I now turn to ground No. 2. It was essentially submitted for the applicants that Regulations 16 and 17 are unreasonable, ambiguous and arbitrary being manifested by lack of definition of common terms such as ‘online content provider’ and ‘online content services provider’. Under this ground there is a complaint of shortness of duration of 12 hours to settle complaints, lack of appellate mechanism and involvement of stranger in the complaint mechanism. This was also termed as irrationality and learned counsel relied again on the case of Council of Civil Service Unions Versus Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (HL) and the case of Associated Provincial Picture House versus Wednesbury (1948) KB 223 which later came to be known as “Wednesbury test” . Apart from the shortness period of time, it was also submitted that there is no safeguard provision and, on the notice, -and-takedown system which is vague and ambiguous, the possibility of there being multiple and unsubstantiated requests, lack of opportunity to challenge it and over censorship, no appeal or avenue for review and hence the proposal to involve the judiciary. On the issue of vagueness, learned counsel relied on the case of Vice Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak, (2007) SCC77. On his part, learned senior state attorney replying to this ground No. 2 denied there being irrationality under this ground. He submitted that the provisions provide for a wellestablished procedure to deal with the complaints emanating from the online services providers. It gives the affected person the right to 19