A new report, "Who Controls the Narrative? Legal Restrictions on Freedom of Expression in the Commonwealth", prepared by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), the Commonwealth Journalists Association (CJA), and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, approvingly quotes Access Now, which has named India the “world’s internet shutdown leader,” with at least 116 recorded shutdowns in 2024.
Stating that India has had the highest number of internet shutdowns for six consecutive years, with at least 116 reported in 2023, the report cites the Software Freedom Law Centre, an Indian non-profit, to note that there were 799 instances of internet shutdowns in the past decade. “One of the longest was in the state of Manipur, where 44 consecutive orders suspended all broadband and mobile services for a staggering 212 days in 2023,” it adds.
The report asserts: “Past incidents include the five-month shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation of its special status in August 2019, citing anticipated security threats. More recently, in February 2024, internet services were suspended in Haryana and Rajasthan during farmer protests. The Haryana government cited the need to prevent ‘misinformation and rumours on social media’ and to deter mob mobilisation that could endanger lives and property.”
The 169 page report which analyses freedom of expression in 56 Commonwealth countries -- the nation's that were once part of the British colonial rule -- notes that courts in India have “reviewed shutdowns and occasionally ruled them unlawful, but enforcement and transparency remain weak,” with the Supreme Court calling indefinite internet shutdowns “unconstitutional,” adding that “any such orders must meet the tests of necessity and proportionality.”
“However,” it regrets, “the Court did not lift the ongoing restrictions and instead directed the Government to review and revoke unjustified shutdowns. The Court also reaffirmed that freedom of speech and expression online is protected under the Constitution, but may be restricted in the interest of national security. The Court further mandated that all shutdown orders be published and subjected to review.”
Apprehending that conditions are likely to worsen, the report says: “In India a proposed Telecommunications Bill would expand government powers to impose internet shutdowns, enhance surveillance, and potentially undermine encryption without independent oversight—raising concerns for both privacy and free expression.”
Internet shutdowns are not the only weapon used by those in power to curb freedom of expression. According to the report, “Media outlets often face threats of shutdown, hefty fines, or licence revocations for publishing critical stories or exposing corruption.”
“For instance,” it says, “the Indian government used emergency powers to restrict access to a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) documentary that examined Prime Minister Modi’s role during the inter-religious riots in the state of Gujarat in 2002, when he was its chief minister. This was followed by income tax raids on two BBC offices in India and the questioning of staff members.”
This, the report suggests, is coupled with growing “corporate influence,” with “a handful of powerful business conglomerates” now controlling “large segments of the media.” Noting alarm over the takeover of New Delhi Television (NDTV) by billionaire Gautam Adani, a “known supporter” of Modi, it says: “This is not an isolated incident: Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries and a close associate of the Prime Minister, controls more than 70 media outlets.”
Stating that “remnants of colonial law and oppressive legal cultures remain, and many of them penalise journalists,” with “offences like sedition, criminal defamation, and libel” still intact, the report notes that in India “over 800 sedition cases have been filed against 13,000 individuals since 2013. Journalists have been arrested under sedition charges for reporting on the Farm Bills, Covid-19, and the Hathras gang rape.”
In India, the report asserts, “the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on 1 July 2024.” While this new code “does not explicitly mention sedition,” it “gives police wider powers to deal with broader sedition-like offences.”
Thus, according to the report, “Section 152 of the BNS, which replaces section 124A of the IPC of India, penalises activities that incite ‘subversive activities’ or encourage ‘feelings of separatist activities’ or endanger the ‘sovereignty or unity and integrity of India’.”
Similarly, the report says, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), amended in 2019, seeks to “severely curtail the right to freedom of expression.” Originally enacted to protect national security, the 2019 amendments further expanded state powers by allowing authorities to designate individuals as “terrorists” without requiring a court conviction.
“Securing bail under the UAPA is extremely difficult, as courts must deny bail if there are ‘reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true,’ thereby limiting judicial discretion,” the report adds, pointing out that “only 1,080 out of 4,690 individuals detained under the UAPA between 2018 and 2020 were granted bail.”
The report says: “This legal framework in India has led to multiple instances where journalists have been held for prolonged periods without bail or trial.” As of October 2013, 16 journalists had been charged under the UAPA, with 7 still imprisoned.
Giving the example of journalist Siddique Kappan, arrested in 2020 while reporting on the rape and death of a Dalit girl in Uttar Pradesh, the report says he “was held for 843 days before being granted bail, drawing international condemnation.”
“Another troubling case is the arrest of Prabir Purkayastha, editor of Newsclick, under the UAPA in October 2023 on unsubstantiated charges of spying. Police raided over 80 Newsclick staff homes and confiscated nearly 250 electronic devices—without providing hash values for the seized data, a critical step in safeguarding digital evidence integrity. In May 2024, the Supreme Court ordered his release,” it notes.
Pointing out that journalist safety “remains a major concern” in India, the report quotes Reporters Without Borders’ 2024 report as saying: “With an average of 3 or 4 journalists killed in connection with their work every year, India is one of the world’s most dangerous countries for the media.”
The report further warns that “surveillance of journalists by state agencies is another disturbing trend. In India, authorities were implicated in the use of Pegasus spyware, developed by Israel’s NSO Group. The spyware was found on phones belonging to dozens of journalists, opposition leaders, and activists.”
When an international media consortium and Amnesty International brought the case before the Indian Supreme Court, the latter, expressing concern, said it relates to the freedom of the press, which is an important pillar of democracy, calling it “an assault on the vital public watchdog role of the press, which may undermine the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information.”
---
Click here for overview of all 56 Commonwealth nations in the report
Comments