WWW.LIVELAW.IN W.P(C).No.19716/2019-L 6 that by prohibiting the use of mobile phone, she is deprived of the access to the source of knowledge to her detriment which will affect the quality of her education. It is claimed that the right to access internet forms a part of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and the restrictions imposed do not come within reasonable restrictions covered by Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in Anuj Garj v. Hostel Association of India: (2008)3 SCC 1, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr.: (1995) 2 SCC 161, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India : (2015)5 SCC 1, N.D Jayal v. Union of India: (2004) 9 SCC 362, Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. : (2017) 10 SCC 1, PUCL v. Union of India: (1997)1 SCC 301, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India : (2014) 5 SCC 438, Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M & Ors. : (2018)16 SCC 368: 2018 (2) KHC 890 and the judgment of this Court in Anjitha K.Jose & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors: 2019(2) KHC 220, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the restrictions imposed as well as her expulsion consequent to it are illegal as it infringed her fundamental right to freedom and expression, right to privacy, right to education, etc. 4. Relying on the budget speech made by the Minister for finance it is stated that the State Government has proclaimed steps for making the internet accessible to all citizens recognizing the right to internet as a human right.