Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the News Broadcast and Digital Association, argued that the amendment did not pass the test of constitutionality due to absence of definitions of phrases.
“Rule 3(1)(b)(v) has to be quashed as the government has not defined what is business of government,” he argued.
He added that the new Rules introduced through the amendment could not be provided even by Parliament.
“In the present case, not a single test is satisfied on proportionality. Can any democracy, that it is a legitimate state aim that they will decide what people should know? What is the rationale connection?” Datar asked.
Source: Barandbench
