risk becoming obsolete or ineffective in addressing new challenges. However, this does not mean laws should be loosely framed. Instead, governments should establish a structured evaluation process, conducting periodic reviews to assess the effectiveness of laws, regulations, and policies. This approach helps identify gaps, mitigate unintended consequences, and refine governance strategies, ensuring that digital regulations remain both forward-looking and adaptable. In exploring alternative digital rights interventions that incorporate these principles, we highlight three proven local approaches to accountability. Judicial activism serves as a crucial check on state overreach, scrutinizing excessive government control and shaping policies through legal precedents. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the court assessed the legality of internet shutdown orders under various domestic laws, emphasizing that government-imposed restrictions on internet access must be temporary, limited, lawful, necessary, and proportionate (Mahmood, 2023). Currently, Indian courts are assessing the legality of the traceability provision in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which has been challenged by WhatsApp and its parent company, Meta. This provision would require platforms to weaken encryption, effectively enabling state surveillance. In Pakistan, multiple legal challenges against expanding digital restrictions remain pending before the courts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan is currently hearing an appeal concerning a provision widely criticized for enabling state censorship. Additionally, high courts are handling cases on social media regulations, the ban on X (formerly Twitter), internet disruptions, unauthorized surveillance, and the implementation of a national firewall. However, judicial independence in Pakistan is steadily eroding, with a recent constitutional amendment marking a significant shift (International Commission of Jurists, 2024). This amendment introduced an extraordinary level of political influence over the judicial appointment process, which threatens to undermine the judiciary’s impartiality and its ability to effectively check state overreach. Thus, while judicial activism can serve as a powerful tool against state overreach, its effectiveness is not absolute. Courts operate within political constraints and are shaped by broader institutional dynamics. A judiciary that lacks independence may fail to function as a meaningful check on executive authority. Nevertheless, even under such constraints, the judicial process remains a crucial avenue for contesting digital restrictions, offering a platform for legal 26