conclusion that the burden of proof was on the respondent (Attorney General) to prove that allegations made against the petitioner, that what he uttered prejudiced the community interest and the limitation of his rights by being prosecuted for the criminal offence of sedition was 5 justifiable and acceptable in a free and democratic society. The same test was applied to the other impugned provisions of the law complained about and ultimately, the court found in favour of the petitioner, since the respondent failed to discharge his burden. The complaints raised in this petition go further into the rights of 10 citizens that have been brought about by technological advancement in the use of new media: Facebook, Skype, Twitter and others, and mobile money transactions. The jurisprudence in that regard all over the world is nascent. But it still suggests that this courts has to render a strict construction of the restrictions in Article 43 (2) (c) with regard to Article 15 29 (1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India considered the legality and constitutionality of the total shut down of telecommunications and the internet in the Jamu and Kashmir Region in August 2019 in the case of Anura dha Bhasin & Others v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031 of 20 2019. The matter was about the total shutdown of the internet and restrictions of movement in the Jamu Kashmir Region which the Government of India claimed was to protect public order, amidst the escalation of the decades-long dispute between the two countries. This followed the 25 issuance of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special status that it had enjoyed since 1954, making that country fully subservient to all provisions of the Constitution of India. 15