TC- 20 PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PRAYER
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Jamburiyat is a democratic country, with Westminster style of parliamentary democracy and has a
bicameral legislation and is governed by the Constitution of Jamburiyat with was framed after the
independence from the British in 1947. The citizens of the country are jamboorees. Jamburiyat was the
richest country in the 18th century with contribution of 23% to the world’s economy, after the British
rule it was left to 4% contribution in the 1947 and is currently the 3 rd largest economy in the world said
to become largest economy by 2075. By 2022, Jamburiyat is in the era of digitalisation with almost
every citizen having access to smartphones and internet. In 2018, Jamboorees Hukoomat Party (JHP)
won a ¾ majority in the lower house of the parliament and formed the government as it promised to
support small businesses, promote start-ups and ease of business. With policies of JHP the internet
became very cheap and online businesses were booming. Seeing the online market many foreign
players entered the Jamburiyat social media market. Today 57% of the market share in convenience
apps is of foreign-developed apps.

These Foreign players affected the jamburiyat economy severely and JHP for 2023 election's made an
agenda to make plans to reduce market share of foreign apps and promote tech-jamboorees to
promote local apps Democratic party of jamburiyat (DPJ) views That JHP is turning the state into an
autocratic state and is controlling the freedom of speech of people. They said that JHP is focusing on
technology despite 50% of the population still living in rural areas and 55% of its land is fertile
for agriculture. Jam-talk is a short video making app which also supports podcasts. It is a foreign app
with a head office in New Jamli the capital pr jamburiyat.

This app in present had turned into a political discussion forum and a platform for political debates.
Policy actions of the government are being discussed and criticized.

It has become livelihood of many people to make videos News channels are facing loss and jam-talk is
paying account holders if they have beyond 10lakh followers. Famous personalities are
advertising on this app Near the 2023 election's followers of JHP and DPJ had some violent clashes
because of ideological difference and policy clash relates to talks of banning the jam-talk. These
clashes were covered by Jam-talk only. On 30th January, 2023 these clashes took religious turn in
jamrajya a state of jamburiyat. One of the famous accounts shared a video of mob burning down a
library belonging to a religious minority. The protesters belonged to the religiously majority and were
also shouting slogans which were provoking crime against humanity.

Houses were set on fire, women were mistreated and Harassed, people died from both sides, videos of
police brutality also emerged JHP for the safety of the people declared a state-wide ban on Jam-talk.
On 30th January 2023 government said in interest of public safety and to avoid public emergency, a
temporary suspension of internet services in jamrajya for a period of 2 weeks, extendable by
further 2 weeks. In next 24 hrs Jam-talk was banned in 3 other states On 2nd February, 2023 union
home minister stated that it's better to prevent and prepare than to repent and repair, and possibilities
of ban on Jam-talk are being explored nationwide. And in report from intelligence bureau it is being
shown that the violent clashes were funded and politically motivated by the opposition party.

On 28th March 2023, government placed a nationwide ban on the app. While the internet shutdown
was still continued This also hampered economic activities in the 4 states A constitutional scholar and
professor and a famous account holder of Jam-talk ms. Akriti baruah has filed a petition under article
32 of the Constitution of jamburiyat before the supreme Court of jamburiyat on 2nd April 2023
Challenging the executive order of the state of jamrajya and the 3 other states for keeping internet
shutdown operative for months. It has also challenged nationwide ban on Jam-talk under article 14,19
and 21 of the Constitution of jamburiyat Thr matter is listed for final arguments.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHTHER THE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

JAMBURIYAT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF JAMBURIYAT IS
MAINTAINABLE?
2. WHETHER THE INTERNET SHUTDOWN IN JAMRAJYA AND 3 OTHER STATES
MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE LAW OF JAMBURIYAT?
3. DOES A NATION WIDE BAN ON JAM-TALK VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF JAMBURIYAT?
SUMMARY ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. WHTHER THE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

JAMBURIYAT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF JAMBURIYAT IS
MAINTAINABLE?

1. LOCUS STANDI OF PETITIONER

2. PUBLIC INTEREST
3. VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The term locus standi is defined as the right to bring an action, to be heard in court or to
address the court on a matter. It can also be understood to imply legal capacity to challenge
legislation, an order or a decision.
Any member of the public with a sufficient interest can bring an action for judicial redress for
public injury resulting from a breach of public duty or a violation of some constitutional or
legal provision, and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such
constitutional or legal provision and even if the petitioner is interested in protecting the lives of
the people, such petitioner can file a PIL.
Any member of public or a public-spirited organization having a bona fide and sufficient
public interest will possess the necessary locus standi.
Further, the Hon’ble SC has explicitly held that social action groups have a locus standi to file
PIL in the interest of the public. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, the court observed that, “any
member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for
public injury arising from the violation of some provisions of the law and seek enforcement of
such legal provisions”.
The court has mentioned that the writ petition filed for violation of fundamental rights under
Article 32 is maintainable as the traditional locus standi has been enlarged.
Moreover, a PIL cannot be filed for personal gain/profit or political motives or to gain cheap
popularity, it can only be filed for public interest. Also, in the case of PILs, the strict rule of
Locus Standi is relaxed and challenging the maintainability of the petition is precluded keeping
in mind the public interest involved.
In the instant case, Ms. Akriti Baruah who is a constitutional scholar and professor, in the
interest of the public has filed this writ petition by way of PIL against the violation of
 fundamental right of the people of Jamrajya and 3 other states as a result of internet shutdown
which was operative for months.\
2. Public interest
A PIL serves to enable litigation that is in the interest of the public, which includes public
security, order, and health. It includes instances where legal rights and liabilities of the public
at large, social or economic justice are affected. PILs are especially for those belonging to the
weaker sections of society, who may be too poor, illiterate, disadvantaged or unaware to be
able to enforce their rights. In the present case, there has been violation of fundamental rights
enshrined under Article 14,19,21 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat, as their right to equality,
right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of trade and profession as well as right to
live and personal liberty has been seriously affected therefore, it completely possesses the
interest of the public at large in the State of Jamrajya. The State of Jamrajya as well as other 3
states announced an internet shutdown after the violence faced by the states after which
violence erupted on a large scale in the state. Thus, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble
Court, that firstly, the violence was a violation of Article 14,19,21 of the Constitution of
Janburiyat and, secondly, they are liable for a free and fair investigation to look into the matter.

3. Violation of fundamental rights

It is most humbly submitted that the internet shut down for a longer period of time is in violation of
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14,19,21 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat. The
submissions in this regard are Three-fold in structure.

 Right to equality
 Right to freedom of speech and expression
 Right to life and personal liberty

Right to equality
Right to freedom of speech and expression Internet shutdowns violate Fundamental Rights
under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g).

B. WHETHER THE INTERNET SHUTDOWN IN JAMRAJYA AND 3 OTHER STATES

MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE LAW OF JAMBURIYAT?
 1. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CAN NOT BE SUSPENDED IN THE FEAR OF RIOTS
2. BASIC NECESSITIES CAN NOT BE SHUT DOWN
3. USAGE OF INTERNET FOR OTHER FACILITIES
It is most humbly submitted that access to the internet is the necessity, it is also essential for
business, education, economy and even a small period of restriction can cause a big loss of the
economy. Also, according to the Hohfeld analysis people have the right to freedom of speech
and expression and the government has a correlative duty to respect the same. The interest or
the right is nothing but the obligation of the state to provide the essential commodity or
services which are demanded by the citizens at large.
1. That Fundamental rights cannot be suspended under fear of mob violence.
Furthermore, “The distinction between 'public order' and 'law and order' is a fine one, but
nevertheless clear. A restriction imposed with 'law and order' in mind would be least intruding
into the guaranteed freedom while 'public order' may qualify for a greater degree of restriction
since public order is a matter of even greater social concern. Out of all expressions used in this
regard, as discussed in the earlier part of this judgment, 'security of the state' is the paramount
and the State can impose restrictions upon the freedom, which may comparatively be more
stringent than those imposed in relation to maintenance of 'public order' and 'law and order'.
However stringent may these restrictions be, they must stand the test of ‘reasonability’ The
State would have to satisfy the Court that the imposition of such restrictions is not only in the
interest of the security of the State but is also within the framework of Articles 19(2) and 19(3)
of the Constitution.”Since there was a situation of law and order the government should have
adopted some other tactics instead of banning the internet in the entire state of Jatala.
Moreover, it was held in one of the cases that “free speech cannot be gagged under the fear of
mob violence”. In certain cases, restriction has also been held to include complete prohibition
[][][][][]. And if there is a complete prohibition it will lead to a lot of losses not just
economically but also to the educational as well as the business class. Thus, restrictions on free
speech and expression can have cases of prohibition. But there should not be excessive
restriction on free speech even if a complete prohibition is imposed, and the government has to
tell why imposition of such prohibition and why lesser alternatives would be inadequate. The
government in the present case could have adopted some other measures instead of doing what
it did for example government could have banned certain internet services such as WhatsApp,
Facebook etc., ban instead of banning the access to the internet as whole Section 69A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 read with the Information Technology (Procedures and
Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 allows blocking of
access to information but It is to be noted however, operation of this section is limited in scope.
The aim of the section is not to restrict/block the internet fully, but only to block access to
websites on the internet. Hence the government cannot entirely block the internet under this
section Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P.The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “limitations
imposed on a person in enjoyment of right should not be arbitrary or excessive by nature,
beyond what is required in the interest of the public.” Therefore, the internet ban is not valid.

5.1 That Internet as necessity

Right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and their necessities such as nutrition
,shelter, clothing, reading ,writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms as well as the right
to carry functions and activities that constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.
The Court has recognised freedom to speech and expression through different mediums as the
technology has evolved It is clear that the bare minimum expression of human self means that
a person also has the right to express himself through the internet thus it becomes a necessity of
life. The development of technology and law should be hand in hand. The internet, which is the
greatest Technology has transformed the lives of the people. Indica has 655.31 million users of
the internet. The shutting down of the net leads to restricting the individual’s right to voice his
opinion as well as other rights. Thus, setting down the net is arbitrarily unreasonable. Justice
DY Chandrachud said that academic, literature, availability of information and also leading to
the awareness about the problem is what prevented the drought of Maharashtra in 1973 from
becoming as bad as the Bengal famine 1943 when British tried to deny the problem even when
it existed. Removing the prevention of sharing of information is in the interest of individuals as
well as the democracy. The Covid 19 pandemic would have turned into a tragedy if the
information would not have been spread about it. Another reason is “collective public
memory” of this pandemic. The presence of collective public memory, which refers “to an
extent and taken-for-granted group memory. The Internet enables us to receive and share vital
information about the pandemic and the measures being put in place to tackle it. It helps us to
understand and scrutinise our governments’ actions. And with approximately 20% of the
world’s population social distancing or living under quarantine conditions, technology helps us
to work, shop and communicate. A number of daily activities have shifted online, ranging from
the provision of health services to education programmes that enable home schooling The right
of citizens to screen films was a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression. Online
expression is now a means of spreading and accordingly it was integral to the enjoyment of
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a), but also could also be
restricted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Thus, restricting the internet leads to
reduction in spread of valuable information.
5.2 That there is a Usage of internet for other activities
It is most humbly submitted that Court expanded this protection to the use of airwaves In this
context, we may note that this has recognized free speech as a fundamental right, and, as
technology has evolved, it has recognized the freedom of speech and expression over different
media of expression. In the case of Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. V. Lokvidayan
SanghatanaThe Apex Court held that the right of citizens to screen films was a part of the
fundamental right of freedom of expression. Online expression has become one of the major
means of information diffusion and accordingly it is integral to the enjoyment of freedom of
speech and expression and in Faheema Shirin RK v. State of Kerala and OrsThe Hon’ble Court
observed that “right to access the internet is an integral part of Right to education and Right to
privacy under Article 21A and Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to access the internet is
a fundamental right and a part of the right to education and right to privacy.” Indian Express v.
Union of India, the Supreme Court said that the freedom of expression protects the freedom of
print medium
Moreover, “The Court must in considering the validity of the impugned law imposing a
prohibition on the carrying on of a business or profession, attempt an evaluation of its direct
and immediate impact upon the Fundamental rights of the citizens affected thereby and the
larger public interest sought to be ensured in the light of the object sought to be achieved, the
necessity to restrict the citizen's freedom, the inherent pernicious nature of the act prohibited or
its capacity or tendency to be harmful to the general public, the possibility of achieving the
object by imposing a less drastic restraint, and in the absence of exceptional situations such as
the prevalence of a state of emergency-national or local-or the necessity to maintain essential
supplies, or the necessity to stop activities inherently dangerous, the existence of a machinery
to satisfy the administrative authority that no case for imposing the restriction is made out or
that a less drastic restriction may ensure the object intended to be achieved.”
Also, the Centre for Technology Innovation in its report found out that the estimated costs of
internet shutdown between 1st July, 2015 to 30th June 2016 for India was $968,080,702. India
faced the highest losses due to internet shutdowns when compared to 18 countries which shut
its internet during that same period. “In the light of Article 51(c) and 253 of the Constitution of
India and the role of judiciary envisaged in the Beijing Statement, the international conventions
and norms are to be read into the Fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of in the
 absence of enacted domestic law occupying the fields when there is no inconsistency between
them’ .United Nations Special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had
“become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” The Centre for
technology innovation found out that the internet shut down between first July 2015 to 38 June
2016 led to a law of 968 080702$. The Indian Council for Research on international economic
relation said that India faced a load of 344 US million dollars from 2012 to 2017 According to
the Global Cost of Internet Shutdown in Stated India face the great economic impact due to
internet bank and during 2020 it had to face double the economic laws then it had faced in
2019 due to internet ban.

C. DOES A NATION WIDE BAN ON JAM-TALK VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF JAMBURIYAT?

1. GOLDEN TRIANGLE (ARTICLE 14,19,21)

2. ESSENTIAL SERVICES/ SOCIAL COSTS

It is humbly submitted that in multiple Apex Court judgments33 and constitutional law
commentaries,34 fundamental rights have been considered as the most sacrosanct
aspects of the Constitution of India.35 The Constitution of India has to be considered as
a dynamic constitution with changing contours36 over the years. It is thereby argued
that the right to use Internet is a part of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of
India37 under not one but several articles. i. Violation of Article 21 35. The Article 21 is
considered as the “umbrella article”38 or the “cornerstone article”39 of the Constitution
of India. There have been multiple interpretations of the phrase “Right to Life” as
expressed over in the multiple judgments.40 It is humbly submitted that in the following
facets of the Article 21 can be contended to be violated in the present instance:  Right
to Livelihood- It has been recognized that Right to Livelihood does form a part of the
Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.41 Internet shapes the
livelihood of many citizens42 by providing various means of livelihood such as
ecommerce, e-auction etc.43 all of which have been suspended thus causing a gross
violation of the Fundamental Rights.  Right to Health- It has been recognized that
Right to Health does form a part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.44 Internet has been a leading factor for proper treatment and diagnosis of
various ailments.45 Thus, banning the internet would impose a lot of hurdles on proper
diagnosis and treatment of various citizens.46 Thus, the right to health has been
suspended over here causing a gross violation of fundamental rights.  Right to Privacy-
Right to Privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21.47 During
internet shutdown, numerous business transactions, employment rollout plans have been
done in offline forms.48 It is being contended that such measures do vitiate the privacy
of the parties involved.49 Thus, this amounts to another gross violation of the
Constitution of India. 36. It is thus construed that with the violation of these provisions,
the Right to use Internet is an inherent part of the Article 21 jinx and its’ violation
violates many further aligned rights with it.50 ii. Violation of Article 14 37. Article 14
of the Constitution of India envisions for Right to Equality of the people.51 It clearly
lays down the maxim “equals must be treated equally” and otherwise.52 It is contended
that in the present case no such effort was made to segregate the pool of people into
potential threats and otherwise.53 38. It is humbly submitted that any action undertaken
restricting the fundamental rights must satisfy the “intelligible differentia” test54 to pass
the hurdle of Article 14. It is contended that it is extremely evident from the facts55 that
no such effort was made to differentiate from the given pool of people, thus the act
stemming to be arbitrary56 and violative of Article 14. 39. It is further submitted that
the Supreme Court in a recent judgment had clarified that “no carpet bombing” action
may be taken to justify the need of surgical strike.57 This internet ban does seem to be
violating the mandate of the Court by targeting the entire group whereas it had to do
away with only a few.58 40. Thus, on account of these aforementioned reasons it can be
contended Article 14 has been grossly violated by this Internet ban. iii. Violation of
Article 19 41. Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,59 Right to freedom of
speech and expression has been recognized. The means to express oneself through the
Internet has also been recognized by the court as integral to the same.60 Thus, any
attempt to stifle the same without the reasonable restrictions would be a blatant violation
of the fundamental rights. a) Reasonable Restrictions not satisfied in the instant matter
42. In the widely celebrated judgment of Romesh Thappar versus State of Madras,61 the
Apex Court had held that public order considerations cannot be justified under the
security of state ground under Article 19(2). This has to be kept in mind that the
freedom of speech and expression cannot simply be thwarted based on the apprehension
of public outbreak62 unless there’s an imminent public danger. In the present case,
there’s only an apprehension of the State regarding the security concerns and no real
threat or imminent danger.63 43. This measure should be treated like that of as the
ultimate measure64 of the last possible resort.65 But in the present case, there has been
a presence of an officious remedy in the form of various Cyber law provisions66 and IT
Act provisions.67 Thus, it cannot be treated as the last possible resort or remedy of the
situation and thus cannot be granted. b) Unreasonable impact of the restrictions 44.
There have been at least 381 documented instances of internet shutdown in India in the
last nine years;68 319 of those have occurred since 2017,69 according to Internet
Shutdowns, a service operated by New Delhi-based digital advocacy group Software
Law and Freedom Centre.70 The unavailability of internet has also severely impacted
businesses. According to a 2018 study by Indian Council for Research on International
Economic Relations (ICRIER),71 internet shutdown had cost the Indian economy about
$3.04 billion.72 In a report late last month, industry group Cellular Operator Association
of India (COAI) estimated that mobile carriers lose about $8 million a day for shutdown
in any of the 22 circles where they operate in the country.73 45. Thus, it can be made
very clear that the restrictions imposed are unreasonable per se and often exhibit more
adverse results than positive ones. iv. Violation of Preamble 46. The Preamble of the
Constitution of India, inter alia, speaks of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship.74 It cannot be over emphasized that when it comes to democracy, liberty of
thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our
constitutional scheme.75 47. Any such action that is in transgression of the said vision,
has to be construed against the true spirit of the Constitution and must be condoned onto
the same.76 G. The Procedure to ban the Internet has not been a procedure established
by law 48. It is humbly submitted that the petitioners contend that Section 66A of the IT
Act77 supplemented by Section 69 of the same78 is creating an offence against persons
who use the internet and annoy or cause inconvenience to others79 and very clearly
affects the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens of India at large.80 i.
Concentrates arbitrary power in the hands of the State 49. It may well be within the
power of the State to place, in the interest of the general public, restrictions upon the
right of a citizen to carry on business81 but it is not open to the State to achieve this
object by directly and immediately curtailing any other freedom of that citizen
guaranteed by the Constitution and which is not susceptible of abridgment on the same
grounds as are set out in clause (6) of Article 19.82 Therefore, the right of freedom of
speech cannot be taken away with the object of placing restrictions on the business
 activities of a citizen.83 The relevance of this point is that Article 19(1)(g) can be
curtailed on the grounds of mentioned 8 points of Articel 19(2). But it should not affect
19(1)(g) since it cannot be curtailed on the ground of public order. 50. It is held in the
case of “Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal,”84 Public order includes communal
violence. It evolved a test whether any act is said to cause effect to public order. The test
is : 51. “Does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to
amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving
the tranquility of the society at peace?” 52. Page 863 of the judgement says “All the
greater reason, therefore for holding that the State cannot directly restrict one freedom
by placing an otherwise permissible restriction on another freedom.” 53. Thus, thereby
we may argue that no such action of the State can be justified as under Section 66A and
Section 69 of the IT Act. v. Argunedo, the present situation does not satisfy the merit of
imposing Internet Ban under the given conditions 54. If Section 66A severely curtails
information that may be sent on the internet based on whether it is grossly offensive,
annoying, inconvenient, etc. and being unrelated to any of the eight subject matters
under Article 19(2)85 must, therefore, fall foul of Article 19(1)(a), and not being saved
under Article 19(2), is declared as unconstitutional.86 55. In Reno, Attorney General of
the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.,87 two provisions of the
Communications Decency Act of 1996 which sought to protect minors from harmful
material on the internet were adjudged unconstitutional. This judgment is a little
important for two basic reasons88 - that it deals with a penal offence created for persons
who use the internet as also for the reason that the statute which was adjudged
unconstitutional uses the expression "patently offensive" which comes extremely close
to the expression "grossly offensive" used by the impugned. In this case too, the in pari
material provisions of the US law was held to be null and void.

Information that may be grossly offensive or which causes annoyance or inconvenience are undefined
terms which take into the net a very large amount of protected and innocent speech.89 A person may
discuss or even advocate by means of writing disseminated over the internet information that may be a
view or point of view pertaining to governmental, literary, scientific or other matters which may be
unpalatable to certain sections of society.90 It is obvious that an expression of a view on any matter
may cause annoyance, inconvenience or may be grossly offensive to some.91 A certain section of a
particular community may be grossly offended or annoyed by communications over the internet by
"liberal views" - such as the emancipation of women or the abolition of the caste system or whether
certain members of a non-proselytizing religion should be allowed to bring persons within their fold
who are otherwise outside the fold.92 Each one of these things may be grossly offensive, annoying,
inconvenient, insulting or injurious to large sections of particular communities and would fall within
the net cast by Section 66A. In point of fact, Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion
on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day
would be caught within its net.93 Such is the reach of the Section and if it is to withstand the test of
constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.94 57. It will be noticed that Section
69A unlike Section 66A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards.95 First and foremost,
blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do.
Secondly, such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2). Thirdly,
reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Blocking can take place only by a reasoned order after
complying with several procedural safeguards including a hearing to the originator and intermediary.
We have also seen how there are only two ways in which a blocking order can be passed - one by the
Designated Officer after complying with the 2009 Rules and the other by the Designated Officer when
he has to follow an order passed by a

competent court. The intermediary applying its own mind to whether information should or should not
be blocked is noticeably absent in Section 69A read with 2009 Rules. vi. Procedure established by the
section 69 A must be followed by the government 58. Internet blocking can take place only by a
reasoned order after complying with several procedural safeguards including a hearing to the
originator and intermediary.96 We have also seen how there are only two ways in which a blocking
order can be passed - one by the Designated Officer after complying with the 2009 Rules97 and the
other by the Designated Officer when he has to follow an order passed by a competent court.98 It is
contended that compliance of either of the two requirements hasn’t been made clear by the Factual
Scenario.99 Thus, none of them can be satisfactorily proved down. 59. It is humbly submitted at the
end that in order to curb dissent and freedom of expression, some governments take the drastic step of
switching the internets "off switch." They generally occur when someone (usually a government)
intentionally disrupts the internet or mobile apps to control what people do or say. Out of all countries
worldwide, India shuts down its internet most frequently. According to Access Now data reported by
Vice News, India experienced 154 shutdowns between January 2016 and May 2018.100 That's a huge
distance ahead of second-placed Pakistan's 19 shutdown's and 8 in both Iraq and Syria. 60. Given the
importance of the internet, moves to block it or limit access can prove costly. In India, the sheer
volume of shutdowns, coupled with their length, are getting expensive - very expensive. According to
a report by The Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), 16,315
hours of intentional internet downtime between 2012 and 2017 cost the Indian economy a whopping
$3.04 billion.101 61. Thus, the Petitioners rightly believe that the ban on internet has to be construed
as unconstitutional on account of being a violation of fundamental rights, and the restrictions not being
reasonable in nature. Further, the ban has not been ordered following a procedure established by law
and does not substantiate the merits of case on account of having more.

Prayer