NEW DELHI: The Centre and the Jammu and Kashmir administration emerged without damage for imposing curbs on movement, telecom and internet services in J&K since August 5 as the Supreme Court focused on laying down a mechanism to curb future misuse of such power even as the it directed immediate review of all internet suspension orders and publication of all prohibitory orders under Section 144 to enable aggrieved persons to challenge these in appropriate fora.For future, a bench of Justices N V Ramana, B Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai crystallised a 'doctrine of proportionality' and asked the authorities to scrupulously follow it to desist from imposing restrictions disproportionate to that needed to meet an emergent situation.Quoting eminent constitutional jurist Kai Moller, who had said that proportionality principle was the doctrinal tool which guided judges through the process of resolving conflicts, Justice Ramana said, "Fundamental rights may not be absolute, howsoever, they require strong protection, thereby mandating sensible necessity test as the same will render the fundamental right to be either absolute or to be diminished."Writing the judgment for the bench, he said, "The degree of restriction and the scope of the same (both territorially and temporally) must stand in relation to what is actually necessary to combat an emergent situation. To consider the immediate impact of restrictions upon the realisation of fundamental rights, the decision-maker must prioritise the various factors at stake."Such attribution of relative importance is what constitutes proportionality. It ought to be noted that a decision which curtails fundamental rights without appropriate justification will be classified as disproportionate. The concept of proportionality requires a restriction to be tailored in accordance with territorial extent of the restriction, the stage of emergency, nature of urgency, duration of such restrictive measure and nature of such restriction. The triangulation of a restriction should consider appropriateness and necessity and least restrictive measure before a restriction is imposed."Any lawful order restricting or negating the fundamental rights of citizens "should be supported by sufficient material" and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny, the SC said.On orders suspending internet services, the bench said, "The state must assess the existence of an alternative, less intrusive remedy. Any order suspending internet services, under the suspension rules, must adhere to the principle of proportionality and must not extend beyond necessary duration."Taking into account the hardship faced by the general public, businessmen, professionals and patients because of internet shutdown, the SC said, "In any case, the state/concerned authorities are directed to consider forthwith allowing government websites, localised/limited e-banking facilities, hospitals services and other essential services in those regions where internet services are not likely to be restored immediately."It pointed to gaps in the Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017, like the absence of a provision for periodic review of orders suspending internet services or time limit on such suspensions, and said these needed to be considered by the legislature.On passing of prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code, the SC said, "These should be indicative of proper application of mind, which would be based on material facts and the remedy directed... Orders passed mechanically or in cryptic manner cannot be said to be orders passed in accordance with law."It added, "One of the important criteria to test the reasonableness of such a measure is to see if the aggrieved person has the right to make a representation against such a restriction." This is the reason why it directed notification of all prohibitory orders as well as orders directing suspension of internet and telecom services in Jammu and Kashmir.