0
0
The Global Rise of Internet Shutdowns
Access to the internet is integral to the public’s ability to acquire and process information, making it essential to democratic processes and societal participation. Consequently, the disruption of public access to online information and connectivity fuels misinformation and may be weaponized by governments during times of political unease. An example of internet disruption is government-ordered digital blackouts. These shutdowns are being increasingly implemented by nations globally under the justification of controlling the spread of deceptive content. However, digital blackouts often have an inverse effect and further the spread of misinformation as they cut off people’s access to reliable information and a variety of trustworthy communication channels. By restricting normal ways of sharing and fact-checking information, blackouts can disrupt the flow of accurate news and leave room for misinformation to widely circulate. This restriction of reliable information directly erodes democratic processes and weakens civil society due to the increased global reliance on technology.
Due to the importance of technological access to democratic processes, the United Nations (UN) published a news report in January 2026 concerning rising cases of internet shutdowns. The organization found that state governments have been increasingly cutting the public’s internet access during times of elections and political/civil unrest, citing 2024 as the worst year for digital blackouts with 296 shutdowns in 54 countries. Among these countries, India and Myanmar imposed the highest number of shutdowns with 84 and 85 blackouts occurring respectively.
India: Legality and Localized Shutdowns
Despite their similarly heavy reliance on internet shutdowns, India and Myanmar differ in their methods and justifications. In India, internet shutdowns are implemented through formal regulatory mechanisms that authorize executive officials to suspend telecommunications services. These shutdowns are typically issued under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, which allows the government to restrict connectivity in the interest of public order and security. In principle, shutdown orders are subject to judicial review and procedural requirements, including reviews and publication of suspension orders.
Furthermore, India’s governance is concentrated at the state level which, when combined with the slight legal structure surrounding digital communications, results in relatively short and localized internet blackouts. For example, in January 2025, a human stampede broke out in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh during a cultural pilgrimage with an estimated 450 million attendees. In response to the immediate chaos that ensued on the internet and social media, the region’s Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath urged citizens to avoid “unverified content” and “falsehoods,” followed by the reported suspension or restriction of local internet services. This communication blackout delayed emergency response efforts and prevented families from contacting loved ones.
Indian citizens perceive these shutdowns as an attack on free speech from a government whose immediate response to unrest is to revoke internet access, despite the government’s insistence on the necessity of blackouts to “keep the peace.” India has relied heavily on internet shutdowns during periods of political and civil unrest, while generally limiting their scope to specific states and districts and restricting their duration. The broad and discretionary language of the country’s shutdown laws has allowed these measures to become a routine tool of governance rather than an exceptional response.
Myanmar: Military Control and Prolonged Shutdowns
Following the 2021 coup, where power was taken from a democratically elected government and transferred to the military junta, the military has used its technological superiority to restrict connectivity, ordering internet outages in areas of armed conflict and targeting communication in regions contested by resistance forces. According to monitoring by the Myanmar Internet Project, the junta has caused over 130 blackouts across more than 80 townships in 2024 alone, disproportionately affecting states such as Kachin, Chin, and Rakhine and other central Myanmar regions.1 In Kachin State, all mobile and internet services were shut down as of July 21, 2024, with no official restoration reported. Similarly, most parts of Chin and Rakhine have been cut off from the internet since 2024. The military’s control over service providers and its use of shutdowns to suppress independent information flows results in broader and more prolonged blackouts than seen in India, with little transparency or legal review.
Lessons from Oversight
The comparison of India and Myanmar highlights the pattern of how legal oversight constrains the scope and duration of shutdowns, while its absence enables more expansive and prolonged disruptions. In India, shutdowns are governed, albeit loosely, by the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules under the Indian Telegraph Act, which require publication of orders and justification of scope. These procedural requirements, in addition to most governing authority being concentrated at the state level, help channel shutdowns into targeted, localized orders tied to protests, communal violence, or cheating on exams rather than blanket national blackouts.
In contrast, Myanmar’s military regime leverages its control over telecommunications providers to impose shutdowns with little transparency or judicial review. As a result, internet outages there are more prolonged and widespread than in India’s system, illustrating how the absence of strong legal constraints can broaden state power over connectivity.
This reliance on digital blackouts reflects broader global trends continuing into 2026. Within the last two years, there have been at least 300 shutdown incidents documented in more than 54 countries, raising concerns about the ability of citizens to participate in democracy and the exercise of basic rights. As a significant portion of countries imposing internet shutdowns have weak legal oversight, this underscores how legal frameworks shape the nature of regime-imposed digital blackouts.
Differences in the structural implementation of disruptions in India and Myanmar demonstrate that internet shutdowns are indicators of practices structured by institutional and legal frameworks. As digital blackouts rise globally, the key question is not whether governments possess the ability to restrict connectivity, but how legal oversight structures the way that power is exercised in moments of political contestation.
Edited by Laila Graham
The argument defended in this article is solely that of the author and does not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science, the Political Science Students’ Association, or the McGill Department of Political Science.
Featured Image by David Pupaza on Unsplash
- The regions listed and acknowledged as being part of central Myanmar are categorized as having fallen to “rebel factions.” ↩︎
