18 S.C. 128\02 In my view this concession is properly made and finds support in other jurisdictions. For instance in the case of Athukorale and Ors v Attorney-General of Sri Lanka15 the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka held that:- “having regard to the limited availability of broadcasting frequencies, the regulation of broadcasting was necessary to ensure the adequate coverage of issues and to prevent the monopolistic domination of the frequency spectrum by the government or by a few individuals. On that basis regulation did not violate the right to freedom of speech but rather advanced it by serving the interest of the whole community and giving listeners and viewers the opportunity to consider a range of views. However, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights of freedom of thought and expression the regulatory body had to be independent of the government. …” It is also apparent from the same judgment that regulation, particularly the need for licensing was necessary for the maintenance of law and order. In this regard the court had this to say:- “Article 14 of the Constitution deals with those great and basic rights which are recognised and guaranteed as the natural rights inherent in the status of a citizen of a free country. Freedom of speech … goes to the heart of the natural right of an organised freedom-loving society to impart and acquire information … This freedom is not absolute. There is no such thing as absolute or unrestricted freedom of speech and expression, wholly free from restraint’ for that would amount to uncontrolled licence which would lead to disorder and anarchy. Absolute and unrestricted individual rights do not and cannot exist in a modern State. The welfare of the individual, as a member of collective society, lies in a happy compromise between his rights as an individual and the interests of the society to which he belongs … Our Constitution has rightly struck a proper balance between the varying competing social interests, and has … set forth the restrictions to which the fundamental right of speech and expression may be subject …” (underlining is mine) The Court went further in stating the necessity to licence and stated:- 15 (1997) 2 BHRC 610