It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the circular of TRAI is not violative of freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1) (a) in The Constitution of India 1949 define freedom of speech and expression as:
(1) All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression;
The freedom of speech and expression means the right to express one’s conviction and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. Freedom of speech is the bulwark of a democratic government and it attaches great importance to this freedom.
Explaining the scope of freedom of speech and expression Supreme Court has said that the words "freedom of speech and expression" must be broadly constructed to include the freedom
Similar views were expressed, while upholding that “right to know is implicit in right of free speech and expression, and disclosure of information regarding functioning of the Government must be the rule.”
Further in Secretary, Ministry of I&B, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal , the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition that the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to acquire information and to disseminate the same.
In the instant case, the circular issued by the TRAI is not violative of freedom of speech and expression, as the differential throttling and congestion is in the larger interest of the public. Traffic management provides a number of benefits to end users in terms of improved performance, innovation, protection, reduced cost and efficiency. Traffic management enables TSPs to maintain and improve the quality of service provided to end users.
In the light of arguments presented above, it is contended that in the instant case, it can be inferred that TRAI has neither violated the right to disseminate information of Back Reel nor has it interfered in circulating of Back Reel’s opinion. The circular of TRAI has not favoured or discriminated any particular party. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the circular is violative of freedom of speech does not hold to be