Internet access was also at the heart of the Occupy movement. A collective of journalists involved in the movement, referring to internet access, said: “Access to open communication platforms is crucial for the evolution and survival of the human species.” [27] These are a few Supreme Court decisions that support the social-democratic theory of freedom of expression. Unregulated markets offer no protection against monopoly and concentration of resources. The market is an instrument and not an end in itself, which is used to bring a diversity of ideas and opinions into the public through intrusive regulations. So if in the future the state chooses to regulate the market and take anti-monopoly measures to ensure better access to the Internet for the masses, rather than concentrate in the hands of a few, it can do so. 3. We reaffirm the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interdependence of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, as enshrined in the Vienna Declaration. We also reaffirm that democracy, sustainable development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as good governance at all levels, are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. We also resolve to strengthen the rule of law in national international affairs. According to the more substantial view of the social-democratic theory of freedom of expression, the right to the Internet must be explicitly recognized by the state. In addition to recognizing the law, there is an urgent need for the state to intervene and regulate the market and set policies regarding meaningful access to the Internet. The state`s generosity in improving the conditions of internet access also depends on whether the state chooses to introduce a number of systems and programmes in this regard, such as Digital India and others, or whether it chooses to regulate the data connectivity market and transfer the obligation to non-state actors (which in turn will be challenged under Article 19, paragraph 1(g). could).
The meaningful exercise of the right to freedom of expression through the Internet invariably and inseparably depends on access to the available infrastructure. Infrastructure, in turn, depends on social and economic factors such as the distribution of resources; the policy of the State and its intervention in the way resources are regulated. Any restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to engage in a profession or to engage in employment, commerce or business through the Internet, if imposed by the State in accordance with article 19, must meet the proportionality test set out in K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India que: The issue of Internet access in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India or the positive aspect of the right to the Internet was left open to an appropriate decision by the court, since the relevant pleadings were not made. This brings us to the question of whether and how the right of access to the Internet within our legal framework can be determined by judicial intervention in the future. The Universal Service Directive (2002), legislation on universal telecommunications in the EU, revised in 2009, extends access to the public communications network to “functional access to the Internet”, subject to prevailing technologies and its feasibility. In his report to the OSCE on Internet access as a fundamental human right, Professor Yaman Akdenian notes that the right to freedom of expression must be universal, including the technology that enables it. Restrictions on this right and on all media necessary to comply with this right should only be allowed if they are in line with international standards and realign the public interest. In addition, the author noted that new emerging technologies in support of freedom of expression will require new approaches. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the rules on the use of non-digital media also apply to digital media. In addition, the document submitted to the OSCE also noted that additional measures should be taken to ensure that vulnerable groups such as children have access to the Internet and literacy programmes.
[20] “The power conferred by section 144,” the Court held, “cannot be used to suppress legitimate expressions of opinion or complaints or the exercise of democratic rights,” the decision states. It protected the right to use the Internet as a means of realizing our fundamental rights, in particular freedom of speech and expression, as well as freedom of trade and commerce. The recent expansion allows the constitutional provision to keep pace with technological innovation. .