Delhi Mobile Internet Suspension: Who Can Switch It Off? | CLAT Explainer

VIDEO EXPLAINER | 9 OCTOBER 2026

On 9 October 2026, the Delhi Police issued a notification, approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs, suspending mobile internet for 24 hours within a 4-km radius of the Janpath–Kartavya Path crossing in central Delhi. The order ran from 10 pm on 9 October to 10 pm on 10 October 2026. The reason given was a protest at Jantar Mantar on 10 October and concerns about law and order. The order raises a basic question of law that every CLAT aspirant should be able to answer: under what power can the government switch off the internet, and what limits does the law place on that power?

What the order said

The notification was issued by the Delhi Police (DCP, Special Cell) with the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs. It covered all mobile internet technologies in the notified area, and the mobile operators Airtel, Vi, Jio and MTNL were directed to comply. It is important to describe the measure accurately: this was a suspension of mobile internet in a defined area for a defined period, not a general switch-off of every form of internet across the city. The order cited two legal sources: the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024.

Where the power comes from: old law and new law

For decades, the power to suspend telecom services sat in Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. That colonial-era provision has now been replaced. Under Section 20(2) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, the government may suspend telecom services on the ground of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety. So when a question asks which law is the current source of the shutdown power, the answer is the 2023 Act, not the 1885 Act.

Two things follow. First, the power is conditional: it can be used only when one of those grounds exists. Second, the Act does not leave the procedure open-ended; the details are filled in by rules.

The 2024 Suspension Rules: the safeguards

The Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024 were notified on 22 November 2024. They build in four safeguards that are ideal material for a Legal Reasoning passage:

• Who can order it: only the competent authority, which is the Union Home Secretary or the Home Secretary of the State.
• How: by a written, reasoned order. An oral instruction, or an order with no reasons, does not meet the rule.
• How long: a suspension cannot run for more than 15 days.
• Who checks it: the order must be forwarded to a review committee within 24 hours.

Measured against these rules, the Delhi order was limited in both space (4 km) and time (24 hours), well inside the 15-day ceiling.

What the Supreme Court said: Anuradha Bhasin (2020)

The leading judgment is Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, decided on 10 January 2020. The Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to carry on trade or business, through the medium of the internet are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). Three working principles came out of the case:

• No indefinite suspension: an internet suspension cannot be open-ended.
• Proportionality: the restriction must be proportionate to the threat it addresses.
• Publication: suspension orders must be published, so that they can be known and challenged.

Read together, the statute gives the power, the rules fix the procedure and the time limit, and Anuradha Bhasin supplies the constitutional test that every order must pass.

Shutdown versus blocking: do not mix them up

A frequent exam trap is to confuse a network shutdown with content blocking. Suspending mobile internet in an area is done under the telecom law described above. Blocking a particular website or piece of online content is a different power, found in Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The first switches off access for everyone in an area; the second removes specific content while the network keeps working.

Why it matters

An internet suspension sits at the meeting point of two legitimate interests: public safety, which the 2023 Act names as a ground, and the freedoms of speech and trade, which Anuradha Bhasin protects online. The legal answer is not that one always wins. It is that the restriction must have a legal basis, follow the written procedure, be limited in time, be open to review, and be proportionate.

Sources

Business Today (9 Oct 2026) and Gujarat Samachar on the Delhi Police notification; the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (India Code); SCC Online (25 Nov 2024) and the Internet Freedom Foundation on the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024; the Supreme Court judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637; the Information Technology Act, 2000.