“Internet facilities should function unhindered.” This is what the Supreme Court of India said about connectivity in Delhi on Sunday, October 11, 2026. The bench had assembled to hear allegations that its own order of two days earlier had been violated during the October 10 protests against the Chief Election Commissioner. The direction appears as item (c) in a six-part interim order passed by Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. The order also covers metro and rail services, barricades, detentions, and the movement of lawyers and journalists.
This is one of the first times a court has commented on the series of mobile internet suspensions imposed around Jantar Mantar since July, as far as MediaNama could find. The Court has done so without the suspension order being placed before it. The record of proceedings mentions no order under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, no reasons for the shutdown, and no review of it. The record instead notes a submission that there was “a complete shutdown of the internet” and the Solicitor General’s assurance that “internet connection has been restored”.
What the order records about the internet
- The internet appears three times in the order. The first mention is in the summary of what senior counsel told the Court: “It was also contended that there was a complete shutdown of the internet and that the city bore a curfew like look with suspension of transport and free movement of people and goods.”
- The second mention is in the Union’s response. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the order says, “assured this Court that all metro stations are open since 10 p.m. yesterday, trains are functioning normally and internet connection has been restored.” Later in the hearing, he “on instructions, submitted that internet facilities have since been restored and all metro railway stations are fully functional.”
- The third mention is in the direction itself. Counsel had “strongly urged for ad-interim reliefs with regard to smooth operation of metro rail, traffic, internet services and free movement of people, especially lawyers, journalists and other professionals”. The Court then directed, in paragraph 16(c), that “Internet facilities should function unhindered.”
The internet direction is the only one of the three without a qualifier. The metro direction in paragraph 16(a) applies “until and unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2)“. The free-movement direction in paragraph 16(b) is “subject to law and order situation and/or traffic regulations”. The internet direction carries no such qualifier in the text, although LiveLaw’s report described the interim directions as a whole as being subject to the law and order situation.
What was actually suspended, and under what law
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) ordered the suspension on October 9. As MediaNama reported that evening, the notice was marked “Top Secret” and addressed to nodal officers. It suspended mobile internet within a 4-km radius of the Janpath–Kartavya Path crossing from 10 pm on October 9 to 10 pm on October 10. The notice did not state the grounds for the suspension or explain why a 4-km radius was chosen. The ministry did not publish it, but news agency ANI posted a copy.
The Delhi Police letter conveying the order to telecom companies, as reproduced by Asianet Newsable, said the Union Home Secretary had approved the request “under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024 read with Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023“. The authorisation was conveyed “vide order No. 22016/12/2019-CIS-IV dated 09.10.2026“. That file number is a reference for anyone seeking the order under the Right to Information Act.
This was the second suspension in a week, following the 12-hour, 1.5-km shutdown on October 2. The Hindu reported in its live coverage on October 11 that another order had suspended mobile internet around eight makeshift detention centres on October 10. That order, which cited public safety and public order, covered a 500-metre radius around each site for ten hours. MediaNama has not seen that order.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the Court that internet services had been suspended in the area. Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha’s petition also refers to phone jammers, according to LiveLaw. The order does not establish whether anything beyond the written suspension orders was in operation. The Union denied the allegations of illegal detention. On the face of the order, however, it did not deny that the internet had been shut down.
What the Rules require
The 2024 Rules replaced the suspension rules issued in 2017 under the Telegraph Act. They came into force on November 22, 2024. Every suspension order must state its reasons and be published. It must cover a defined area and a period of no more than 15 days. A copy must also reach a review committee within 24 hours. At the Union level, the committee is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary. It must meet within five days and record whether the order complies with Section 20(2)(b). The section permits a suspension during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, provided the government is satisfied that it is necessary on grounds that include public order and preventing incitement to an offence.
These requirements follow the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. The judgment held that suspension orders must be published, must be necessary and proportionate, and must be reviewed periodically. Against this framework, the only document that has surfaced is the Delhi Police letter conveying the authorisation. The letter was marked “Top Secret” and does not give reasons for the suspension. The Home Ministry order it refers to remains unpublished.
What the Court did not decide
The order makes no finding on whether the suspension was lawful. No suspension order, reasons, or review records were placed before the Court. The record also does not show either side asking the Court to examine their legality. The contempt notice and the compliance report due on October 13 concern the Court’s October 9 directions on metro and rail services, publicity for the reconsidered closures, and traffic advisories. The internet was not part of that earlier order.
The Court has now included the city’s internet connectivity in an interim order for the first time in this sequence of protests. The wording does not, on its face, reserve the power to suspend internet services again. How far that direction extends should become clearer on October 13, when the bench is scheduled to consider the matter further alongside three other petitions and the intervention applications. LiveLaw reported that the bench said it would like to hear arguments on how police legislation aligns with the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19. That remark was made orally and does not appear in the written order.
Who this affects
A 4-km radius around the Janpath–Kartavya Path crossing covers a large part of central Delhi, extending well beyond the protest site. During the suspension, anyone relying on mobile data within that area would have lost access to mobile internet. This included residents, shop staff, delivery workers, commuters travelling around the 45 closed metro stations, lawyers moving between courts, and journalists covering the protest.
The Court’s direction in paragraph 16(f) states that “Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever”. This is a separate direction from the one on internet access. The order does not explicitly state whether a connectivity suspension would amount to such a hindrance.
How the week unfolded
- October 2: The MHA suspends mobile internet within 1.5 km of Jantar Mantar for 12 hours during the first protest against the Chief Election Commissioner.
- October 9: The Supreme Court, in M.A. Baby v. Union of India, directs that metro and rail services be regulated rather than prohibited. The same evening, the MHA orders a 4-km, 24-hour internet suspension.
- October 10: A protest takes place at Jantar Mantar. The Solicitor General says 45 of 303 metro stations were closed. Detentions take place across the city, and another suspension order is reported around eight detention centres.
- October 11: The Supreme Court holds a Sunday sitting, issues a contempt notice, and passes interim directions, including that “Internet facilities should function unhindered.”
- October 13: Counter-affidavits and the compliance report are due, and the Court is scheduled to consider the matter further.
Questions MediaNama has sent
MediaNama has written to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Telecommunications, the Delhi Police, and the four telecom operators named in the October 9 order. It has also sought comments from the Internet Freedom Foundation and SFLC.in. This story will be updated with their responses.
To the Ministry of Home Affairs:
- Whether order No. 22016/12/2019-CIS-IV dated October 9, 2026 has been published, and if so where.
- The reasons recorded in the order for the suspension and for the choice of a 4-km radius.
- Whether a copy was forwarded to the review committee within 24 hours, whether the committee has met, and what it recorded.
- Whether any order other than the October 9 order, including one covering the detention centres, was issued for Delhi between October 9 and October 11.
- Whether any suspension order was in force at the time of the Supreme Court’s hearing on October 11.
To the Department of Telecommunications:
- Whether the review committee under the 2024 Rules has considered the Delhi orders of October 2, October 9 and October 10, and when.
To the Delhi Police:
- Which authority requested each suspension, on what grounds, and whether any device-level jamming was deployed on October 10.
To Jio, Airtel, Vodafone Idea and MTNL:
- The period and area for which mobile internet was suspended on their networks in Delhi between October 9 and October 11, and whether any instruction was received beyond the October 9 order.
Also read:
- Live Tracker: Censorship and digital developments from the CJP protests at Jantar Mantar
- Internet shutdown ordered around New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar
- Digital developments on the second day of the internet shutdown at Jantar Mantar
The post Supreme Court orders unhindered internet access in Delhi, but leaves legality of shutdowns unexamined appeared first on MEDIANAMA.