This article has been authored by Rohaan Thyagaraju V. Rohaan Thyagaraju is a law student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad. He specialises in Competition and IP law, exploring the intersections of digital rights, governance, and access to justice. He has actively contributed to academic writing and legal research through publications and seminars on emerging issues in public law and digital policy. His research interests include human rights, technology regulation, and constitutional jurisprudence.
Introduction
In our digital age, Internet access is increasingly not an amenity but a key driver of effective civic, political, social and economic engagement. The actions of states to restrict connectivity have direct implications not only for service delivery and development, but also for fundamental rights, including freedoms of expression, assembly, informed participation, and political accountability. This blog argues that by 2025, it should be considered necessary to regard the right to Internet access as a fundamental constitutional right, particularly in situations of conflict or war when connectivity is disrupted and citizens are denied access to the tool by which their civil and political rights are exercised. A recent situation in the neighbouring country is a potent reminder of how online connectivity (or lack thereof) is a gateway to exercising rights. While most existing jurisprudence has granted access to the Internet derivative standing within existing rights, the new technology-society interface requires us to elevate digital connectivity to a fundamental constitutional entitlement. Having conducted a cursory review of the legal arena, this blog will examine the context of connectivity shutdowns in neighbouring countries during war, discuss how this intersects with civil and political rights, and explore the constitutional implications for states, particularly in the Indian sub-region.
The Legal and Theoretical Landscape
In the past, judges and lawmakers considered the Internet as just a way to enjoy some of the main rights like freedom of expression, privacy, and educational rights, instead of a right in itself. The Supreme Court of India proclaimed in Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India that the Internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir really limited the rights to free speech and movement. At the same time, it indicated that the Internet is very much a part of the scene when it comes to exercising rights. Still, it did not go as far as to declare Internet access a human right. Furthermore, more progressive laws and scholars have been slowly recognizing the right to access the Internet more explicitly, such as:
The Kerala High Court[1] in Faheema Shirin v State of Kerala pointed out that mobile phones as well as the Internet have become inseparable parts of the modern life; it related those rights to Article 21, the right to life and liberty. It was reported that in April 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled that “inclusive and meaningful digital access” is a vital part of the right to life and liberty as per Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Why Raise the Right?
The rationale for elevating the status of Internet access to that of a fundamental human right is threefold and interrelated. Firstly, without meaningful access to the Internet and the realisation of rights such as freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly, education, political participation, and equality will not occur. The courts have increasingly linked this idea, and recent decisions in India suggest that digital access is one of the constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21, provided that the criteria of legality, necessity, and proportionality are applied.
Additionally, Meaningful Access hereby denotes that users receive an Internet connection that meets specific criteria: it is usable, reliable, affordable, and liberating. It opens the way for people to not only be online but also to partake in the activities with the help of good speed, digital literacy, secure use, and a user-friendly design. Thus, people really depend on deep access to their fundamental rights, schooling, and participation in political and business activities. Unfortunately, this even highlights that the mechanical interface alone is woefully inadequate for the full realisation of constitutional rights.
Second, it highlights the concept of development and fairness: the lack of internet access reinforces and perpetuates the existing inequalities within the system. In the case that certain public services, such as schools, government bodies, and hospitals, are only available online, people without internet access are denied their right to equal treatment and access to the lowest standard of welfare. At the same time, the State’s duty to guarantee non-discriminatory digital inclusion through infrastructural and policy commitments is emphasised, introducing an equality aspect under Article 14.
Third, it guarantees that no arbitrary closures or monopolisation will take place. The law must step in to preserve access during times characterised by a total halt of Internet and online access, the latter being a common practice, for instance, in wars or crises, so that connectivity is not cut off randomly under the pretext of security or public disorder. The States may assert the necessity from the standpoint of national security or public order as a basis for imposing restrictions; however, such claims will have to face a stringent proportionality analysis, prove that less restrictive options are not available, and be supported by apparent legal authority. This not only opens up the security discourse but also makes it impossible for it to become an outright excuse for large-scale digital blackouts.
Legal Tests and Limitations
The tripartite test of (i) legality, (ii) legitimate aim, and (iii) proportionality/least restrictive means is used by the courts when they consider digital access as being within the scope of Article 21 (life and liberty) or Article 19 (speech).This is a test borrowed from privacy jurisprudence, exemplified by the case of K S Puttaswamy (v.) Union of India. Such recognition, however, does not exist universally; as one article points out, “Internet access as a human right under international law is still an open question.”
The scenario of Afghanistan: connectivity, war, and rights.
The Indian subcontinent is our main focus, yet an event in Afghanistan has made us consider the connectivity problem from the viewpoints of human rights and the constitution. In 2025 September, the Taliban government put an end to the installations of the telecom services in the provinces of Balkh, Kandahar, Zabul, and Nimruz as the first step towards “preventing immorality” by shutting down the fibre-optic internet service. The activities related to the decommissioning of the telecommunication services soon dropped to nearly zero. The mobile and internet connections fell to such a low level that communication was almost impossible or just barely possible.
Civil Rights and Political Rights Consequences.
The complete shutdown of communications across the country resulted in loss of access to news, social media, and communication with family and friends, mainly facilitating and rendering public discussions internal, and causing communities to collapse. The officials from the United Nations have pointed out that cutting off the Internet and other communication channels has a negating effect on the rights of people in civil, political, economic, social, and cultural fields. Women and girls are the most affected ones; mainly, they are relying more on the Internet to get access to education, which is making the gender disadvantage further deep-rooted and consolidated. Political experimentation, public discussion, political assembly, and mobilisation depend on digital connectivity. Yet, if the possibility for connectivity is disrupted, then those social practices and processes collapse.
Why This Raises a Constitutional Imperative
When a government enforces a communications blackout during war or conflict, citizens often lack the institutional structure necessary to exercise their rights. If the right to access the Internet is regarded as derivative only, the lack of access[2] simply presents a “collateral” facet. However, if connectivity is fundamentally important, the lack of access during a conflict prompts deeper constitutional scrutiny: the state must account for the restriction (in terms of legality, necessity, and proportionality) and provide safeguards, alternatives, and remedies. This is all the more important in the border region where cross-frontier war, insurgency and generally, ongoing network shutdowns, have become routine.
Towards a Constitutional Recognition in the Indian Context
Courts in India have progressed steadily; the Supreme Court, in Anuradha Bhasin, stated that Internet suspensions must satisfy the tests of legality and proportionality. More recently, there have been indications that the Supreme Court has affirmed that meaningful digital access is protected as part of one’s right to life and liberty. Scholars observe, though, that no single independent right of Internet access has been recognised and defined.
What Recognition in the Constitution Would Imply?
The recognition of the right to Internet access as a basic constitutional right would involve:
- State Positive Obligation: The state must provide access (infrastructure, affordability, and digital literacy).
- Non-Arbitrary Suspension: Any loss of connectivity (especially during a state of emergency or conflict) must withstand strict tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality, as well as safeguards of process and review of the loss of connectivity.
- Equality Dimension: The digital divide gap (rural-urban, gender, and economic) must be bridged to ensure universal connectivity.
The Imperative for the Region
In regions (such as Afghanistan, Iran or elsewhere) where conflict and disruptions are the norm, and connectivity is used as a means of control, a democratic neighbour needs to recognise connectivity constitutionally. It sends a normative message that the “right to be connected” has moved into the realm of fundamental rights in the digital world.
Challenges ahead
The right to access the internet is considered a properly justiciable socio-economic right which requires progressive realisation. Providing universal access to an affordable internet connection involves substantial obligations regarding infrastructure and budget, which will shape the state’s commitments. The state can restrict access to connectivity for security or public order reasons; however, any limitation, condition, or criterion must be justifiable, proportionate, and of limited duration. The state must also establish clear standards to determine whether access is to be mobile, broadband, or fixed-line; and to ensure that the access is affordable, reliable and of an acceptable quality.
Conclusion
By 2025, the inquiry is not merely whether we have access to the Internet as a convenience, but whether access is vital to realise citizens’ own essential rights in a digital democracy. Our neighbouring country’s disruption of digital connectivity during a violent conflict reiterates this reality: when we lose the ability to connect digitally, rights can only operate on paper and not in actuality. Such a classification would necessitate a more rigorous protection of citizens during states of emergency and warfare, as well as ensure equality and participation, and, appropriately, keep pace with society’s digital nature and polity in the 21st century.
While India’s jurisprudential trajectory is heading in that direction, we have yet to reach that point. A constitutional amendment or a singularly choreographed judicial pronouncement could firmly establish the right’s status, whereby digital connectivity is positively embedded as a prerequisite for political and civil participation, rather than an afterthought.
[1]Mayank Chhaya, Access to internet is a fundamental right under the Constitution, says Kerala High Court Scroll.in (2019), hoffttps://scroll.in/latest/937853/access-to-internet-is-a-fundamental-right-under-the-constitution-says-kerala-high-court (last visited Oct 27, 2025).
[2] Jayshree Bajoria, “no internet means no work, no pay, no food” Human Rights Watch (2023), https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-workcriterionf ” that to recognise connectivity constitutionallyconnectivityas, well asfundamentalo-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic (last visited Oct 2025).
Ghostline Legal