Question

In 2014, India was hit by a terrible pandemic. It was the first time the country was experiencing a pandemic. People panicked. WhatsApp and Facebook groups became common platforms for sharing information about the pandemic. Messages were forwarded from group to group. Many of these messages prescribed different remedies to prevent and cure the flu caused by the pandemic. In Merodha district, people following these remedies began to fall sick. The already overburdened public sector hospitals became even more full. The district administration requested people to stop sharing such misinformation. However, these requests were not heeded. The District Magistrate issued an indefinite order to shut down the internet to prevent the transmission of these messages. Is this order legal?

• A. Yes, because the District Magistrate has the power to issue a range of orders, which includes internet shut down orders.
• B. Yes, because the order was necessary on grounds of public health.
• C. Yes, because a speedy order was necessary to immediately prevent transmission of these messages.
• D. No, because the order was indefinite.
• A. The government’s order is legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because it prevents a public emergency by preserving the quality of doctors in India
• B. The government’s order is not legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because the power belonged to the magistrate to issue orders under Section 144.
• C. The government’s order is not legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because the nation-wide internet shut down order was not necessary or unavoidable.
• D. The government’s order is legal because it is the responsibility of the State to conduct exams in a fair manner.
• A. Statement iv
• B. Statement i
• C. Statements ii and iii
• D. Statements ii and iv
• A. Yes, because it was passed under the 2017 rules.
• B. No, because the procedure under the 2017 rules was not followed.
• C. Yes, because the order was reviewed by the Central government review committee
• D. No, because the order was passed 10 days before it was to come into effect.
• A. One statement
• B. Two statements
• C. Three statements
• D. All four statements

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The correct option is (D): No, because the order was indefinite.

Answer 2

Since this order was issued in 2014, before the 2017 rules existed, it falls under the earlier regime where a District Magistrate could order an internet shut down for a "speedy remedy" to immediately prevent a listed harm, but subject to a hard cap: "the Magistrate's order cannot be for longer than two months." Let's test each option against that framework.

1. Option A (Yes, the DM has power to issue such orders): This is true as a general matter, the DM did possess this power under the pre-2017 regime, but truth about the source of power does not automatically make this particular order lawful if its terms exceed what that power allows.
2. Option B (Yes, necessary on public health grounds): Preventing the spread of harmful misinformation and resulting illness could plausibly satisfy the "immediate prevention" and "injury to human life, health" language in the pre-2017 rule, but satisfying the purpose test does not fix a separate defect in how the order was framed.
3. Option C (Yes, a speedy order was necessary): Urgency might justify issuing an order quickly, but urgency of issuance says nothing about whether the order's duration complies with the statutory limit.
4. Option D (No, because the order was indefinite): The pre-2017 framework caps any Magistrate's shutdown order at two months. An "indefinite" order, with no end date at all, directly breaches this cap regardless of how justified the underlying purpose was. This defect makes the order unlawful on its face.

Even granting that the DM had the power and a valid public-health purpose, the indefinite duration is an independent, disqualifying flaw that options A, B and C all fail to address.

Therefore, the correct answer is that the order is not legal because it was indefinite.

Answer 3

The correct option is (C): The government’s order is not legal under the Temporary Suspension Rules because the nation-wide internet shut down order was not necessary or unavoidable.

Answer 4

By 2021, the Temporary Suspension Rules of 2017 govern internet shutdown orders, requiring that a shutdown be "necessary" or "unavoidable" during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety. The question is whether a countrywide shutdown to stop cheating in exams held only in certain public schools meets that standard.

1. Option A (Legal, because it preserves the quality of doctors): Ensuring exam integrity may well serve a legitimate public interest, but the 2017 Rules also require the response to be no broader than necessary or unavoidable. A legitimate goal does not automatically justify the most sweeping possible measure to achieve it.
2. Option B (Not legal, because the power belonged to the magistrate under Section 144): The passage explains that the 2017 Rules "took the power away from the Magistrate" for exactly this kind of order, vesting it instead in the Home Secretary or authorised officials. This option incorrectly reverts to a superseded framework and misidentifies the actual defect.
3. Option C (Not legal, because the nationwide shutdown was not necessary or unavoidable): The protestors' own point is decisive: cheating was facilitated through a chat application used inside specific public schools where the exam was held, so shutting down the internet only in those schools would have addressed the problem. A blanket, nationwide shutdown goes well beyond what is "necessary" or "unavoidable" for that narrower purpose, which is exactly the standard the 2017 Rules impose.
4. Option D (Legal, because the State must conduct exams fairly): A general interest in fair exam administration does not, by itself, satisfy the specific necessity/unavoidability threshold in the 2017 Rules; it restates a policy goal without engaging the proportionality question the Rules require.

Option C correctly applies the necessity/unavoidability standard to show the nationwide scope of the order was disproportionate to the actual, localised problem.

Therefore, the correct answer is that the order is not legal, because the nationwide shutdown was not necessary or unavoidable.

Answer 5

The correct option is (B): Statement i.

Answer 6

The 2017 Rules vest the power to order a shutdown in the Home Secretary, and allow delegation to someone below the rank of Joint Secretary only in "unavoidable circumstances," and even then only if "the official must be authorised by the Centre or State Home Secretary." Here the Communications Minister, who is below Joint Secretary rank, passed the order while the Home Secretary was reachable by phone or email and had not authorised anyone else to act. Let's test each statement.

1. Statement i (the Communications Minister had the power to pass the order): Since the Home Secretary never authorised the Communications Minister, and the Home Secretary remained reachable and had not delegated her functions to anyone, the Minister lacked the authorisation the 2017 Rules require for someone below Joint Secretary rank to act. This statement is false.
2. Statement ii (passing the order was avoidable): The Home Secretary was contactable by phone or email throughout and had specifically said she should be reached for any need, however minor. That means routing the decision through her, rather than having the Minister act unilaterally, was entirely avoidable. This statement is true.
3. Statement iii (the power remained with the Home Secretary): Because no valid delegation or authorisation ever occurred, the power to pass the order stayed with the Home Secretary throughout, exactly as the Rules require by default. This statement is true.
4. Statement iv (the Communications Minister did not have the power to pass the order): This is simply the accurate flip side of statement i's incorrect claim, and for the same reason, absence of authorisation, it correctly states that the Minister lacked power. This statement is true.

Statements ii, iii and iv are all accurate on these facts; only statement i incorrectly asserts the Minister had power he did not actually have.

Therefore, the correct answer is that only Statement i is false.

Answer 7

The correct option is (B): No, because the procedure under the 2017 rules was not followed.

Answer 8

The 2017 Rules only permit the Home Secretary to order a shutdown as the default rule, allowing delegation to an official below Joint Secretary rank solely in "unavoidable circumstances" and only where "the official must be authorised by the Centre or State Home Secretary." Here, the Joint Secretary passed the order citing only "the discretion vested in me" under the 2017 Rules, without any indication that unavoidable circumstances existed or that the Home Secretary had authorised this particular official to act. Let's assess each option.

1. Option A (Yes, passed under the 2017 rules): Merely invoking the 2017 Rules in the order's text does not establish that the specific procedural conditions those Rules impose for delegation, unavoidable circumstances and Home Secretary authorisation, were actually satisfied. This option assumes compliance without any supporting fact.
2. Option B (No, the procedure under the 2017 rules was not followed): Nothing in the facts shows the Home Secretary authorised the Joint Secretary to act, or that any unavoidable circumstance justified bypassing the Home Secretary. Without that authorisation, the order was issued outside the procedure the Rules require for anyone other than the Home Secretary herself, making it defective.
3. Option C (Yes, reviewed by the Central government review committee): The review committee stage is a separate, downstream safeguard, it checks an order after issuance, but it does not retroactively cure a defect in who had the authority to issue the order in the first place. Committee review happening does not establish the order was validly made.
4. Option D (No, because it was passed ten days before it was to take effect): The passage nowhere imposes a minimum or maximum lead time between issuing an order and its effective date; this timing detail, while factually accurate, is not identified anywhere as a procedural requirement that was breached.

Option B correctly identifies the real gap: no facts establish that the Home Secretary authorised the Joint Secretary, which the Rules require for anyone below her to act.

Therefore, the correct answer is that the order is not legal, because the procedure under the 2017 rules was not followed.

Answer 9

The correct option is (C): Three statements.

Answer 10

This question asks how many of four statements are true, testing both which fundamental rights were affected by the two-month shutdown and whether the order itself complied with the standards set out in Anuradha Bhasin. Let's go through each statement.

1. Statement i (students' Article 19(1)(a) right was violated): The passage confirms the freedom to access information over the internet is protected under Article 19(1)(a). Students relying on the internet for their education were cut off for two months, so their right was indeed restricted. This statement is true.
2. Statement ii (business owners' Article 19(1)(g) right was violated): The passage similarly confirms that conducting trade, profession or business over the internet is protected under Article 19(1)(g). Business owners who depended on the internet lost that ability for two months, so their right was restricted too. This statement is true.
3. Statement iii (the order validly restricted these rights): Restrictions on these rights are permissible for reasons including public order and preventing incitement to an offence. Here, one community's leaders were using Signal to incite arson against another community, a direct threat to public order and an offence under Section 163F of the IPC, giving the State a legitimate ground to restrict internet access to prevent it. This statement is true.
4. Statement iv (the order complied with Anuradha Bhasin's guidelines): Anuradha Bhasin requires that shutdown orders "clearly provide reasons for the shut down and they must be publicly available." The order here gave no reasons at all, merely stating the states and duration of suspension, and was never displayed anywhere, in print or virtually, for the entire two months. This is a direct breach of the transparency requirement, so this statement is false.

Three of the four statements, i, ii and iii, are true, while only statement iv fails because the order lacked stated reasons and public availability.

Therefore, the correct answer is that three statements are true.