"to ensure it is in accordance with the law – ie, that it was ordered "due to public emergency or public safety."
In what universe can public safety be enhanced by disabling communications?
The Indian government has responded to fierce criticism of its increasing use of internet shutdowns by codifying rules for when the extreme measure is allowed. In a notification [PDF] published earlier this month, the Indian Ministry of Communications has published the process and authority required for a cutoff of internet …
"In what universe can public safety be enhanced by disabling communications?"
One where "public safety" means "safety from the public" in much the same way as "fire safety" means "safety from / in the presence of fire". That is, as a means of ensuring that members of the government are safe from members of the public.
What's worse than a system where high-ranking bureaucratic or political appointees can sign an order to shut off the internet, for a defined limited time, subject to prompt review?
Well, a system where unknown bureaucrats can shut it off for as long as they deem necessary, without even signing their names to anything, without a formal review process, and without anyone even knowing who made the decision. A.k.a. "the status quo".
This is a big step forward. Why are we complaining?
No, it'd be far worse from a regulatory point of view - because as the evidence clearly shows, it wouldn't be enforced. The net would still be shut down, except that it would be made to look like an "accidental" outage, like Japan's last weekend.
These rules at least have the potential to be enforced. And if they're not, voters have all the information they need to ask "why not?". There's a single named official in each district who's responsible for shutdowns. That's called accountability, and it's not quite the same as transparency but it is a necessary prerequisite for it.
I see your point but at the end of the day this is something their government has already been doing without any oversight or orders so I would assume this is just a rubber stamp exercise of putting it into law.
They will continue with the same policy as before which is cut it off whenever they want and not attribute it to anyone.
Surely countries around the world using Indian call centres will think again about the wisdom of putting their money there.
Would it be possible for technology companies with the necessary clout to expand the infrastructure in ways that are protected from government interference?
"Would it be possible for technology companies with the necessary clout to expand the infrastructure in ways that are protected from government interference?"
How exactly do you protect it from this?
"Employees of ISPs and mobile phone companies reported troops turning up at their homes and pointing guns at their families in order to enforce the shutdown."
AFAIAA many Indian support centres use VOIP rather than POTS (because it saves money). In which case shutting off the Internet will surely effectively prevent the customers of a huge number of UK firms from getting any support. Which just might cause UK companies to re-think and bring the call centres back to the UK.