Foundation For Media ... vs Union Territory Of Jammu And ... on 11 May, 2020 Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir require the imposition of such restrictions. At the same time, we do recognize that the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir has been plagued with militancy, which is required to be taken into consideration. These competing considerations needs to calibrated in terms of our judgment in Anuradha Bhasin (supra). 17. One of the criteria for testing the proportionality of the orders is the territorial extent of the restrictions. In view of the observations made in Anuradha Bhasin (supra), for meaningful enforcement of the spirit of the judgment, inter alia, the authorities are required to pass orders with respect to only those areas, where there is absolute necessity of such restrictions to be imposed, after satisfying the directions passed earlier. 18. In this regard, our attention is drawn to the fact that blanket orders have been passed for the entire territory rather than for specific affected areas. 19. A perusal of the submissions made before us and the material placed on record indicate that the submissions of the Petitioners, in normal circumstances, merit consideration. However, the compelling circumstances of cross border terrorism in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, at present, cannot be ignored. 20. Additionally, although the Petitioners have argued that the orders passed by Respondent No. 1 reveals non−application of mind, however, at the cost of repetition, it must be noted that the authorities have been taking steps towards easing of internet restrictions taking into account the prevailing circumstances. This can be seen from the fact that initially only whitelisted websites were allowed, before internet access to all websites was provided on broadband, and finally to postpaid and verified prepaid mobile users as well, although at 2G speeds. Further, the various steps taken by Respondent No. 1 with respect to ensuring the fundamental rights of the people, in relation to the existing COVID− 19 pandemic, must also be taken into account. 21. During the course of the arguments, the Respondent No. 2− Union of India has submitted that continuous infiltration, foreign influence, violent extremism and issues of national integrity are prevalent in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which are serious issues. 22. In Anuradha Bhasin (supra), this Court has alluded to the fact that modern terrorism is being propagated through the internet and by using technology in the following manner: 39. Modern terrorism heavily relies on the internet. Operations on the internet do not require substantial expenditure and are not traceable easily. The internet is being used to support fallacious proxy wars by raising money, recruiting and spreading propaganda/ideologies. The prevalence of the internet provides an easy inroad to young impressionable minds. 23. At the same time, the Court is also cognizant of the concerns relating to the ongoing pandemic and the hardships that may be faced by the citizens. It may be noted that in the earlier judgment of Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/123992151/ 8