Centre framing rules to legitimise internet shutdowns is problematic
India is a land of great contradictions and confusions, and if there's one aspect of the country which typifies this characteristic, it's our policy-making apparatus. Case in point is the government's latest decision that makes it easier for it to suspend internet service in the country.
On the one hand, is the government's relentless push for "Digital India" that runs not on bank notes but on cashless transactions. On the other is this quiet notification from August 7, 2017 - titled “Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017” - that outlines the rules for shutting the internet down, the very framework that PM Modi's Digital India lives and breathes on. In fact, the ruling goes against the prime minister's own advice through much of last year after his (in) demonetisation diktat that India must adapt to a cashless society, embracing online methods of financial transactions.
#India has quietly issued rules for internet shutdowns - we're taking a closer look #KeepItOn https://t.co/grKTKSrvNU pic.twitter.com/zR3ia9yeUv
— Access Now (@accessnow) August 28, 2017
What does the notification say?
The Department of Telecom, under the Union ministry of communications, via the notification, has effectively framed rules that need to be followed in cases where the internet needs to be temporarily suspended in any part of the country. As per a Medianama analysis, which was the first to report on the August 7 notification, internet shutdowns can be ordered in two ways according to the new rules:
1) Central government
The home secretary of the country and a secretary of a state’s home department are only the ones who can pass an order by the Government of India. However, under unavoidable circumstances, this order to deprive people of the basic right that access to the internet is can also be issued by a joint secretary (or of a rank above) authorised by the Union home secretary – subject to a review from the Union home secretary within 24 hours.
2) State government
In the case of a state government, the secretary to the state government in-charge of the home department can also issue an order to temporarily block internet services. In unavoidable circumstances, this might be issued by joint secretary authorised by the state home secretary, subject to the review of the state home secretary within 24 hours. It also states that any such order should be taken up by a review committee within five days.
The validity of these orders – which will come with an explanation – however, will be reviewed by a committee within five days of the passing of the order.
The curious case of internet shutdowns in India
Even though the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2016 passed a nonbinding resolution outlining that the internet is a basic human right, actions of the Indian government hint that it thinks right to encroach upon this basic right of its citizens. Recently in Haryana and Punjab internet services were suspended for over a 100 hours as a measure to control unrest over the Gurmeet Ram Rahim rape case verdict.
A quick look at the stats show that the suspension which left millions without access to the web and essential services that run on it was not a one off, or even close to being the most crippling that the country has seen in the recent past. According to an ongoing study conducted by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), India has seen 42 instances of internet shutdown in the first eight months of 2017 – all in the name of preserving law and order.
This number dwarfs the count from the entire 12-month duration from last year – 31– and is thrice the number of internet shutdowns from 2015.
The numbers point towards a worrying trend of shutting internet services down at the slightest chance of civil unrest. This trend not only comes at an economic cost – internet shutdowns cost over $968 million in lost business opportunities – but also "violates India's obligations under international human rights law".
Government breach of a human right
Disappointingly though, by framing rules for internet shutdowns in the country, the government has not only shrugged off these concerns but also set the ground for encroaching upon this basic human right in the future too.
As is clear from the approach, the Indian government has taken to internet shutdowns as a means to control the populous, rather than the projected tool of preserving harmony and maintaining law and order. By brushing aside such concerns and instead framing rules that legitimise shutting down the internet it has made it amply clear that this is a form of control that it is unlikely to let go off in the future.
According to one of the leading internet rights activist groups in India, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) the central ruling "falls short of meaningful reform this country deserves". Moreover, the IFF red flags legitimate concerns that there were no wider public consultations, discussions and debates before this notification was arbitrarily issued by the governemnt of India.
So what’s the path forward ? It is public consultation. Demands at https://t.co/QEdy3WmrM8 remain outstanding. #KeepUsOnline pic.twitter.com/t5WexBVebU
— IFF (@internetfreedom) August 29, 2017
IFF, which has often publicly rallied for ending internet shutdowns as a repressive, state-control mechanism, and has trended hashtags such as #KeepUsOnline, #SaveTheInternet, etc, has expressed its grievances on the August 7 gazetted notification from the Centre. It said:
"We are immediately concerned with the process through which these rules were made as there was no public consultation, no opportunity for academics, engineers, experts and research organisations to comment on any draft. Though required under the terms of the Telegraph Act and Indian parliamentary procedure, these telecom service suspension rules have not yet been tabled before the houses of Parliament. A closed process for drafting without involving a multi stakeholder process, or inviting stakeholder comment often results in solutions that are ineffective or which fail to survive judicial scrutiny. Greater diversity brings the benefit of wider input and deliberation resulting in positive, public interest friendly policy fixes."
Internet shutdowns are undemocratic
By gradually increasing the number of shutdowns every year, and then framing a law to regulate it, the Modi government is working towards building a new reality that threatens the ethos of democracy and the promises made by our cherished Constitution. In fact, in the recent right to privacy judgement, there has been enough emphasis on "informational privacy" and "autonomy" emanating from the individual citizen's investedness in the digital media. Internet shutdowns directly impact the individual's right to access the digital media and suspends his/her control on his/her data during the period of suspension.
Safeguards are illusionary, orders in effect non-transparent. Rules are a modest first step. Should have a public consultation. 2/2
— Apar (@aparatbar) August 28, 2017
Setting up of this framework is a sinister attempt at normalising internet shutdowns and promoting a mindset that permits such blanket restriction on Internet access, and as such, it should be fought tooth and nail.