A new article in DiHA: Journal of Interdisciplinary Legal Studies (Issue 3) examines how India's Telecommunications Act, 2023 handles internet shutdowns, and whether the law holds the state to account for them. Its title points to three themes: shutdowns, proportionality, and human rights accountability. The analysis argues that the law gives the state broad shutdown powers while offering weak proportionality safeguards. For readers who care about connectivity and privacy, the India Telecommunications Act internet shutdowns debate is about more than legal theory. It affects whether people can get online at all.
Note on scope: only the article's title and summary were available for this report, so this post covers the argument at a high level and does not detail specific provisions or case examples from the paper.
How the Telecommunications Act 2023 enables shutdowns
The Telecommunications Act, 2023 reworks the legal framework for telecom services in India. According to the analysis, it also gives the state wide authority to suspend or restrict telecommunications services, which in practice includes mobile internet and broadband access.
The key concern is breadth. When a statute gives the government wide discretion to cut connectivity, the practical limits depend on how that discretion is exercised and reviewed. The paper's framing suggests the law leaves a lot of room for executive decision-making without building in strong internal checks.
Shutdowns are a blunt tool. A network-level suspension typically affects everyone in an area, not only the people or content a government may be concerned about. That is why legal scholars focus on how the power is defined and constrained.
Proportionality and accountability gaps in the law
Proportionality is a core test in human rights law. In general terms, a restriction on a right should pursue a legitimate aim, be necessary to achieve it, and not go further than needed. The analysis argues that the Telecommunications Act, 2023 falls short on this front, with weak safeguards to make sure shutdowns meet that standard.
Accountability is the companion issue. Even when a government has a justification for restricting access, people affected need ways to understand the decision, challenge it, and see it reviewed. The paper's emphasis on human rights accountability suggests that transparency and oversight mechanisms are where the law is thinnest.
This is a legal argument from one analysis, not a final word on how the Act will be applied. How courts, regulators, and officials interpret the law over time will shape its real-world effect.
What shutdowns mean for users and VPN access
A network-level shutdown is different from blocking a single website or app. If mobile data or broadband is suspended in an area, there is simply no connection for a VPN to use. A VPN encrypts traffic and routes it through another server, but it still needs a working internet link to do so.
That is an important limit for readers to understand. VPNs can help in some situations, such as when specific sites or services are filtered but the underlying network is up. They cannot restore a connection that has been switched off.
Privacy matters here too. People in an affected area may rely on connectivity for communication, payments, work, and news. A shutdown removes access to all of these at once, and workarounds may be limited, unreliable, or legally uncertain depending on the circumstances. Anyone relying on a circumvention tool should treat it as one part of a wider plan, not a guarantee.
How India compares with other government blocking regimes
Governments restrict access in different ways. Some cut networks entirely. Others target specific services or the circumvention tools people use to reach them. Russia offers a useful contrast: as we reported, Russia has been blocking VPN users on major platforms, with services such as Ozon and Kinopoisk among those denying access to people connecting through VPNs.
The approaches differ, but the underlying question is similar: what legal limits apply when a state decides to restrict connectivity or the tools used to protect it? The DiHA analysis puts that question at the center for India, asking whether proportionality and accountability are written into the law or left to chance.
What This Means For You
- Shutdowns are not a VPN problem. If the network itself is suspended, a VPN will not bring it back.
- Legal design matters. Broad powers with weak safeguards make it harder for ordinary users to predict when, why, or for how long access may be restricted.
- Privacy and access are linked. Losing connectivity also means losing the channels people use to communicate securely.
- Expect change. How the Act is applied and challenged will determine its impact, so the picture may shift.
Actionable takeaways
- Do not treat a VPN as a guaranteed workaround. It helps with some forms of filtering but not with a full network shutdown.
- Prepare offline basics if you live in or travel to a region where shutdowns occur, such as saved contact details, offline maps, and alternative ways to reach family.
- Keep devices and apps updated, and understand local rules on circumvention tools before you rely on them.
- Follow digital rights developments. Court rulings, rules issued under the Act, and civil society analysis will show how the India Telecommunications Act internet shutdowns powers work in practice.
For a comparison of how another government targets circumvention tools directly, read our report on Russia's VPN blocking on major platforms. The lesson across both cases is the same: tools help, but laws and policy decide how much access people actually have.
