SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION The orders must include reasons for the suspension and its copy must be sent to a Review Committee consisting of senior State officials. The reasons should not only explain the necessity of the suspension but also the “unavoidable” circumstance which necessitated the order. The decision of the Supreme Court, following a lawsuit filed by the editor of a newspaper and a member of Parliament, among others, covers several areas since the applicants articulated many important allegations: the internet is essential for the modern press and that by shutting it down, the authorities forced the print media to come to “a grinding halt”, l Giving the state carte blanche to restrict fundamental rights in the name of national security and terrorism prevention would allow the State to impose broad restrictions on fundamental rights in varied situations, l l the State failed to prove the necessity of the restrictions, l restrictions must be based on objective reasons and not merely on conjectures, l official orders must not be kept secret by the State, which was not the case, when imposing restrictions, the State must choose the least restrictive measures and balance the safety of people with the lawful exercise of their fundamental rights, which did not occur here, and l internet restrictions did not merely affect freedom of expression but also the right to trade, as well as the ability of political representatives to communicate with their constituents, thus causing broad harm even to regular and law-abiding citizens. l In light of these arguments, the Court firstly noted that it had encountered trouble in determining the legality of the restrictions since the authorities had refused to disclose the content of the orders imposing said restrictions. In any case, the Court would be the body to weigh the State’s privileges against the right to information and decide what portions of the order could be hidden or redacted. The State initially claimed privilege, and then released some of the orders, explaining that all could not be released because of unspecified difficulties. For the Court, such justification was not a valid ground. Public availability of Government orders is a settled principle of “law and of natural justice”, particularly if an order affects lives, liberty and property of people. It also constitutes a basic pre-condition for the exercise of the constitutional right to challenge them before a court. The first important conclusion would thus be that even in cases where national security is alleged to justify restrictions to internet access, this would not per se justify not providing access to information regarding the specific decisions adopted by the competent authorities. Secondly, in light of the constitutional protections of freedom of expression in India, the Court affirms that the right to freedom of expression also extends to the internet as a medium for expression. Moreover, 32