SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION f) The Court is not straightforward on whether a complete and general prohibition on access to the internet may constitute an acceptable and proportionate measure under specific circumstances. It does proclaim though that indefinite suspensions are not permissible in any case. The importance of the principle of proportionality Following on the jurisprudence of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, in Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir the Supreme Court of India examined the restriction of internet mobile service to 2G in the mentioned territories. The Court primarily recognised the necessity of balancing national security concerns against the fundamental rights of citizens. In this context, the Court held that better internet access, although “desirable and convenient” was outweighed by the threat from those “trying to infiltrate the borders and destabilise the integrity of the nation.” In considering the proportionality of the restriction, the court observed that a blanket order was passed for the entire Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, rather than for specified at risk areas. The Court noted that “the degree of restriction and the scope of the same, both territorially and temporally, must stand in relation to what is actually necessary to combat an emergent situation.” While orders issued by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir were for a limited period, they failed to provide any reason to support that such a restriction was necessary to be imposed in all districts of Jammu and Kashmir. Following Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Court noted that restrictions should only be imposed where it is deemed absolutely necessary. The Court also states that the determinations included in the latter were not respected when it came to the examination by a Review Committee to oversee the respect for substantial and procedural safeguards in the adoption and enforcement of the restrictions, particularly regarding the proper application of the principle of proportionality. Previously, in Banashree Gogoi v. Union of India, the Gauhati High Court analysed the suspension of mobile and broadband internet on December 11, 2019 in response to protests and an outbreak of violence related to the controversial amended Citizenship Act. The High Court states that “with the advancement of science and technology, mobile internet services now plays a major role in the daily walks of life, so much so, shut-down of the mobile internet service virtually amounts to bringing life to a grinding halt.” This assertion was subsequently used, as already shown, by the petitioners in the already mentioned decision of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. The Court also underscores that “shut-down or suspension of service (does not need) to be viewed as an anathema” and admits that in given and specific situations, “(domestic) law permits suspension” but that conditions must be continually reassessed, and services restored as soon as the situation permits it. The decision ordered the immediate restoration of mobile internet services in the State of Assam since no material was submitted by the authorities to demonstrate before the Court that there were sufficient threats, disruptions, incidents of violence or a deterioration of law and order to justify the ongoing restrictions. In the recent judgement of the case Ashlesh Biradar v. State of West Bengal the High Court of Calcutta suspended the operation of an internet shutdown order issued by the Indian State of West Bengal. The 35