    case, the Israeli Supreme Court held that such acts were unconstitutional, and could not be justified in light of the freedoms and liberties afforded to the citizens of Israel. Learned senior counsel drew parallels between the situation faced by the Israeli Supreme Court in the abovementioned case, and that before this Court, wherein, according to the learned senior counsel, the State is attempting to justify the restrictions due to the circumstances prevailing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The learned senior counsel submitted that such a justification merits rejection as it would amount to granting too much power to the State to impose broad restrictions on fundamental rights in varied situations. It would amount to individual liberty being subsumed by social control. The learned senior counsel emphasized on the seriousness of the present matter, stating that such restrictions on the fundamental rights is the reason for the placement of Article 32 of the Constitution in Part III, as a fundamental right which allows for the enforcement of the other fundamental rights. He referred to the Constituent Assembly debates to highlight the import of Article 32, as contemplated by the Members of the Constituent Assembly. The learned senior counsel also placed before this Court the Government of India National Telecom Policy, 2012, and submitted that the wide restrictions imposed by the State are in contravention of the aforementioned policy. He submitted that the freedom of speech and expression is meant to allow people to discuss the burning topic of the day, including the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. Lastly, the learned senior counsel emphasized that the restrictions that were imposed are meant to be temporary in nature, have lasted for more than 100 days, which fact should be taken into account by this Court while deciding the matter. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Counsel for the Intervenor in I.A. No. 140276 in W.P. (C) No. 1031 of 2019 13