Background

On 15th December 2025, internet services were reportedly restored after a week in the Malkangiri district of Odisha. This internet shutdown stemmed from the events of 4th December, when the body of a 51-year–old Koya tribal woman, Lake Padiami, was discovered near the Potteru river in Rakhelguda village. As per a media report, a few days later, the body was identified by the Koya tribal community, based on clothing and jewellery. This discovery triggered an incident of violence. Based on the belief that the people from the village were involved in the killing of Lake Padiami, the infuriated tribal community attacked MV-26 village on 7th December.

 

On the evening of 8th December 2025, the State Government of Odisha (“State Government”) imposed a suspension of telecommunication services along with an express prohibition on the usage of social media platforms. As cited in the official notification (text of which was reproduced in a media report), the State Government is empowered to impose such measures under Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (“the Act”) along with the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Telecommunication Services) Rules, 2024 (“Rules”). In this blog post, SFLC.in aims to analyze the legality of these measures, based on relevant statutory law and established precedents of the Supreme Court of India.

 

In order to provide a timeline for the imposition of internet shutdown, one can peruse the table below –

 

Public transparency undermined: Non-publication of orders by the State Government

As extensively discussed in SFLC.in’s Let the Net Work 2.0: Internet Shutdowns in India 2023-2024 (“Internet Shutdowns Report”), any internet shutdown order must be a reasoned order with a clearly defined justification. The law permits shutdowns based on certain grounds, including threats to the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and the need to prevent incitement to offenses.

 

Each shutdown order must include crucial details such as the date, time, and the specific area where the suspension will be in effect. The scope of the order is limited by the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (“the Act”), and the governing rules to ensure that restrictions are not imposed arbitrarily. For the order to be valid, it must provide clear reasons and supporting evidence demonstrating the necessity of the shutdown. More importantly, publication of such orders is a legal requirement under Rule 3(2) of the Temporary Suspension Rules as well as notable legal precedents such as Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India.

 

However, in practice, many shutdown orders fail to meet these legal requirements, lacking specific explanations or justifications, which raises concerns about their misuse and lack of transparency. This stems from the fact that the Rules, in their current form, fail to prescribe adequate procedural safeguards such as a legal mandate for State Governments to proactively publish internet shutdown orders in real time.

 

On 8th December, certain media outlets reported on the occurrence of the internet shutdown. In some of these reports, the text of the internet shutdown order was provided. However, the same was nowhere to be found in the Official Notifications/Orders webpage of the State Government. While the Rules do not prescribe a legal mandate for the manner of publication, it is imperative that State Governments comply with the said legal requirements in the interest of public transparency, fairness and justice. This can be reasonably achieved by the State Government publishing these orders (the first order as well as subsequent ones relating to extension of such measures) on their designated website as well as official social media handles. This would ensure that people are well-informed of such restrictions and can take suitable measures to prepare themselves to access essential services in such scenarios.

The Critical Quotient of Necessity and Proportionality: Did this internet shutdown meet established legal requirements?

The State Government failed to provide adequate rationale behind the necessity of imposing these internet shutdowns. As per media reports as well as the orders made available in the public domain, the State Government imposed measures based on the ‘situation of rapidly escalating usage of platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook and X to circulate false, provocative and inflammatory messages by anti-social elements’. Despite reports of the situation stabilizing, the State Government reportedly extended it as a precautionary measure to prevent ‘any resurgence of violence’. Authorities enforce these measures to prevent the spread of misinformation, restrict coordination of protests, or curb any anticipated violence. These are often based on intelligence inputs and are intended to preemptively maintain public order (Internet Shutdowns Report, page 16).

 

While the possibility of such escalations is a legitimate concern, such blanket prohibitions and restrictions hinders a person’s ability to access important information such as news, in real-time as well. Violence can still resurface due to two reasons — firstly, false, provocative and inflammatory messages can flow through word of mouth or phone calls as well. Secondly, people will find it virtually impossible to access authentic and verified information and distinguish it from its provocative and false counterparts.

 

Consequently, the Malkangiri instance has become another addition to a deeply troubling trend. Digital India doesn’t just thrive on the digital infrastructure but also essential values such as right to access information, freedom of speech and expression and right to life and dignity. Such measures result in unfair outcomes, especially for vulnerable sections of society such as students, and small businesses, while broadband users, often wealthier individuals and institutions, remain unaffected. Such measures often ignore the prevailing digital divide and inequitable access to opportunities and resources, especially in regions where imposition of such measures is frequent and prolonged.

 

Amongst all impacts, the most debilitating one – is on access to emergency healthcare, education, and public safety. Patients relying on telemedicine and emergency assistance face life-threatening delays, while students, especially in rural areas are cut off from online learning. Public safety is compromised when people are unable to report crimes, receive disaster alerts, or access navigation services (Internet Shutdowns Report, page 18).

Conclusion

The Malkangiri internet shutdowns were imposed without offering a clear yet lawful justification. Furthermore, it failed to meet the criteria mentioned in the parent Act and the Rules. The Internet Shutdowns Report indicates that almost all the states have been following a similar pattern of imposing internet shutdowns without a reasoned order and by merely relying on generic statements, which do not satisfy the legal thresholds established by relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents (page 20).

 

While access to internet services has been reportedly restored, SFLC.in urges the State Government to consider the concerns presented in this blog post before imposing such measures in future. In the interest of public transparency, SFLC.in has also filed a Right to Information request with the State Government, in an attempt to better understand the rationale (particularly the necessity and proportionality aspects) behind imposing such measures.