an applicant is eligible, he or she should be able to get relief without the need for individual litigation.
5. Safeguard examination registration: Where there are interruptions that align with required online registration, contingency windows should be provided by examination authorities. The process should be done under fair competition and the affected candidate identification process must be recorded.
6. Build secure education access points: District education officials should determine supervised facilities, if security allows, that can provide necessary access. Site activation shall be determined in consultation with public safety officials by the authorities.
7. Strengthen committee review records: Review Committees should make a note if any restriction scope and renewal and educational hardship were considered. Meaningful scrutiny should be made possible by publishing non-sensitive parts of conclusions.
8. Create rapid judicial procedures: In cases seeking urgent listing, the High Courts may consider listing the cases in light of imminent educational deadlines. A fact-specific interim relief, subject to considerations of proven security concerns, should remain.
9. Develop matched harm indicators: In case of a real Shutdown period, ministries of education should gather verified data on cancelled online sessions, missed assessments and extended admittance. There needs to be a way to differentiate interrupted service from existing non-connectivity.
10. Maintain non-digital learning channels: Print and radio and other accessible learning options should be planned by school authorities in the affected districts. It is important to note that learners unable to use their own devices and who cannot safely travel to and from school should be considered in planning.

Bibliography

Books

SHREYA ATREY, INTERSECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION (Oxford Univ. Press 2019), https://academic.oup.com/book/35116 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

AHARON BARAK, PROPORTIONALITY: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012), https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/08588/excerpt/9781107008588_excerpt.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

GAUTAM BHATIA, THE TRANSFORMATIVE CONSTITUTION: A RADICAL BIOGRAPHY IN NINE ACTS (HarperCollins India 2019), https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/18/2/668/5880187 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

SANDRA FREDMAN, HUMAN RIGHTS TRANSFORMED: POSITIVE RIGHTS AND POSITIVE DUTIES (Oxford Univ. Press 2008), https://academic.oup.com/book/11849 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

MADHAV KHOSLA, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION (Oxford Univ. Press 2012), https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/328/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Journal Articles

10. Jyothi, Sneha Dhali, Brogen Singh Akoijam & Pangambam Amrita Devi, Effect of Internet Shutdown on Postgraduate Trainees in Manipur: A Qualitative Study, 160 INDIAN J. MED. RES. 630 (2024), https://doi.org/10.25259/IJMR_206_2024 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Marika Miner, Strategic Disruptions: The Subnational Targeting of Internet Shutdowns in India, 62 J. PEACE RES. 2033 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433251342434 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Md. Nurul Momen, Harsha S. & Debobrata Das, Mediated Democracy and Internet Shutdown in India, 19 J. INFO., COMMC’N & ETHICS SOC’Y 222 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-07-2020-0075 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Kris Ruijgrok, The Authoritarian Practice of Issuing Internet Shutdowns in India: The Bharatiya Janata Party’s Direct and Indirect Responsibility, 29 DEMOCRATIZATION 611 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2021.1993826 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Malika Galib Shah & Junaid-ul-Shafi, COVID-19, Internet and Education: Loss of a Generation, 36 PEACE REV. 443 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2024.2352411 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Official Reports, Policy Papers and International Materials

Access Now & KeepItOn Coalition, Rising Repression Meets Global Resistance: Internet Shutdowns in 2025 (2026), https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/KeepItOn-Internet-Shutdowns-2025-Annual-Report.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Ministry of Educ., Gov’t of India, Unified District Information System for Education Plus 2025–26: School Education in India (2026), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2282141&lang=1&reg=48 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Ministry of Human Res. Dev., Gov’t of India, National Education Policy 2020, ch. 24 (2020), https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Results of Comprehensive Modular Survey: Telecom, 2025 (May 29, 2025), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2132330&lang=2&reg=48 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

NITI Aayog, School Education System in India: Temporal Analysis and Policy Roadmap for Quality Enhancement (2026), https://www.niti.gov.in/node/2288 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

U.N. Comm. on the Rts. of the Child, General Comment No. 25 (2021) on Children’s Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/25 (Mar. 2, 2021), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3906061 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Judicial Decisions

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 (India), https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/28817/28817_2019_2_1501_19350_Judgement_10-Jan-2020.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma v. State of Manipur, PIL No. 25 of 2023 (Manipur High Ct. June 16, 2023) (interim order), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/06/20/manipur-hc-directs-state-to-provide-limited-internet-services-to-public-legal-news/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 2020 Ker. 35 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188439981/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Found. for Media Pros. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, (2020) 5 S.C.C. 746 (India), https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/10817/10817_2020_33_1502_22029_Judgement_11-May-2020.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Modern Dental Coll. & Research Ctr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 S.C.C. 353 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49945774/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 S.C.C. 666 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40715/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 S.C.C. 645 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1775396/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Wangkhemcha Shamjai v. State of Manipur, W.P. (C) No. 457 of 2025 (Manipur High Ct. June 13, 2025) (order), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97377279/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Legislation and International Treaties

Convention on the Rights of the Child arts. 13, 28, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art. 13, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, No. 35 of 2009, §§ 3, 8–12 (India), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/handle/123456789/2086 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Telecommunications Act, No. 44 of 2023, § 20(2)(b) (India), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, Gazette of India, G.S.R. 724(E) (Nov. 22, 2024), https://eservices.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/circular-notifications/temporary-suspension-of-services-rules-2024.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

The Constitution of India, 1950

Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 (G.S.R. 998(E))

^[1] AHARON BARAK, PROPORTIONALITY: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012), https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/08588/excerpt/9781107008588_excerpt.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[2] GAUTAM BHATIA, THE TRANSFORMATIVE CONSTITUTION: A RADICAL BIOGRAPHY IN NINE ACTS (HarperCollins India 2019), https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/18/2/668/5880187 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[3] MADHAV KHOSLA, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION (Oxford Univ. Press 2012), https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/328/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[4] SANDRA FREDMAN, HUMAN RIGHTS TRANSFORMED: POSITIVE RIGHTS AND POSITIVE DUTIES (Oxford Univ. Press 2008), https://academic.oup.com/book/11849 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[5] SHREYA ATREY, INTERSECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION (Oxford Univ. Press 2019), https://academic.oup.com/book/35116 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[6] Kris Ruijgrok, The Authoritarian Practice of Issuing Internet Shutdowns in India: The Bharatiya Janata Party’s Direct and Indirect Responsibility, 29 DEMOCRATIZATION 611 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2021.1993826 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[7] Marika Miner, Strategic Disruptions: The Subnational Targeting of Internet Shutdowns in India, 62 J. PEACE RES. 2033 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433251342434 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[8] Malika Galib Shah & Junaid-ul-Shafi, COVID-19, Internet and Education: Loss of a Generation, 36 PEACE REV. 443 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2024.2352411 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[9] Md. Nurul Momen, Harsha S. & Debobrata Das, Mediated Democracy and Internet Shutdown in India, 19 J. INFO., COMMC’N & ETHICS SOC’Y 222 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-07-2020-0075 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[10] S. Jyothi, Sneha Dhali, Brogen Singh Akoijam & Pangambam Amrita Devi, Effect of Internet Shutdown on Postgraduate Trainees in Manipur: A Qualitative Study, 160 INDIAN J. MED. RES. 630 (2024), https://doi.org/10.25259/IJMR_206_2024 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[11] Access Now & KeepItOn Coalition, Rising Repression Meets Global Resistance: Internet Shutdowns in 2025 (2026), https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/KeepItOn-Internet-Shutdowns-2025-Annual-Report.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[12] Telecommunications Act, No. 44 of 2023, § 20(2)(b) (India), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[13] Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, Gazette of India, G.S.R. 724(E) (Nov. 22, 2024), https://eservices.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/circular-notifications/temporary-suspension-of-services-rules-2024.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[14] Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, No. 35 of 2009, §§ 3, 8–12 (India), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/handle/123456789/2086 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[15] Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 S.C.C. 666 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40715/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[16] Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 S.C.C. 645 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1775396/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[17] Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 (India), https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/28817/28817_2019_2_1501_19350_Judgement_10-Jan-2020.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[18] Modern Dental Coll. & Research Ctr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 S.C.C. 353 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49945774/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[19] Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 2020 Ker. 35 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188439981/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[20] Found. for Media Pros. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, (2020) 5 S.C.C. 746 (India), https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/10817/10817_2020_33_1502_22029_Judgement_11-May-2020.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[21] Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma v. State of Manipur, PIL No. 25 of 2023 (Manipur High Ct. June 16, 2023) (interim order), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/06/20/manipur-hc-directs-state-to-provide-limited-internet-services-to-public-legal-news/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[22] Wangkhemcha Shamjai v. State of Manipur, W.P. (C) No. 457 of 2025 (Manipur High Ct. June 13, 2025) (order), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97377279/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[23] Convention on the Rights of the Child arts. 13, 28, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[24] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art. 13, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[25] U.N. Comm. on the Rts. of the Child, General Comment No. 25 (2021) on Children’s Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/25 (Mar. 2, 2021), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3906061 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[26] Ministry of Educ., Gov’t of India, Unified District Information System for Education Plus 2025–26: School Education in India (2026), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2282141&lang=1&reg=48 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[27] NITI Aayog, School Education System in India: Temporal Analysis and Policy Roadmap for Quality Enhancement (2026), https://www.niti.gov.in/node/2288 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[28] Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Results of Comprehensive Modular Survey: Telecom, 2025 (May 29, 2025), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2132330&lang=2&reg=48 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).

^[29] Ministry of Human Res. Dev., Gov’t of India, National Education Policy 2020, ch. 24 (2020), https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).