- 10 A B A 22. In this case, for present purposes, I am prepared to assume B that the Applicant has sufficient standing to make the application, that the C C relevant constitutional provisions are engaged, and that the challenge of D E the existing policy raises serious issues to be considered at the substantive hearing of the judicial review application. Still, the question for me in the D E urgent hearing this afternoon is not primarily the merits of the underlying F G H I challenge but whether or not the interim mandatory injunction sought by the Applicant should be granted. 23. First, it is to be noted that even if the judicial review succeeds on certain bases, it does not necessarily mean that the F G H I mandatory injunction sought by the Applicant now should be granted. If, J K for example, the constitutional challenge succeeds on the basis that the policy disproportionately imposed an absolute bar of all Internet media J K irrespective of their nature and track record from access to the GNMIS L M N O and the Government’s press events, the proper relief may possibly be simply to quash the decision in question. 24. Even if the court on the judicial review concludes that an appropriate accreditation system could proportionately address any L M N O legitimate aim the respondents seek to pursue, this does not necessarily P Q mean that the proper way of accrediting journalists from online media is to allow access to full members of the Applicant. Nor does it necessarily P Q mean that the court should tell the respondents at the end that this is what R S they must do. For one thing, as Mr Dawes SC submitted on behalf of the intended respondents, the Applicant’s approach does not avail journalists R S from Internet media who are not members of the Applicant and may as T such be said to be discriminatory. It appears that there have already been T U U V V