J&K Intensifies Counter-Terror Operations, Bans VPNs Ahead of New Year
J&K boosts security, bans VPNs to curb terror ahead of New Year, tackling cross-border threats.
Photo by Hiroyuki Sen
Security forces in Jammu and Kashmir are significantly stepping up counter-terrorism operations, including a ban on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), to prevent terror activities ahead of the New Year. This comprehensive strategy involves intensified searches, area domination, and the deployment of advanced technology like drones.
The move comes amidst persistent challenges of cross-border infiltration and the use of digital platforms by terror outfits. This proactive approach aims to ensure peace and stability in the region, balancing security imperatives with the digital rights of citizens.
Key Facts
VPNs banned in J&K
Intensified counter-terrorism operations
Use of drones for surveillance
Focus on cross-border infiltration
UPSC Exam Angles
Internal Security: Counter-terrorism strategies, border management, role of security forces, use of technology in security, challenges of cross-border infiltration.
Polity & Governance: Fundamental rights (freedom of speech, right to privacy, internet access), reasonable restrictions, legal framework for internet shutdowns and surveillance (IT Act, CrPC, Telecom Suspension Rules), judicial review (Anuradha Bhasin case), governance in Union Territories, Centre-state relations (security aspect).
Ethics: Balancing national security with individual liberties, proportionality principle, state surveillance, impact on daily life and economic activities.
Technology: Role of drones and other advanced tech in security operations, cybersecurity implications of VPN bans.
Visual Insights
Jammu & Kashmir: Counter-Terror Operations & VPN Ban (Dec 2025)
This map highlights Jammu & Kashmir, the focal point of intensified counter-terrorism operations and the recent VPN ban. It illustrates the strategic location and border challenges contributing to internal security concerns.
Loading interactive map...
Key Security & Digital Governance Developments in J&K (2019-2025)
This timeline illustrates the significant events shaping the security and digital landscape in Jammu & Kashmir, from the abrogation of Article 370 to the current VPN ban, highlighting the government's evolving strategy.
Post-2019, Jammu & Kashmir has undergone significant administrative and security changes. The government's approach has shifted towards more direct control and intensified counter-terrorism efforts, leveraging technology while navigating the complex balance between national security and digital rights, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
- 2019 (Aug)Abrogation of Article 370 & Reorganization of J&K into UTs (J&K and Ladakh).
- 2020 (Jan)Supreme Court's Anuradha Bhasin judgment on internet access in J&K, mandating proportionality and necessity for restrictions.
- 2021 (Feb)IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, introduced, impacting digital platforms.
- 2022Increased focus on combating narco-terrorism and drone-based weapon drops from across the border in J&K.
- 2023Intensified multi-agency counter-terror operations across J&K, deployment of advanced surveillance technology.
- 2024Continued efforts to enhance border management and cyber security measures to counter terror financing and radicalization.
- 2025 (Dec)J&K intensifies counter-terror operations, bans VPNs ahead of New Year to prevent terror activities (Current News).
More Information
Background
Jammu & Kashmir has a long history of insurgency, cross-border terrorism, and internal security challenges. The abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 and its reorganization into Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh further altered its administrative and security landscape.
The region has seen periods of internet shutdowns and communication restrictions in the past, often justified on grounds of national security and preventing radicalization and coordination of terror activities. The use of digital platforms, including VPNs, by terror outfits to evade surveillance has become a significant concern for security agencies.
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. In the context of maintaining public order and national security, consider the following statements regarding restrictions on internet access in India: 1. The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, issued under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, govern internet shutdowns. 2. The Supreme Court in the Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India case declared that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 3. A Virtual Private Network (VPN) ban can be imposed by the District Magistrate under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for preventing immediate danger or nuisance. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.1 and 2 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1 is correct. The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, are indeed the primary legal framework for internet shutdowns in India, issued under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Statement 2 is correct. The Supreme Court in the Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India (2020) case held that the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry on any trade or business over the internet are constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) respectively, subject to reasonable restrictions. While not explicitly declaring it a standalone fundamental right, it recognized internet access as integral to exercising these rights. Statement 3 is correct. Section 144 of the CrPC grants powers to District Magistrates or Executive Magistrates to issue orders in urgent cases of apprehended danger or nuisance, which can include restrictions on internet services or specific applications like VPNs, if deemed necessary to prevent public disorder or maintain peace. However, such orders are subject to judicial review and must meet the test of proportionality.
2. With reference to India's internal security architecture, consider the following statements: 1. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) allows for the designation of individuals as terrorists. 2. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has jurisdiction to investigate scheduled offences across states without requiring state government permission. 3. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) grants special powers to the armed forces to maintain public order in 'disturbed areas' declared by the Central or State Government. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1 is correct. The UAPA was amended in 2019 to allow the Central Government to designate individuals as terrorists, in addition to organizations. Statement 2 is correct. The NIA Act, 2008, established the NIA with the power to investigate and prosecute offences listed in the Schedule to the Act (e.g., terrorism, human trafficking, counterfeiting) across India, without requiring prior permission from state governments. Statement 3 is correct. AFSPA empowers the Governor of a state or the Central Government to declare an area as 'disturbed'. Once declared, it grants special powers to the armed forces, including the power to use force, search, and arrest without a warrant, to maintain public order.
3. Which of the following statements best describes the 'proportionality principle' in the context of state actions affecting fundamental rights?
- A.It mandates that any state action must be approved by the judiciary before implementation.
- B.It requires that the means adopted by the state must be rationally connected to the objective and not be more restrictive than necessary to achieve that objective.
- C.It states that the state can restrict fundamental rights only during a declared emergency.
- D.It ensures that all citizens are treated equally, regardless of the impact of state actions on their rights.
Show Answer
Answer: B
The proportionality principle is a key legal doctrine used to assess the validity of state actions that restrict fundamental rights. Option B accurately describes it: the state's action must have a legitimate aim, the means chosen must be suitable for achieving that aim, there must be no less restrictive alternative available, and the adverse impact on rights must not be disproportionate to the benefit achieved. Option A is incorrect as judicial approval is typically post-facto review. Option C is incorrect as fundamental rights can be restricted under reasonable restrictions even without an emergency. Option D describes equality before law, not proportionality.
Related Articles
Karnataka recruitment disregards laws on internal quota for SCs/STs
Delhi HC Defers Order on Private School Fee Regulation
Supreme Court affirms HC order on APPSC Group-I recruitment
Kapil Sibal: True Justice Rises Above Factional Debates
Karnataka HC halts land deal, labels it 'daylight dacoity'