Passage Based Questions: Legal Aptitude - 23 | Passage Based Questions for CLAT Preparation PDF Download

Direction: Each set of questions in this section is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the preceding passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purposes of this Section. In some instances, more than one option may be the answer to the question; in such a case, please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.
Shorn of its facts, the judgment, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India reads like a majestic charter of liberties. Its interpretation of the fundamental rights governing the freedom of speech, assembly, and movement is well-nigh perfect. The Court has read the limitations on these rights narrowly and has made it clear that any restrictions placed on the Internet, among other things, must meet a test of proportionality.
But the judicial review, properly understood, entails more than a mere declaration of the law; it involves the application of the law to facts. As a recent video report by the online magazine, Quint, shows us, after the resumption of train services between Srinagar and Banihal, on November 17 last year, people from the Kashmir Valley have had to travel no less than 110 km on what has now been dubbed the “Internet Express” to access a few minutes on the web.
The case arose out of the Union government’s decision to dilute Article 370 of the Constitution, through which the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) had experienced elements of administrative autonomy. Parallelly, the government imposed a series of restraints on the region. It not only issued orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inflicting grave restrictions on people’s movement, but it also imposed an indiscriminate shutdown of the Internet by invoking provisions of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 [Suspension Rules]. None of these orders was, however, made public.
In its opinion, written by Justice N.V. Ramana, the Supreme Court has unequivocally rejected the suggestions made by the state that it could keep the orders imposing the restrictions secret. The right to freedom of speech and expression, contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the Bench held, implicitly also includes a mandate to a right to information.

Issue of circumstances
For, in the judges’ belief, the right to freedom of speech and expression includes within its ambit the freedom to disseminate and receive information through any means possible, including through the Internet. Additionally, the Court also recognised that the Internet today is critical to the conduct of commerce. Therefore, any restriction on the web will necessarily impinge on the right under Article 19(1)(g), “to carry on any occupation, trade or business”.
Now, none of this means that no restrictions can ever be placed on the Internet. The real question is this: under what circumstances would a limitation made on accessing the web be constitutionally justifiable? In answering this question, the Court held that any restraint made on fundamental freedom must be necessary and proportionate to the goal that it seeks to achieve.
In its present form in India, as held in Anuradha Bhasin, the doctrine demands scrutiny at various levels. First, it requires the state to show the Court that the basic aim that the restriction seeks to achieve is legitimate; second, the state must demonstrate that it has chosen the “least restrictive” measure possible to achieve its purported objective; and third, the state must establish that there exists a rational nexus between the limitation imposed and its purported aim. Therefore, the basic nub of the test is to confirm that the government in pursuit of a legitimate aim has treated people’s fundamental rights with the greatest care and attention possible.
Moreover, there remains, it added, an “apprehension of likelihood raised in relation to the possibility of public order situations”. This being the case, the Court relegated the review back to the realm of the executive, by directing a committee constituted under the Suspension Rules to periodically examine the orders blocking access to the Internet.