J&K Bans VPN Use in Kishtwar: National Security vs Digital Rights Under BNSS 2023

CURRENT AFFAIRS | 9 APRIL 2026

CLAT GK + LEGAL REASONING

Kishtwar District Bans VPN Usage Citing National Security Threats

In a significant move with far-reaching implications for digital rights in India, the Union Territory administration of Jammu & Kashmir has banned the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in Kishtwar district with immediate effect. The order, issued by District Magistrate Pankaj Kumar Sharma under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, marks one of the first instances where the new criminal law provisions have been invoked to regulate digital access tools.

What Prompted the Ban?

According to the official order, the administration determined that VPNs could be exploited for unlawful and anti-national purposes, including:

• Disseminating inflammatory content designed to incite unrest
• Coordinating illegal activities through encrypted channels
• Bypassing lawful cyber restrictions to access prohibited digital platforms

The order emphasized an “urgent need to ensure cyber security, maintain public peace, and safeguard governance mechanisms” in the district. Kishtwar, located in the Chenab Valley region of J&K, has historically been a sensitive area from a security standpoint.

Scope and Applicability of the Ban

The ban is comprehensive in its coverage and applies to:

• All individuals within the territorial jurisdiction of Kishtwar
• Institutions and educational establishments
• Cyber cafes and business establishments
• Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in the district

This wide scope raises important constitutional questions about the proportionality of state action in restricting digital tools that have legitimate privacy and security uses for ordinary citizens.

BNSS 2023 Section 163: The New Section 144

The legal foundation of this order is Section 163 of BNSS 2023, which replaced the erstwhile Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973. Section 163 empowers District Magistrates and other Executive Magistrates to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. The invocation of this provision for a VPN ban represents a novel application of executive power in the digital domain.

Key Difference: CrPC Section 144 vs BNSS Section 163

While both provisions serve similar purposes, BNSS Section 163 carries forward the power of the Executive Magistrate to pass orders for maintaining public peace, but within the framework of the new criminal law reforms enacted in 2023. The constitutionality of such orders has been tested multiple times, most notably in the context of internet shutdowns.

The Constitutional Tension: Privacy vs Security

This ban creates a classic constitutional tension between several fundamental rights and state interests:

Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of Speech and Expression: VPNs are widely used by journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens to protect their communications. A blanket ban restricts this freedom.

Article 21 — Right to Privacy: The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognized privacy as a fundamental right. VPNs are a primary tool for digital privacy.

Article 19(2) — Reasonable Restrictions: The State can impose restrictions on grounds of sovereignty, integrity, security of State, public order, and other specified grounds. The question is whether a blanket VPN ban meets the proportionality test.

Landmark Cases That Shape This Debate

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): The Supreme Court held that internet access is a medium to exercise fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). Any restriction must be temporary, proportionate, and subject to judicial review. The Court established that indefinite suspension of internet services would be unconstitutional.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and overbroad, establishing that online speech protections must be as robust as offline ones. This precedent is relevant because a VPN ban could be challenged on similar grounds of overbreadth.