SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION This reproach of arbitrariness and abuse of power declared by the first stance court was straightforwardly overturned by the Supreme Administrative Court. In this case, the Court neither refers to relevant human rights principles included in the Egyptian Constitution, nor mentions international or regional human rights standards at any point in its reasoning. The Court bases its judgement on the fact that, as it was recognised by the first instance court, a ministerial Committee was formed to investigate and deal with these threats, which did not object to the suspension and shutdown order, as well as the testimony of the head of the Egyptian National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority —who confirmed the legality of the suspension and shutdown order based on Article 67 of the Telecommunication Law. The Court concluded that a three-criterion accumulative test of fault, harm, and causality to recognize the responsibility of the administrative authorities for the adoption of restrictive measures, was not fulfilled (by lack of “fault”), and hence the suspension and shutdown order had a legitimate basis and was in accordance with the law. In Pakistan Telecommunication Authority v. CM Pak Limited, the Supreme Court of Pakistan analyzes the Ministry of Information and Technology’s Policy Directive concerning the suspension of mobile operator licenses and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA)’s direction to mobile cellular operators to suspend their operations. The Court remarked that there is a consensus among the parties that national security or public safety priorities justify the imposition of restrictions and directions. The Court reasoned that Section 54(3) of the Telecommunication Act confers powers on the Federal Government to modify or suspend all or any orders or licences in a situation where an Emergency is imposed by the President under the Constitution. On the other hand, Section 8(2)(c) empowers PTA to take steps about matters of national security, diplomatic protocols and state functions. The Court observed that the former section is reactive and defensive, coming into the field when, on account of grave circumstances in the country or its provinces, a proclamation of Emergency is issued. Whereas the latter section is pre-emptive action as it allows for the disruption of services before any perceived threat in a specified area materialises. The Court observed that the Policy Directive gives law enforcement authorities the power to forward written requests to PTA specifying the cellular services to be closed, the time and duration of the closure and the specific area where such closure is to be implemented in case of significant threats of “hostilities against Pakistan by a foreign power” or “internal aggression by terrorists/groups.” The Court observed that since both of these events fall under public safety and national security, the Policy Directive cannot be held as contravening Section 54 of the Telecommunication Act. Conversely, it strengthened the very purpose of the Telecommunication Act. The Court also observes that the PTA exercised its power under the Policy Directive reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the Act. The Court assessed different factual circumstances including the Ashoora in Moharram, the Pakistan Day Parade by the Armed Forces, and the Protest at Chehlum of Mumtaz Qadri. The Court held that taking consideration of these events, there was a legitimate need to suspend cellular services. These protective measures are taken at the request of law enforcement authorities because of past experiences of terrorist activities at similar events. If such events caused the issuance of the impugned directions then the same would be in the public interest, reasonable, fair, consistent with the object of the law and therefore valid. The Court outrules the determinations of the Islamabad High Court in 2017, establishing that the power to suspend or cause suspension of the services, operations or functions of a licensed telecommunication provider in the context of national security is exclusively provided under sub section 3 of section 54 of the Act of 1996 and that it can only 39