Manipur is burning but the rest of India did not care. The violence in the State began on May 3, 2023, but the nation was in deep slumber till July 19. It took a video clip of sexual violence by a mob to surface and go viral on social media that day and 78 days for the Prime Minister of India to break his silence. During this period an Internet shutdown has continued in the northeast State. What was its propriety and its role in our national apathy?
Blanket order, no supportive data
Data from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India show that the people of Manipur access the Internet primarily through their smartphones; and wired Internet users primarily constitute institutional, commercial and higher socio-economic groups. Out of a total pie of 0.05 million wireline and 2.36 wireless million users, about 2.2 million connect to the Internet. The Internet shutdown in Manipur, first enforced on May 3, is a case of blanket prohibition. The entire State is affected, and it is not a case of some of a total of 16 districts being affected; it covers all web traffic and mediums of connectivity.
The orders issued by the Commissioner (Home) of Manipur under the Telecom Suspension Rules use vague language in order to “thwart the design and activities of anti-national and anti-social elements… by stopping the spread of disinformation and false rumours, through various social media platforms”. There is an absence of data or specific instances of violence being prevented due to the jamming of Internet connectivity. Before the weekly deadline lapses, a fresh order is passed, where each order is a mere reproduction of the earlier one but with minor changes in dates, thus making it clear that this could be indefinite. One may wonder about compliance following the reported Supreme Court of India judgment on Internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir. There is a breach of directions that was made clear in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India.
In this period, reports have filtered in — these are besides the protests in Delhi and the information flow here — that document the injury being caused to the people of Manipur. The news is of extremes — from students from Manipur pursuing their education in the metropolitan cities running out of money to residents being unable to apply for their evacuation to relief camps. Around May 19, petitions challenging these orders — such as Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma vs State of Manipur — were filed in the High Court of Manipur. This case in particular is vital to understand evolving jurisprudence of “limited internet shutdowns” not only in Manipur but also the rest of India. After 10 dates of hearing on July 7, a direction was issued for partial restoration. The primary objective as framed by the High Court has been to assess “whether it is possible to provide limited usage of internet service to the public”. This is constitutionally incongruent to judicial review for it avoids determining the legality of impugned orders. However, this follows an institutional grammar on Internet shutdowns.
Editorial | Overkill: On the Internet shutdown in Manipur
In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, the Supreme Court failed to adjudicate on even one Internet shutdown order. The decision by itself did not result in restoration of access but for “State/competent authorities to review all orders suspending internet services”. Its directions for transparency (such as publication of orders) have not been implemented as yet — as seen in the flurry of cases and recent joint report by Human Rights Watch and the Internet Freedom Foundation. Bringing lasting damage, this case carved out greater flexibility for, “limited internet shutdowns”, with the possibility of access only to, “government websites, localized/limited e-banking facilities, hospitals services and other essential services, in those regions, wherein the internet services are not likely to be restored immediately.”
Judicial response
The High Court of Manipur has acted in congress with judicial doctrine and practices by its order on July 7. It directs provisional access for leased lines (primarily used by public departments and corporate offices), wired line services (with signed undertakings, a ban on social media, virtual private networks or VPNs and physical monitoring), and a technical trial for whitelisting of mobile Internet determined by the Home Department. There are no clear definitions on terms such as “social media” or examining continuing prohibition for Internet usage primarily through smartphones. Hence, in effect, a ban on Internet access continues in Manipur. The response of the Supreme Court has been one of judicial avoidance. The top court had an opportunity twice to adjudicate when a petitioner challenged the Internet shutdown and later when the State government itself appealed the order of the High Court for partial restoration. Even otherwise, it is peculiar as the Supreme Court is examining a broader issue regarding violence in Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei. In this case, Internet shutdowns are an inherent element. For instance, the State government has in its Status Report dated July 10 before the Supreme Court, cited the Internet suspension as a security measure. Also, the Chief Minister on July 20, 2020, has in a media interview, stated, “[t]here are hundreds of similar cases and that is the reason why the internet is shut off in the state.”
The vital role of information flow
In an Internet ban, misinformation spreads rather than abates. For instance, a press report dated June 1, by Hoineilhing Sitlhou, and published by the online portal, NewsClick, points out in chilling detail that disinformation served as a pretext for the perpetration of sexual violence against Kuki-Zo women. For Manipur, the video clip is a vital moment for a national awakening that must be achieved without any reputational and social harm to survivors of sexual violence and communal hatred. Information flows are also necessary to ensure the accountability of the State and central governments in taking steps to ensure truth, justice and reconciliation. Accountability can only come when the courts improve on the precedent of the Anuradha Bhasin case and demand it from the State and central executive. So the question that needs to be asked again is: what was the propriety of the Internet shutdown and role in our national apathy? We will never have these answers till we hear the voices of Manipur.
Apar Gupta is an advocate and the Founder Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation
