1.2.4. .

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the fundamental rights restricted have

firstly been according to procedure established by law [i], and secondly, the procedure

established by law is just, fair, and reasonable [ii].

1.2.4.1. There was a procedure established by law which has been followed

1. It is most humbly submitted that the significance and sweep of Article 21 make the

deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law

authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good

and State necessity.1 Before a person is deprived of his life and personal liberty, the

procedure established by law must be strictly followed, and must not be departed from

to the disadvantage of the person affected.2 Liberty of a person should not ordinarily

be interfered with unless there exist cogent grounds.3

2. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom

by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bifocal interests of justice to

the individual involved and society affected.4 The UK Supreme Court has held that

‘there is a need to maintain a fair balance between the general interest of the

community and the personal right of the individual.’ 5 All deprivation of liberty is

validated by social defence.

1
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240.
2
Bashira v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1968 SC 1313; Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral, AIR 1979
SC 420.
3
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., 2004 Cri LJ 2842.
4
Babu Singh v. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579.
5
Art. 19, The public's right to know principles on freedom of information legislation, (1999), available at
https: //www.art19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/righttoknow.pdf.
 3. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that there was a procedure

established by law in the instant case, and this established procedure was followed.

The restrictions imposed in the instant case is through Section 68b of the Information

Technology Act 2015. The Government of Thorland after getting satisfied with the

deteriorating condition of the state due to the violence imposed a ban on Internet and

social and communication platforms to control the violence in order to cut the spread

of all false and libellous information which were acting as an agent of the violence in

Thorland.

4. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the respondent had thoroughly

analyzed the social conditions prevailing at the time being and the risks and possible

casualties that have arisen and actions had to take at the correct time to stop the

further spread of the violence.

1.2.4.2. The procedure established by law was reasonable in nature

5. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in Kartar Singh v. the

State of Punjab,6 this Court held that procedure contemplated by Art. 21 is that it must

be "right, just and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. The expression

"procedure established by law" extends to both substantive as well as procedural law. 7

Art. 21 envisages a fair procedure.8 The liberty of a person should not ordinarily be

interfered with unless there exist cogent grounds, therefore.9

6. It is thus most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the instant

case, the State does not violate the fundamental rights of the people of Shikharabad

6
(1994) 3 SCC 569 (India).
7
MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUIONAL LAW 1128 (7th ed. 2016).
8
Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 (India).
9
Ibid.
 bypassing the Lockdown Regulation. In the landmark case of Indrajit Barua v. State

of Assam,10 when the ADAA, 1955 (Assam Act) and the AFSPA, 1958 (Central Act)

were challenged because they condoned abuse of State powers, the Delhi High Court

while upholding both the Acts also held, that what is just fair and reasonable

procedure established by reasonable law as opposed to the procedure which can be

called arbitrary or discriminatory is a question to be answered in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

7. Moreover, a law is regarded as wholesome and beneficial if it ensures the liberty of a

more significant number of the members of the society at the cost of a few. 11 If, to

save a large number of lives from the violence and protect the public order, certain

restrictions are imposed on the internet and related platforms, then it is reasonable in

nature.

8. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is the duty of the

State to preserve law and order. 12 The term ‘public order’ and ‘public interest’ are not

vague.13 It is the State's duty to see that the rule of law enunciated by Art. 21 is

available to the most significant number

9. In the instant case, since the State has constitutional duties to uphold the multitude of

rights of its citizens, maintain public law and order, and work in the greater social

interest, the procedure established by law in the instant case is just, fair and fair

reasonable under Art. 21 of the Constitution of Staple.

10
AIR 1983 Del 513 (India).
11
Ibid.
12
Indrajit Barua v. Assam, AIR 1983 Del 513 (India).
13
MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUIONAL LAW 1130 (7th ed. 2016).