10 In Anuradha Bhasin, too, unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to trade due to internet shutdowns was argued by the petitioners. On freedom of expression, arguments hinged on the unreasonability and disproportionality of the degree of restrictions placed on individuals’ speech and expression as a result of the indiscriminate internet shutdowns. The petitioners, Global Concern Cameroon, argued that the provisions in Cameroon’s Constitution, read together with regional and international human rights instruments should compel the court to consider fundamental constitutional questions and examine whether “the extent to which executive intrusion into constitutional rights are permissible under Cameroon law; whether access to the Internet is relevant to the realization of constitutional rights in Cameroon; and whether the impugned actions constitute a violation constitutional rights.” To bolster their point, a wide array of cases from regional human rights bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) were cited, along with other international law provisions including Article 19 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. authorise a blanket ban or suspension, only the targeted interception of communications, thereby making a suspension of internet services ultra vires the Zimbabwe Act. Petitioners in Banashree Gogoi also made a similar argument. The petitioners argued that Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Telegraph Act)28 does not provide for the prohibition or suspension of internet services in their entirety. Additionally, the justification under the Telegraph Act does not include the phrase ‘law and order’ and therefore, cannot form the basis for imposing shutdowns. Further, they argued that the continued suspension without review or producing any evidence of misuse of of them allowed for the internet to be completely shut down. They argued that a shutdown is not in line with the fundamental character of the note and even if a minority of the population have misused the internet, all citizens of Cameroon should not bear the burdens associated with the shutdown. Similarly, petitioners in Karnataka High Court argued that the restrictions imposed on the petitioner's rights were not reasonable and has been recognised by the Supreme Court of India. Citing precedent, they argued that the restrictions must be narrowly tailored and cannot be considered necessary when less restrictive alternatives are available. internet services violated Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act.29 Further, it was argued in a few cases that a preemptive shutdown was unconstitutional. For example, petitioners in CM Pak argued that the On the right to equality, petitioners alleged that targeted internet shutdowns in certain areas were designed by the government to target certain communities, usually communities that were Telecommunications (Reorganisation) Act of 1996 empower the Federal Government or the Authority to direct the blocking of cellular mobile operations on the basis of mere apprehension. protesting against the government to enforce /sites /default Another way of expressing the illegitimacy of the restriction on freedom of speech and expression was, as in the ZLHR and MISA Zimbabwe, reading an internet shutdown as ultra vires of the law that the government used to pass the order. Communications Act (Zimbabwe Act) did not measures in the interest of law and order, none dot.gov.in To underscore the disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights, a variety of arguments were adduced. Several petitioners focussed on the peaceful nature of the protests. In Amnesty International Togo, petitioners argued that the protests were based on constitutional reform and were met with brute force and other forms of crackdown through measures such as imprisonment by state authorities. A similar point was made by the petitioners in Murad Khazbiev. In this case, Section 6 of the Interception of Further, while the petitioners recognised a wide array of statutes that allowed the state to take 28 Indian Telegraph Act.(1885). https: their rights. For example, the petitioners in Global Concern Cameroon argued that the geographical scope of the internet shutdown was designed to discriminate against the English speaking (Anglophone) Cameroonians. They argued that the burden of proof was on the respondents (authorities) to justify this discrimination. /files /Indian%20Telegraph%20Act%201885,pdf2download=1 29 Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act provides for lawful interception of communications by the Indian state, only in the interests of, the sovereignty, and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.