Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) extends to the internet medium. Which restriction under Article 19(2) was MOST relevant to the Court's proportionality analysis of internet shutdowns?
- Decency or morality
- Sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State
- Contempt of court
- Defamation
Answer: Sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State
Anuradha Bhasin (2020) digital free speech and Article 19: (a) Context: Challenge to internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir following Article 370 abrogation; issue of balancing digital free speech with national security, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and profession (Article 19(1)(g)) extend to internet medium, (ii) Internet shutdown orders must be published for transparency and judicial review, (iii) Restrictions must satisfy proportionality test: legitimate aim, rational connection, least restrictive alternative, balancing of interests, (c) Most relevant Article 19(2) restriction: (i) Sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State: Primary justification for internet shutdowns in J&K context, (ii) Proportionality application: Court examined whether shutdowns were rationally connected to security aims, necessary, balanced, (iii) Other restrictions (decency, contempt, defamation) less relevant to blanket internet shutdowns, (d) Applications: (i) J&K internet shutdown case: Court directed publication of orders, periodic review, time-bound restrictions, (ii) Digital governance: DPDP Act, 2023 balances privacy with legitimate state/business needs, (iii) Algorithmic accountability: Emerging jurisprudence on AI bias, transparency in automated decision-making, (e) Rationale: (i) Democratic discourse: Digital free speech essential for democratic participation, accountability, (ii) National security: Legitimate state interest in preventing misuse of digital platforms for violence, terrorism, (iii) Calibrated restrictions: Proportionality ensures restrictions justified, not arbitrary; preserves democratic space while protecting legitimate state interests, (f) Illustrates adaptive constitutionalism: Applying enduring values (free speech, privacy) to emerging technological contexts through calibrated judicial review; proportionality ensures balanced response to complex digital governance challenges.