Answer:

Introduction:

The tension between maintenance of law and order and the protection of fundamental rights is a classic dilemma faced by governments worldwide. A democratic government must strike a careful balance between these two aspects to ensure the functioning of a just and equitable society. This becomes especially relevant in situations where there’s a perceived threat to public order or national security. Two key judgments by the Supreme Court of India, in the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India case and the Faheema Shirin R.K v. State of Kerala and others case, highlight this tension and bring forth pertinent issues around this balancing act.

Body:

Anuradha Bhasin case

• In the Anuradha Bhasin case (2020), the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of an indefinite Internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir in the light of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g), asserting the right to freedom of speech and expression and to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business over the Internet. 
• The court did not explicitly declare the internet as a fundamental right but emphasized that the freedom of speech and expression and the ability to practice any trade or business over the internet enjoys constitutional protection. 
• It underlined that while it is within the State’s powers to restrict these rights for maintaining public order, any such restriction must stand the test of proportionality.

Faheema Shirin case

• On the other hand, in the Faheema Shirin case (2019), the Kerala High Court recognized the right to access the Internet as part of the right to privacy and education under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• It criticized a hostel rule that restricted the use of mobile phones during specific hours, viewing it as an unreasonable intrusion. 
• This judgment was a clear instance where the court favored individual fundamental rights over administrative convenience.

The Indian Constitution provides every citizen the right to express his thoughts, opinions, and criticism freely under article 19(1)(a). However, this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions which the legislative body may impose. These restrictions are broadly described under Article 19(2).

While the judgments in both these cases tilted in favor of citizen’s rights, they also stressed that the maintenance of law and order is crucial for the overall welfare of the society. 

They recognized that certain reasonable restrictions can be imposed on fundamental rights under circumstances necessitating the maintenance of public order, national security, and unity, integrity and sovereignty of India.

Conclusion:

Both the Supreme Court judgments strive to strike a balance between maintaining law and order and upholding citizens’ fundamental rights. They indicate that while individual rights are paramount, they are not absolute and can be reasonably restricted for larger societal goals like public order and national security. However, a clear legislative framework is needed that outlines the nature and extent of such restrictions. These cases underline the crucial need for maintaining the delicate balance between state duties and individual rights in a constitutional democracy like India.