Regarding the 1st issue, the court reiterated the position that freedom of expression under Article 19 of India’s Constitution extended to the internet. There was already extensive jurisprudence that extended protections to new media for expression in India. In relation to access 5 to information and business the court observed and declared that: Therefore, the freedom of speech and expression through the medium of internet is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) and accordingly, any restriction on the same must be in accordance with Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. 10 15 20 In this context, we need to note that the internet is also a very important tool for trade and commerce. The globalization of the Indian economy and the rapid advances in information and technology have opened up vast business avenues and transformed India as a global IT hub. There is no doubt that there are certain trades which are completely dependent on the internet. Such a right of trade through internet also fosters consumerism and availability of choice. Therefore, the freedom of trade and commerce through the medium of the internet is also constitutionally protected under Article 19(1) (g), subject to the restrictions provided under Article 19 (6). The court then considered the principles upon which restrictions may be imposed and stated that in imposing restrictions under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution proportionality, of India, which are there time ought honoured to be balance and for the principles interpretation of rights and freedoms guaranteed under the broad 25 spectrum of human rights. The court reviewed its decision in Modern Dental College & Research v State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 7 SCC 353, where it was held that: 30 “The exercise which, therefore, is to be taken is to find out as to whether the limitation of constitutional rights is for a purpose that is reasonable and necessary in a democratic society and such an exercise involves the weighing up of competitive values, and ultimately an assessment based on proportionality i.e. balancing of different interests.” Unlike Uganda, India already had detailed laws and regulations under which telecommunication services may be suspended. The shutting 35 down of the internet was therefore considered within the context of the 17