Pual v. The State of Tripura and ors) was concerned with the case of disciplinary action initiated against a government employee who allegedly participated in a political rally and canvassed for a political party in Facebook. While setting aside the charge sheet, it was held that a government servant is not devoid of her right of free speech, a fundamental right which can be curtailed only by a valid law. She was entitled to hold her own beliefs and express them in the manner desired, of course, subject to not crossing the borders laid down in the conduct rules. Even while respectfully agreeing with what has been stated above, I would add that the borders cannot be unreasonably drawn. 18.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Anuradha Bhasin vs. UOI (2020) 3 SCC 637 held that the freedom of speech and expression through the medium of internet is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) and accordingly, any restriction on the same must be in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 19.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP (2023) 4 SCC 1 observed that even if a person holds an opinion which is not in conformity in constitutional values, he cannot be taxed or penalized. It is only when his opinion gets translated into 13/16