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 Bhasis v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court required that internet shutdown orders must be time-bound and subject to periodic review. This requirement primarily addresses which step of the proportionality test?
- Legitimate aim
- Rational connection
- Necessity (least restrictive alternative)
- Balancing of benefits versus harms
Answer: Necessity (least restrictive alternative)
Anuradha Bhasis (2020) time-bound restrictions and proportionality: (a) Context: Challenge to internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir following Article 370 abrogation; issue of balancing digital free speech with national security, (b) Proportionality test - necessity step: (i) No less restrictive alternative available: State must adopt least restrictive means to achieve legitimate aim, (ii) Time-bound restrictions: Indefinite shutdowns rarely least restrictive; time-bound measures with periodic review preferred, (iii) Periodic review: Ensures restrictions remain necessary, proportionate as circumstances evolve, (c) Applications: (i) J&K internet shutdown case: Court directed publication of orders, periodic review, time-bound restrictions, (ii) Digital governance: DPDP Act, 2023 requires data retention limits, periodic review of data processing as least restrictive means, (iii) Algorithmic accountability: Emerging jurisprudence requires periodic review of automated decision-making affecting rights, (d) Rationale: (i) Rights protection: Time-bound restrictions ensure core rights protected against unnecessary, indefinite intrusion, (ii) Democratic legitimacy: Enables state to pursue legitimate aims while minimizing impact on individual rights through temporal limits, (iii) Calibrated balancing: Necessity step ensures restrictions are truly necessary, not merely convenient for state, and remain necessary over time, (e) Illustrates sophisticated judicial review: Proportionality test enables courts to ensure state adopts least restrictive means, including temporal limits; protects rights while enabling legitimate state action through calibrated, necessary, time-bound restrictions.