Free speech advocates condemn VPN crackdown in Kashmir as ‘unconstitutional’

Use of new Indian emergency law to detain VPN users sparks outrage among legal experts and rights groups.

SRINAGAR, Kashmir (MNTV) — Free speech advocates and legal experts have strongly criticized the Indian government for its crackdown on VPN users in Indian-administered Kashmir, citing the move as a direct assault on civil liberties and the right to access information.

The action, taken under sweeping emergency powers, has sparked widespread outrage.

The controversy arose after authorities in the Doda district of Jammu and Kashmir’s Chenab Valley invoked a newly enacted law to ban VPN use, citing national security concerns in the aftermath of a militant attack in Pahalgam.

Following this, several residents were detained under “technical surveillance” for allegedly bypassing internet restrictions.

In a May 2 order, Doda’s Deputy Commissioner Harvinder Singh imposed a two-month ban on VPNs under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a newly introduced legal provision replacing Section 144 of the colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure.

The BNSS grants extensive powers to local magistrates to restrict movement and communication during emergencies.

The move has drawn sharp criticism from lawyers and civil rights activists who argue that the law is being weaponized to suppress digital privacy and access to information.

Senior Supreme Court advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, in a statement to The Wire, described the application of Section 163 as “a frontal violation of individual liberty.”

“The section grants blanket and unguided power to the executive and is, by its very terms, unconstitutional,” Ramakrishnan stated.

“Today’s rhetoric that anything is justified in the name of security is pernicious and tantamount to saying that any security agency is king. To make matters worse, the supposed offenders have also been stripped of their liberty.”

Geeta Seshu, co-founder of the Free Speech Collective, criticized the VPN ban as both disproportionate and counterproductive.

“Access to the internet is a fundamental right. Banning VPNs undermines the right to know and suppresses transparency—especially at a time when misinformation is already rampant,” she said.

Seshu suggested the crackdown reveals government anxiety over narratives emerging from Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

“This appears to be a sign of nervousness about people’s access to information,” she added.

She also expressed concern over the BNSS’s ability to bypass the more detailed procedural safeguards provided under the Information Technology Act.

Earlier this month, the Indian government blocked several Pakistan-based YouTube channels and withheld thousands of social media accounts during ‘Operation Sindoor,’ citing concerns over misinformation.

Digital rights advocates have also pointed to legal inconsistencies surrounding the ban.

Habeel Iqbal, a lawyer based in Kashmir, emphasized that VPN usage is not criminalized under India’s IT rules.

“VPN providers are only required to store data for five years. There’s no provision to arrest users. If the offence is bailable, as it is under Section 163, detainees should be released immediately,” he said.

On the other hand, Umair Ronga, a Srinagar-based lawyer, defended the ban as a temporary and necessary measure in a region prone to conflict.

“VPNs, while legitimate, can be misused in ways that undermine surveillance and public safety. Until the security situation stabilizes, a temporary ban is reasonable,” he argued.

Despite these justifications, activists warn that using national security as a blanket excuse risks normalizing censorship and establishing dangerous legal precedents.

They argue that such measures erode trust in democratic institutions and undermine fundamental rights.