TEAM CODE: TN 406

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BROOMLAND

IN THE PROCEEDING BETWEEN

LADY UNNAMED & NEUTRAL SINDHIA .…PETITIONER(s)
V.
FUNBOOK PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS .…RESPONDENT(s)

WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO(s)_____/2019

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BROOMLAND

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF SINDHIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER(s)

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER(s)

[Company name]  [Company address]

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

CONTENTS

LIST OF AABBREVATIONS………………………………………………………………… 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………….5
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…….………………………………………………………………..8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………………9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………………...10
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF BROOMLAND?…………………………..………………………10

1.1 This Hon'ble Court has a constitutional duty to entertain the instant petition………10
1.2 Writ petition is maintainable when there is infringement of fundamental rights……11
1.3 The writ is independent of the existing alternative remedies………………………..11

2. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF BROOMLAND?……………………………..……………………13

2.1 Power of Government to issue direction for decryption of any information………..13

2.2 There has been violation of Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the constitution.14
2.3 To curb spreading of hate speech and blasphemous contents which trigger riots and
violence in the country……………………………………………………………….16

3. WHETHER THE REGULATION OF THE CONTENTS OF FUNBOOK AND

CHATON WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
OF THE CITIZEN OF SINDHIA?………….………………………………………….18
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………....20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 1

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

LIST OF AABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Report

Anr. Another

Govt. Government

Ors. Others

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. That is

Ltd. Limited

S.C. Supreme Court

S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports

U.O.I. Union of India

v. Versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 2

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

Art. Article

IT Information Technology

DIT Department of Information Technology

All. Allahabad

T.N. Tamil Nadu

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

U.O.I. Union of India

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 3

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Information Technology Act, 2000

CASES

1. Haryana State Industrial Corporation v. Cork Mfg. Co. A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 56
2. UdaiBhan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors A.I.R. 1974 All. 202
3. Haji Suleman Yusuf Bhat v Custodian of Evacuee Property A.I.R. 1954 Madh. B 173
4. Shivram Poddar v. ITO A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 10
5. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998)8 S.C.C. 1 (11)
6. The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors v. Mrs. Chandrima Das &Ors. (2000)2 S.C.C. 465
7. Himmatlal v. State of M.P. (1954) S.C.R. 1122
8. R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N (1994)6 S.C.C. 632
9. PUCL v. U.O.I. A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 568
10. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. 1963 A.I.R. 1295
11. Maneka Gandhi v U.O.I. A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Mahendra Pal Singh, V N Shukla’s Constitution of India (13th edition 2019)

2. Add more Books

LEGAL DATABASES

1. Case Mine
2. Indian Kanoon
3. SCC Online
4. Manupatra
5. westlaw
6. lexis NexisAIR

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 4

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Broomland has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Sindhia, 19501.

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part
III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government
or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is
made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;
and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such
order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel
1
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part
III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government
or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is
made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;
and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such
order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel
of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it
is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High
Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as
the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme court by clause (2) of Article 32

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 5

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it
is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High
Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as
the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme court by clause (2) of Article 32

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 6

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

Statement of Facts

1.Put the facts under different heads like introduction,

2.The country of Republic of Sindhia, having diversity of religions of which Sindhuism
(approximately 84%) is majority religion following Sindhian culture and history and entwined
with the concept of its nationalism.
3.Sindhia is a secular and democratic nation. But due to difference in the culture of Sindhuism
and Jeruslam (which is largest minority religion approximately 12% of the total population) create
several conflicts which have led to massive riot and mass-violence in the past across Sindhia.
4.Sindhia has started digital revolution, as a result of which number of users of internet and social
media have increased exponentially. However social media platforms are being misused by
politically motivated and rightwing groups, having started spreading hate speech and
blasphemous contents to instigate/trigger riots and violence between the Sindhus and Jeruslam.
5.A migrant worker named Frazil of Jeruslam was hacked to death in the state of Broomland (a
territory of Sindhia) with a meat cleaver and his body was then burnt at the scene of crime
6.Videotape of entire attack of Frazil was uploaded on a popular social media platform in Sindhia
called “Funbook” owned by “Funbook Private Limited” along with a sermon against the Jeruslam
captioning it “Go to Jerustan” and “Jhanda Ucha Rahe” (flag should fly high) [video 1]. Also this
video became viral on Funbook own messaging application called “ChatOn” which used end-to-
end encryption technique to transmit messaging
7.Despite repeated petition and complaints being made by the citizen of Sindhia to the Ministry of
Home Affairs of Sindhia to curb the spread of the hate videos, the said Ministry took no
cognizance of the matter. The government of Sindhia blamed the end-to-end encryption
technology used by ChatOn and said that because of this technology they are unable to trace the
origin of the dissemination of Video 1 and thus, they cannot take action against the perpetrator.
Further, the Government accused Funbook of refusing to co-operate with them and provide them
with data regarding the spreading of Video 1 through ChatOn and Funbook on the grounds that
the privacy of their users was of utmost importance to them. Funbook further contended that they
would not breach the trust of their users by decrypting the materials shared on its platform as the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 7

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

USP of Funbook and ChatOn was their end-to-end encryption technology that guaranteed the
privacy of contents shared by users.
8.ChatOn and Funbook revised the user policy where under 50 or more user complain about the
content of any post uploaded or shared on such social media, the same will be immediately
removed also ensured that any video which has graphic content was blurred and an express
consent from the user is taken before such video is played.
9.Post this incident, a video of a Sindhu women being raped by a group of man wearing religious
Jeruslam lockets went viral on Funbook and ChatOn (video 2) with “Sindhia belongs to Jerustan”
this created riots and violence in the state of Broomland.
10.Lady unnamed and Neutral Sindhia (the “Petitioners”) made a written request to the Grievance
officer of Funbook stating that the said videos should be urgently taken down and any further
parts pertaining to the same should be automatically blocked. Also, that the user account posting
the same should be deactivated as this fall under the category of hate speech and violate the right
of privacy of lady unnamed. However, despite repeated request from the petitioners Funbook
declined to take down the said videos and related contents because as per Funbook policy 50
people had to complain for Funbook to take down any content from its platform. Also provided
documentary evidence of the fact that they have complied with all the legal requirements under
the Information Technology Act 2000 and have processed her complaint.
11.“Department of Information Technology”, State of Broomland (DIT) refused to entertain the
request of the Petitioners to blacklist Funbook and ChatOn on the ground that it did not have
enough information, however issued a show caused notice to Funbook demanding detailed report
of the incident.
12. DIT said that any form of the regulation of the contents of the Funbook and ChatOn without
reasonable justification would tantamount to violation of freedom of speech of the citizen of
Sindhia.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 8

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The petitioner has placed before this Hon’ble High Court the following issues for
consideration:

Issue 1

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY UNNAMED LADY & NEUTRAL

SINDHIA IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BROOMLAND IS MAINTAINABLE?

Issue 2

WHETHER DECRYPTING THE MATERIALS ON PLATFORM SUCH AS FUNBOOK

AND CHATON WOULD AMOUNT TO BREACH OF TRUST OF ITS USER?

Issue 3

WHETHER THE REGULATION OF THE CONTENTS OF FUNBOOK AND CHATON

WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF THE
CITIZEN OF SINDHIA?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 9

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

Summary of Arguments

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF BROOMLAND IS MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. Firstly, there
is a Constitutional obligation on the Court to protect fundamental rights. Secondly, fundamental
rights were infringed under Article 14, and 21 and therefore the writ will be maintainable on this
regard. Thirdly, the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy by filing suit in civil court
would not oust the petitioner from filing the writ petition as fundamental rights have been
infringed.

2. WHETHER DECRYPTING THE MATERIALS ON PLATFORM SUCH AS

FUNBOOK AND CHATON WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO BREACH OF TRUST OF ITS
USER?
It is humbly submitted before this Honorable Court that the user’s Fundamental rights given
under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution i.e., freedom of speech and expression shall not amount
to infringe as the provision mentioned under section 69(1) of the IT, Act 2000 allows the
government in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, defence, security, friendly relations with
foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable
offence for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate
Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted
any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource. Further,
unable to trace the origin of dissemination of videos and fail to take down the Videos
immediately would violate the article 21 i.e., protection of life and personal liberty of Lady
Unnamed. To curb spreading of hate speech and blasphemous contents which trigger riots and
violence in the country.

3. WHETHER REGULATION OF THE CONTENTS OF FUNBOOK AND CHATON

WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF THE
CITIZEN OF SINDHIA?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 10

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

The regulations of the contents of Funbook and ChatOn would not amount to violation of
Freedom of Speech but the regulations of Funbook and ChatOn have indirectly given rise to
religious riots by not removing the said videos.

Advance Arguments

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF BROOMLAND?
The writ petition filed by the Petitioner is maintainable,
1.1 As this Hon'ble Court has a constitutional duty to entertain the instant petition
1.2 Further, there is infringement of fundamental rights
1.3 It is independent of any alternative remedy
spacing must be 1.5
1.1 This Hon'ble Court has a constitutional duty to entertain the instant petition
The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts
and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. 2 In the case of
Haryana State Industrial Corporation v. Cork Mfg. Co.3 the Hon’ble Court held that, “the
jurisdiction conferred under Art. 226 on the High Court are corrective one and not a restrictive
one.” In the case of UdaiBhan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors 4 it was well settled that, “Article 226
confers a discretionary power on the High Courts to make or issue appropriate orders and writs
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other
purpose” .It has been held in plethora of cases that when the question of law of general public
importance arises, the jurisdiction of High Court can be invoked. In the present case, the issue
involves matter of General Public Importance and hence, entitled to be maintainable.
The petitioner is a citizen of Sindhia, which confers them a legal personality within the
jurisdiction of state. According to Haji Suleman Yusuf Bhat v Custodian of Evacuee Property 5
case the Hon’ble judge held that,

2
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (Nagpur: LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Vol. 6, 8th ed., 2012) p. 6719
3
A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 56
4
A.I.R. 1974 All. 202
5
A.I.R. 1954 Madh. B 173

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 11

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

“whenever there is infringement of a fundamental right, no question of delay arises for

consideration.” Article 226 does not describe the persons who are entitled to enforce the
fundamental right by filing a writ petition before the High Court. So, in the absence of
any such guide, the court might apply the English certiorari concept of "person
aggrieved".
(Emphasis Supplied)
Additionally, Our Preamble to the Constitution says that ‘WE THE PEOPLE OF
INDIA…..GIVEOURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION’, which signifies that the Constitution is
for the people, by the people and of the people and therefore the call and cry of the people is to
be heard much widely and much more emphatically by all the three organs of the State viz.
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. And when the Legislature and Executive fails in its actions
and downplays its part then it is the duty of the Judiciary to rise to the occasion and play its part
to give due justice to the aggrieved persons.
Thus, Aany person whose fundamental rights have been infracted will be at liberty to move to
the Court. In the present case too, Tthe fundamental rights of the Petitioner have been violated
under Art. 14 & Art. 21 and is the “person aggrieved” in the instant. Also, under the legal maxim
‘audi alterem partem’ the Hon’ble High Court has the jurisdiction of hearing and deciding this
matter as it concerns the issue of violation of fundamental rights. Consequently, it is submitted
that a refusal to entertain the instant petition would be inconsistent with the aforesaid obligation.
Hence, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court of Broomland that the matter
involves substantial question of law and hence entitled to be maintainable.

1.2 Writ petition is maintainable when there is infringement of fundamental rights

It is humbly submitted that the petitioner is entitled to relief because, the infringement of
fundamental rights, as conferred by the provisions of Part III of the Constitution, is involved in
this application. Hence a writ petition can be filed with respect to such infringement. As the
Government of Sindhia failed to take action against the perpetrator and took no cognizance on
the complaint made by the citizen of Sindhia, to curb the spread of hate videos. This violated the
right of privacy of Lady Unnamed as enshrined by the constitution under Article 21.
Further Government of Sindhia has acted arbitrarily by neglecting the right of Lady Unnamed
and given priority to the platforms run by intermediaries, and thus there has been violation of
right as enshrined by the Constitution under Article 14.

1.3 The writ is independent of the existing alternative remedies

According to the judgment held in the case of Shivram Poddar v. ITO 6, “the existence of an
alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar on the writ court.” “It is a process that the

6
A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 10

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 12

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

court chooses to opt out of convenience and discretion.”7 In the case of Whirlpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trade Marks8, the Hon’ble Court held that, “under special circumstances the High
Court may grant writ remedies to a Petitioner even with the existence of an alternative remedy.”
In the case of The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors v. Mrs. Chandrima Das &Ors. 9, the Hon’ble
Court held that, “where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation
of Fundamental Rights or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would still be available
under the Public Law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under Private Law.”
In another case of Himmatlal v. State of M.P.10 the Hon’ble Court held that, “the existence of an
alternative remedy is no ground for refusing writ, where there has been a contravention of
fundamental right.”
(keep in the compendium a recent judgment if possible)

7
JUSTICE B L HANSARIA’S, WRIT JURSIDICTION (3 ed. 2005)
8
(1998)8 S.C.C. 1 (11)
9
(2000)2 S.C.C. 465
10
(1954) S.C.R. 1122

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 13

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

2. WHETHER DECRYPTING THE MATERIALS ON PLATFORM SUCH AS

FUNBOOK AND CHATON WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO BREACH THE TRUST OF
ITS USER?
put it in paragraph with one or two introduction line.
2.1 Government has power to issue direction for decryption of any information under Section 69
of Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.
2.2 There has been violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the constitution.
2.3 To curb spreading of hate speech and blasphemous contents which trigger riots and violence
in the country

2.1 Power of Government to issue direction for decryption of any information

“Decryption”11 means the process of conversion of information in non-intelligible form to an
intelligible form via a mathematical formula, code, password or algorithm or a combination
thereof. Government of Sindhia (Respondent 2) had a wide ambit under section 69(1) of
Information Technology Act, 2000 to curb the spread of the video 1 & 2 respectively and must
take cognizance against the perpetrator. Despite repeated petition and complaints the
Government of Sindhia was inefficient in protecting the Fundamental Rights of the aggrieved
person.
Section 69(1) of Information Technology Act 2000 reads as:
“ Power to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any
information through any computer resource.–(1) Where the Central Government or a
State Government or any of its officers specially authorized by the Central Government
or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is
necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India,
defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public
order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating
to above or for investigation of any offence, it may subject to the provisions of sub-
section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the
appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or
monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in
any computer resource.”
(For Ready Reference)

11
Section 2(f) of G.S.R. 780 (E).— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (y) of sub-section (2) of section 87, read with sub-section (2) of
section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 14

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

Section 69(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Rule 412 of the Information
Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of
Information) Rules, 2009, which enables government agencies to intercept personal information
of citizens under certain conditions.
Government of Sindhia shall direct ‘rRespondent 1’ under section 69(3) of the IT Act, 2000 that:
The subscriber or intermediary or any person in-charge of the computer resource shall, when
called upon by any agency referred to in sub-section (1), extend all facilities and technical
assistance to– (a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource generating,
transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or (b) intercept, monitor, or decrypt the
information, as the case may be; or (c) provide information stored in computer resource. Also if
it fails to assist the agency as referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with imprisonment
for the term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine 69(4).
Department of Information Technology of Broomland ‘Respondent 2’ fails to act upon the plea
of Petitioners for blocking for public access of videos. Section 69A of the said act provides the
power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer
resource.–
(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officers especially authorized by it in this behalf
is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of
India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order
or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it
may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order,
direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause
to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or
hosted in any computer resource.
(2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be
carried out shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be
punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to
fine.
2.2 There has been violation of Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the constitution
The Preamble of the Constitution says that “assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity
and integrity of the Nation” which signifies that privacy of the citizens is utmost important and it
is obligatory duty of the State to provide safeguard related to the privacy of citizens.
Privacy is a very wide term denoting confidentiality for information relating to oneself and his
family and this has been recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be an integral part of “right
to life and personal liberty” granted under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. However the

12
The competent authority may authorize an agency of the Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt information generated, transmitted
received or stored in any computer resource for the purpose specified in sub-section (1) of section 69 of the Act.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 15

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

definition of “privacy” as provided in Information Technology Act, 2000 is very narrow. The use
of word privacy in the rules is very ambiguous in relation with as to what exactly would be
covered under the term 'privacy'.
As per Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 the term privacy has been
restricted to the images of private areas of a person.
66E13 Punishment for violation of privacy: Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures,
publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under
circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.
The right to privacy is recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution. It is guaranteed
under the right to life (Article 21) of the Constitution. Article 21 of the Constitution
provides, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law." Courts have interpreted the right to privacy as implicit in the right
to life. In R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N14 and PUCL v. U.O.I.15 the courts observed that the right
to privacy is an essential ingredient of the right to life.
But, if we look at Article 21 of the Constitution of India as interpreted In R. Rajagopal v State of
Tamil Nadu16 popularly known as “Auto Shanker case”, the Supreme Court has expressly held“
the “right to privacy”, or the right to be let alone is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
A citizen has a right to safeguard that privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation,
motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything
concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether
laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right of the person concerned and
would be liable in action for damages. However, position might differ if he voluntarily puts into
controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.”
In PUCL v. UOI17, which is popularly known as the wire-tapping case, the question before the
court was whether wire-tapping was an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy. The court
held that an infringement on the right to privacy would depend on the facts and circumstances of
a case. It observed that, "telephone conversation is an important facet of a man's private life.
Right to privacy would certainly include telephone-conversation in the privacy of one's home or

13
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section– (a) “transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the
intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; (b) “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape,
photograph, film or record by any means; (c) “private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic
area, buttocks or female breast; (d) “publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it
available for public; (e) “under circumstances violating privacy” means circumstances in which a person can have a
reasonable expectation that–(i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his
private area was being captured; or(ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public,
regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
14
(1994)6 S.C.C. 632
15
A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 568
16
Cit. 14.
17
Cit. 15.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 16

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is
permitted under the procedure established by law." It further observed that the right to privacy
also derives from Article 19 for "when a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising his right
to freedom of speech and expression."
In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.18, where police surveillance was being challenged on account of
violation of the right to privacy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that domiciliary night
visits were violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the personal liberty of an
individual.
The court, therefore, has interpreted the right to privacy not as an absolute right, but as a limited
right to be considered on a case to case basis. It is the exceptions to the right to privacy, like
‘public interest’, that are of particular interest to this paper.
The object of Article 21 is to prevent encroachments upon personal liberty by the Executive save
in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof. Prior to the decision in
1978 in Maneka Gandhi v U.O.I. case, 19Article 21 was construed narrowly only as a guarantee
against Executive action unsupported by law 20. But Maneka Gandhi’s case opened up a new
dimension and laid down that it imposed a limitation upon law-making as well 21, that while
prescribing  procedure for depriving a person of his life (including livelihood) or personal liberty
it must prescribe a procedure which is reasonable, fair and just22.
connect the cases with the facts of the case
2.3 To curb spreading of hate speech and blasphemous contents which trigger riots and
violence in the country
Due to digital revolution these social media platforms are being misused by politically motivated
and rightwing groups, spreading hate speech and blasphemous contents which trigger riots and
violence in the country Sindhia. In order to curb violence and riots in the country Government
need to intervene and direct these social media platforms to co-operate with them and provide
them with data regarding the spreading of videos through there platforms.
The term Blasphemous has not been defined under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The
closest definition that we can refer to is from Indian Penal Code under Section 295 (A) and that
is -295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by
insulting its religion or religious beliefs. — Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of
outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or
written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the
religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.

18
1963 A.I.R. 1295
19
A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597
20
1950 S.C.R. 88
21
(1981)1 S.C.C. 608
22
Cit. 21.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 17

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

Also referring section 153A of IPC which prohibits promoting enmity between different groups
on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial
to maintenance of harmony.(1) Whoever
(a) By words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise,
promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place or birth, residence,
language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes
or communities, or
(b) Commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different
religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is
likely to disturb the public tranquility, 2[or]
(c) Organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the
participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence of knowing it
to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or
violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or
violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to
use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste
or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or
alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional
group or caste or community,
Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Conclude the issue

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 18

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

3. WHETHER THE REGULATION OF THE CONTENTS OF FUNBOOK AND

CHATON WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF
THE CITIZEN OF SINDHIA?
The freedom of speech and expression is enshrined under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution and
it does not confer on the citizens the right to speak or publish without responsibility. It is not an
unbraided license giving immunity to every possible use of language and prevents punishment
for those who abuse this freedom. Article 19(3) of the ICCPR23 imposes restriction on the
following grounds:
(a) For respect of the rights of reputations of others.
(b) For protection of national security, or public order, or public health or morals.
As per Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the legislature may enact laws to impose restrictions 24
on the right to speech and expression on the following grounds:
(a) Sovereignty and integrity
(b) Security of State
(c) Friendly relations with foreign States
(d) Public order
(e) Decency of morality
(f) Contempt of court
(g) Defamation
(h) Incitement of an offence
Reasonable restriction under these heads can be imposed only by a duly enacted law and not by
executive action.25
Although there is no specific legislation which deals with social media, there are several
provisions in the existing so-called cyber laws which can be used to seek redress in case of
violation of any rights in the cyber space, internet and social media. The legislations and the
relevant provisions are specifically enumerated as under Information Technology Act, 2000
Chapter XI of the Act, Sections 65, 66, 66A, 66C, 66D, 66E, 66F, 67, 67A and 67B contain
punishments for computer related offences which can also be committed through social media
viz. tampering with computer source code, committing computer related offences given under
Section 43, sending offensive messages through communication services, identity theft, cheating
by person using computer resource, violation of privacy, cyber terrorism, publishing or
transmitting obscene material in electronic form, material containing sexually explicit act in
electronic form, material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic form,
respectively.
23
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General
Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
24
A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 305, 313.
25
(1986)1 S.C.C. 133

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 19

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

Funbook Private Limited had not co-operated with the Government by providing data regarding
the spreading of Video 1 through ChatOn and Funbook on the grounds that the privacy of the
users was utmost important to them. This action of respondent 1 violate section 69A which grant
power to the Central Government to issue directions to block public access of any information
through any computer resource on similar grounds.
“(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorised by it in
this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of
sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the
commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions
of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of
the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked
for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or
hosted in any computer resource. (2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which
such blocking for access by the public may be carried out, shall be such as may be
prescribed. (3) the intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-
section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years and also be liable to fine”

1. every para needs to be 7 lines max

2. footnotes needs to be according to the citation method mentioned in the rules
3. facts are not cited, and also more facts needs to be used to connect the laws used
4. every issue must have a conclusion para
5. check whether speaking notes is allowed
6. also the entire memorial is single line spaced kindly check what is the line spacing
required

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 20

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to declare
that:
1. The said videos contain content which are not appropriate and should be immediately
removed from the said social media platforms.
2. There has been violation of Right to Privacy of the Lady Unnamed and so she should be
paid compensation.
3. There has been negligence on the part of rRespondent no. 1 in not removing the videos
and so it should be held liable for the losses incurred to the lady unnamed.
Pass any other order/orders that may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience. (not necessary to put in a point)
And for this act of kindness the petitioner as is duty bound shall forever pray.
Sd-
Respectfully Submitted
Counsel for the Petitioners

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 21