SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Court acknowledged that the suspension of internet service affected banking transactions and various other business activities, including online teaching classes in the area concerned. It also recognized that other effective measures could have been taken by the State to prevent the use of unfair means and cheating without affecting the public at large. Following the criteria set in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Court held that the internet shutdown order had been passed without the authority of law, failed to satisfy the test of proportionality, and did not contain reasons for suspending internet services. There also are cases of Indian Courts analysing petitions to issue orders to restrict internet access for the prevention of cheating during exams. The Rajasthan High Court in Dhirendra Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajastan dismissed the petition because the government undertook to not repeat shutdowns. Software Freedom Law Center India v. State of Arunachal Pradesh on the other hand is a case where the Supreme Court has sought a reply from the Government regarding whether there is any standard protocol for an internet shutdown during examinations. Beyond the Indian subcontinent, the principle of proportionality appears mentioned in other jurisdictions, referring to specific cases of Internet shutdowns. The Constitutional Court of Uganda struck down, in Unwanted Witness-Uganda v. Attorney General, a petition challenging the Government’s shutdown order of social media and access to mobile financial services on two occasions: the presidential and parliamentary elections in February 2016 and the inauguration of the elected president in May the same year. In its analysis, the Court went beyond national jurisprudence and repeatedly referred to the Supreme Court of India’s case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India stating that the parameters set (and described above) “are a good starting point” to determine whether the shutdown of the internet was consistent with the Constitution of Uganda. However, in this case the Court held that the petition should have been submitted before another competent court given that it did not raise any questions of constitutional interpretation but concerned only alleged violations of constitutional provisions through either acts or omissions of the Government (the latter not falling under the competences of the Constitutional Court). It is also important to note that in a concurring opinion Justice Kenneth Kakuru pointed at the fact that petitioners had failed to frame a correct question and did not pursue an answer to whether the applicants had their rights restricted beyond the justifiable limitations in a democratic society, which might have been examined by the Court precisely as a matter of constitutional interpretation. Nevertheless, Justice Kakuru noted that in the digital era, it is quite clear that any internet shutdown would have adverse consequences on everyone even if the shutdown lasted for just one day. Moreover, Justice Catherine Bamugemereire agreed with the Court’s decision yet drew a different conclusion, suggesting that the Court refer the case to the competent court instead of striking it down. In her concurring opinion, Justice Bamugemereire highlighted that in spite of the importance of the internet nowadays in various areas of life —as a tool for empowerment and knowledge—, a right to internet access should be viewed in light of the correlating, competing rights such as privacy and maintaining public order. She also noted that the internet is viewed as an enabler to other rights such as the right to expression and therefore it is “about time that a safe way to access social media whether through the internet ... is guaranteed.” Justice Bamugemereire further emphasised that the constitutional aspect of digital rights is a novel area of constitutional interpre36