13 of procedural infirmity regarding the Minister of far more deferential to the power available to the authorities. In Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas, the petitioners had argued that Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gave far broader powers to the state, was used to order State’s (lack of) authority to issue any directive under the Interception of Communications Act.*° While this was a preliminary argument made by the petitioners, it was sufficient to allow the High Court to pass a provisional order holding the internet shutdown directive unlawful.?” the shutdown instead of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which should have been used instead. However, the court held that Similarly, the Islamabad High Court’s decision in CM Pak centred on the interpretation of the provisions of the Pakistan Telecommunications there was an appropriate use of Section 144 CrPC as this provision and Section 69A of the IT Act operate in two separate domains. It stated that (Reorganisation) Act of 1996, particularly sections 8 and 54(3). While Section 8 grants the Federal Section 69A may, in a given case, also be exercised for blocking certain websites, whereas under Government the power to issue policy directives, these are subject to the other provision of the Act of 1996. The Policy Directive issued by the Section 144 of the CrPC, directions may be issued to certain persons who may be the source for extending the facility of internet access. Government is inconsistent with Section 54(3) It is worth noting that cases where the focus lay on procedural soundness have come at the expense of the courts’ consideration of substantive arguments made by petitioners that further the protection of natural and juristic persons’ fundamental rights. Both the Zimbabwe and Islamabad High Courts did not delve into substantive questions such as the legality of blanket internet shutdowns.*° as the only eventuality contemplated under the Act of 1996 to cause suspension of operation of a license is when the President has proclaimed an Emergency in the exercise of powers conferred under Part X of the Constitution. In Anuradha Bhasin, the Supreme Court of India also took cognizance of the extent of the state’s powers under the relevant statute. The Court referred to Rule 2 of the Suspension Rules,?* which lays down the procedure for any restriction on the internet, as well as Section 5 of the Telegraph Act from which the restrictions are borne. *9 Auman and fundamental rights In Amnesty International Togo it was held that while access to the internet is not a fundamental human right, it is complementary to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression and therefore is both a derivative right and an element of a human right to which states are under obligation to provide for protection in accordance with the They held that since the Suspension Rules only govern the temporary suspension of internet services, the statutorily required Review Committee must, within seven days of the previous review, assess the continued compliance of these orders keeping in mind the principles of proportionality and the fact that the ban cannot be unlimited. Accordingly, two reliefs were awarded. First, the state was mandated to publish all orders suspending the internet so as to enable the challenge of the same before the appropriate fora and secondly, the state was directed to consider allowing government websites, e-banking facilities, hospital services and other such essential services in regions where the internet services is not likely to be restored immediately. law. However, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, overturning CM Pak, stated that a legitimate need to suspend cellular services can arise to preserve national security and public order. It clarified that this power should be proportionate to the threat envisaged, and was valid as long as it was “reasonable, fair, consistent with the object of the law”. Petitions seeking to curb internet shutdown can also expand their arguments centring the fundamentals rights of speech, expression and On the other hand, the Gujarat High Court was 38 Temporary Suspension of Services Rules (2017). https: dot.gov.in /circulars emergency-or-public-safety-rules-2017 /temporary-suspension-telecom-services-public- 39 Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India and Ghulam Nabi Azad v Union of India , Paras 84-88 40 Misa Zimbabwe. (2019, 21 January). High Court sets aside internet shut down services. Misa Zimbabwe. _https: //zimbabwe.misa. org /2019 /01/21 /high-court-sets-aside-internet-shut-down-directives/ 41 Amnesty International Togo & Ors v The Togolese Republic, Paras 37-46 42 Faheema Shirin v State of Kerala and Others, Para 13