No. 10817 of 2020, has appended the affidavits of a journalist who collected   testimonies   of   doctors,   teachers,   students,   journalists, lawyers and business persons from the Union Territory, and of a technical   expert   narrating   importance   of   4G   internet,   to   support the above submissions. 6. Moreover,   the   Petitioners   have   argued   that   the   actions   of Respondent No. 1 are violative of the directions laid down by this Court   in  Anuradha   Bhasin  (supra)  as   well   as   the   Temporary Suspension   of   Telecom   Services   (Public   Emergency   or   Public Safety) Rules, 2017 [“Telecom Suspension Rules”]  as no Review Committee has been constituted by the Respondent No. 1. Further, the   blanket   orders   passed   by   Respondent   No.   1,   indicates   non­ application of mind. Lastly, Respondent No. 1 has failed to provide any   rational   nexus   between   the   restriction   of   the   internet   speed and   national   security.   The   Petitioners   submitted   that   since   the introduction   of   internet   in   the   Union   Territory   of   Jammu   and Kashmir,   the   number   of   incidents   relating   to   terrorism   in   the region have actually reduced. Lastly, the Petitioners pleaded in the alternative that if the Respondents apprehend the misuse of data services, then they could consider restricting the internet only in 4