SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 2.2 Decisions by national courts National courts in several regions of the world have also adopted some relevant decisions regarding the limitation of access to the internet, particularly in cases where the need to protect national security and public order was presented as a legitimate cause for this kind of measure. National court decisions elaborate and are usually based on domestic legislation including freedom of expression constitutional provisions, telecommunications legal and regulatory frameworks, national security and public order legislation, as well as general legal provisions regarding the powers of national and regional governments, administrative law enforcement authorities and other agencies. In many cases the fundamental legal reasoning in the analysis of internet access restrictions may thus not consider or refer to the international and regional legal standards and case law already presented in this paper, while in some decisions, though, we shall also be able to find and recognize at least the language of international human rights standards. In any case, an overview of both scenarios may help us better understand how national judges and courts approach not only the substantive legal issues regarding the measures analyzed by this paper but also the role and scope of judicial scrutiny in assessing and determining the legitimacy and necessity of such measures, previously adopted, in most cases, by political or administrative bodies. These bodies rely on some occasions on special powers, legitimacy, and expertise to assess national security and public order circumstances. The landmark case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India In 2020 the Supreme Court of India ruled that an indefinite suspension of internet services would be illegal under Indian law and that orders for internet shutdowns must satisfy the tests of necessity and proportionality. The case concerned the internet and movement restrictions imposed in the Jammu and Kashmir region in India during August of 2019, in the name of protecting public order. Based on orders from the Government, mobile phone networks, internet services, and landline connectivity were all shutdown in the region. The District Magistrates imposed additional restrictions on freedoms of movement and public assembly citing authority to do so under Section 144 of the Criminal Penal Code. In their submissions to the Court, the Attorney General argued that the restrictions were a measure to prevent terrorist acts and were justified considering the history of cross border terrorism and internal militancy that had long plagued the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Solicitor General indicated that social media and the internet in general could be used as a means to incite violence through the transmission of false news or fake images. Further, he claimed that the dark web allowed individuals to purchase weapons and illegal substances easily. The orders suspending access to the internet were passed in 2017 and allowed the government to restrict telecom services, including access to the internet, subject to certain safeguards, as established by the Telegraph Act. These safeguards were that first, the suspension orders may be issued only by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs or by the Secretary to the State Government in charge of the Home Department. In unavoidable circumstances another official not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India may issue the orders provided that the competent authority approves the orders within 24 hours of its issuance. Without approval the suspension must be lifted within 24 hours. 31