TC-30 R Memo

5TH ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
TEAM CODE – TC-30R
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SILVIA
In Writ Petition No. _____of 2020
DR. SIMPARA …PETITIONER
v.
MEDIA HOUSE PVT. LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENT
Clubbed with
In Writ Petition No. ______ of 2020
MR. CAVIAR …PETITIONER
V.
THE UNION OF SILVIA …RESPONDENT
Clubbed with
In Writ Petition No. 100 of 2019
MEDIA ASSOCIATION OF SILVIA …PETITIONER

v.
THE UNION OF SILVIA …RESPONDENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE MEDIA HOUSE PVT. LTD. & ORS. & UNION OF
SILVIA
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF REESPONDENT
I
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF MEDIA HOUSE PVT. LTD. & THE UNION OF SILVIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................................. IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................... IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................................. X
ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................................. XII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................................... XIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCE .................................................................................................................. 1
[1] That the Writ Petition is Not Maintainable ...................................................................... 1
[1.1] Writ Jurisdiction can be invoked only in case of violation of a Fundamental Right ...... 1
[1.2] Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 can invoked only against the State........................... 1
[1.3] Doctrine of Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies ........................................................... 3
[2] That Dr. Simpara is entitled to enjoy the right to Privacy .............................................. 3
[2.1] Right to Privacy is Not an Absolute Right...................................................................... 4
[2.2] Sting Operation did not Violate Fundamental Right: ..................................................... 5
[2.3]Media is 4th Pillar of The Democracy as People have Right to Information ................... 6
[2.3.1]Question of Judicial Integrity .................................................................................... 6
[3] That the Freedom of Speech & Expression contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India applies to artificial persons .................................................................. 7
[3.1] Freedom of Press is an integral part of Freedom of Speech & Expression .................... 7
[3.2] Press has not Exceeded its Right to Freedom of Speech & Expression ......................... 9
[3.2.1] Defamation ............................................................................................................... 9
[3.2.2] Law & Order .......................................................................................................... 10
[3.2.3] Incitement to an Offence ........................................................................................ 10
[3.2.4] Contempt of Court .................................................................................................. 11
II
[4] That Section 69 of the Information Technology Act is Constitutional ......................... 12
[4.1] IT Act itself contains Self-Contained Safeguards To ensure that the Fundamental Rights
of any Citizens are not Infringed ............................................................................................... 12
[4.1.1] Different Provisions to Prohibit the Constitutional Contravention ........................ 13
[4.1.1.1] No Blanket Permission to any Agency for Interception .................................. 13
[4.1.1.2] Constitution of the Review Committee for Safeguard .................................... 13
[4.1.1.3] Rule 23 of the IT Rule 2009 provides for destruction of the information unless
functionally required ...................................................................................................... 14
[4.2]Section 69 of the IT Act & IT Rules 2009 doesnot violates Right to Privacy ............... 14
[4.2.1] The Veil of the Privacy Right can be lifted in case of State‟s Legitimate Interest 15
[4.2.1.1] These Provisions are important for State‟s Protection from Danger ............... 15
PRAYER ...................................................................................................................................... XVI
III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ : Paragraph
AIR : All India Report
All : Allahabad
Anr. : Another
Art. : Article
Bom : Bombay
Cal : Calcutta
CrPC : Code of Criminal Procedure
Del : Delhi
Govt. : Government
HC : High Court
Hon‟ble : Honorable
ICCPR : International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR : International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Mad : Madras
No. : Number
Ors. : Others
s. : Section
SC : Supreme Court
SCC : Supreme Court Cases
u/s : Under Section
u/a : Under Article
UOI : Union of India
UDHR : Universal Declaration of Human Rights
US : United States
UK : United Kingdom
v. : Versus
W.P No. : Writ Petition Number
w.r.t : With Respect To
IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTION
Constitution of India
Constitution of Silvia………………………………………………………………………passim
STATUTES
1.The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 ............................................................................................. 12
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860…….……………………………………………………………15
3. The Information Technology Act, 2000………...…………………………………………….12
4.The Information Technology Rules 2009 .................................................................................. 14
5. The General Clauses Act, 1897 ................................................................................................ 11
6.The Telegraph Act, 1885 ........................................................................................................... 13
LIST OF CASES
1. Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa, (1963) Supp. 12 SCR 691 ................................................. 4
2. Bata India Ltd. v. A.M. Turaz & Ors., 2013 (53) PTC 536 ...................................................... 9
3. Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61 ......... 4
4. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129 ............................................................... 6, 8
5. Coffee Bd. v. Joint C.T.O., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 870 .................................................................... 1
6. Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306 ............................................................... 8
7. Distt. Registrar & Collector, Hyderabad & Anr. v. Canara Bank Etc., (2005) 1 SCC 496 .... 15
8. Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 S.C.C. 715 .............. 1
9. Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (1975) 2 SCC 148 .......................................... 3, 4
10. Gopal Das Mohta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 1 .......................................................... 1
11. Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 1993 SC 2295 ...................................... 3
12. Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union Of India & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 789 ................................. 3
V
13. IIPM v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan P. Ltd., CS (OS) No. 3354 of 2015 ............................... 9
14. In re Subrahmanyan, Editor Tribune, AIR (30) 1943 Lah. 329 .............................................. 11
15. Indian Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 SCR (2) 287 .................................... 7
16. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 ............ 6
17. Indian Potash Ltd v. Media Contents and Communication Services Pvt Ltd and Anr, LQ
2009 HC 8898 ........................................................................................................................... 5
18. Investigating Directorate: Serious Offences v. Hyundai Motor Distributors Ltd, 2001 (1) SA
545 (CC).................................................................................................................................... 3
19. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 ................................................................. 4
20. Life Insurance Corporation v. Manubhai Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171 .......................................... 8
21. Louise Fernandes v. Union of India, (1988) 1 S.C.C. 201 ....................................................... 3
22. P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation Delhi, (1987) 4 S.C.C. 609 ......................................... 3
23. Pandey Surindra Nath Sinha v. Bageshwari, AIR 1961 Pat 164 .............................................. 9
24. People‟s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1442............................... 8
25. People‟s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 1997 (1) SCC 301 ......................... 13, 14
26. Prabhakar Laxman Mokashi v. Sadanand Trimbak Yardi (1975) CrLJ 531 (Bom) ............... 11
27. Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. CTO, (1994) 2 SCC 434 .................................................................. 6
28. R. K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106 ............................................. 5
29. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 ....................................................... 15
30. R. v. Mack, (1988) 2 SCR 903.................................................................................................. 5
31. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon‟ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, 2007 (3) SCC 184 .......................................... 5
32. Rajat Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2014 (6) SCC 495 ........................................ 5
33. Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 2006 Delhi 300 .............................................. 9
34. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1 ............... 4, 7, 9
35. Rashid v. I.T.I. Commission, A.I.R 1954 S.C. 207. ................................................................. 3
VI
36. Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 ........................................................ 6, 8
37. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 ...................................................................... 8
38. Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305 ................................................................... 8
39. Satish Chandra v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, (1994) 4 S.C.C. 332 ............................ 3
40. Secretary, Ministry I&B, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2
SCC 161 .................................................................................................................................... 8
41. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 59 ...................................................... 2
42. Sharda v. Dharam Pal, (2003) 4 SCC 493 ................................................................................ 4
43. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252 ........................................................... 4
44. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428 .......................................................... 8
45. State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, 1954 S.C.R. 587 ............................................... 2
46. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bihar v. Murli Manohar Prasad, AIR
1941 Pat 185 ........................................................................................................................... 11
47. The University of Madras v. Shanta Bai, A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 67 ............................................... 2
48. Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294 .................................. 7, 8
49. Union of India v. T.R. Verma, A.I.R 1957 S.C. 882 ................................................................ 3
50. Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society v. District Registrar, (2005) 5 S.C.C. 632 ............. 2
FOREIGN CASES
1.Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd., (1973) 2 WLR 452.............................................. 12
2.McMennitt v. Ash, [2005] EWHC 3003 (QB) ............................................................................ 5
3.R v. Clarke, (1910) 103 LT 636 ................................................................................................. 12
4.R v. Director of Serious Fraud Office, Ex parte Smith, [1993] AC 1 ......................................... 4
5.R v. Parke, (1903) 2 KB 432...................................................................................................... 12
6.Roe v. Wade, (1973) 410 U.S. 113. ........................................................................................... 15
7.State of North Carolina v. Michael Odell Sibley, No. COA99-1206 ......................................... 5
VII
8.State v. Cannon 92 NC App. 246 ................................................................................................. 5
9.West v. BBC (QBD, 10 June 2002, Ouseley J) ........................................................................... 5
Rules
Dr. Sukanta K. Nanda, Media Law (1st edn, Central Law Publications 2018) ............................... 9
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, vol. 2 (8th edn, Wadhwa Nagpur
2007).................................................................................................................................. 5, 8, 11
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th edn, Lexis-Nexis 2016) ............................................ 7, 11
Samaraditya Pal, The Law of Contempt (4th edn, Lexis-Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur
2006).......................................................................................................................................... 11
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
1.The Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 ....................................................................... 8
2. The European Convention on Human Rights, 1953 ............................................................... 3, 4
3.The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976 ................................................. 8
4.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948..................................................................... 8
5.UK Human Rights Act, 2000 ....................................................................................................... 3
Statutes
KC Jena, „Judicial Independence & Accountability: A Critique‟ (2012) 39 Indian Bar Review 9 7
VIII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondents approaches the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Silvia under Article 32 of
Constitution.
Article 32:- Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution
IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS
DR. SIMPARA
Dr. Simpara, a neuro-psychologist placed at Genia in Silvia has clients across the world
including few notorious hardcore criminals & suspicious personalities. On 29-09-2019 State
installations in Genia were attacked by terrorists. FIBS conducted the investigation & found
some material indicating some foreign connections but not sufficient to indict anyone. FIBS
submitted a report to the central govt.
STING OPERATION
„Silvia Express‟, reputed & oldest English daily owned by „Media House Pvt. Ltd.‟, in order to
unearth truth started investigation by its journalists. It was found that two suspects has visited his
clinic in Lymia before 29-09-2019 &Dr. Simpara visited foreign countries of the suspects several
times during Feb to May 2019. The reporters attempted to quiz Dr. Simpara but he declined. The
reporters‟ duo, then, conducted a sting operation on Dr. Simpara & during the operation they
found no substantiate evidence establishing connection. However they found some papers in
coded terms & the map of the cities, unconnected with medical practice& Simpara was residing
in Silvia on dubious means.
MEDIA TRIAL
Subsequently, many leading daily newspapers & news channels carried a news item on the same
subject matter in a much-distorted manner with low quality news disseminating intentionally
false information. As a result Dr. Simpara was trolled, abused & even threatened on social
media. Violent conflict broke out; after this news was broadcasted at national news channels btw
two social groups.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
The Commission recommended that - journalists need to be trained in certain aspects of law
relating to freedom of speech & its restrictions in Article 19of the Constitution. Aggrieved
thereby, the Media Association of Silvia led Writ Petition No. 100 of 2019 before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court contending that any such action will be ultra-virus the Constitution as it is a
X
violation of the freedom of speech & expression, the freedom of press & the freedom of
profession as guaranteed under the Constitution.
WRIT PETITION BY SIMPARA
The Police & FIBS started keeping track of the movements of Dr. Simpara &tapped his mobile
conversations. The FIBS relied on section 69 of the IT Act Dr. Simpara was also terminated from
his services at GMI of Silvia, where he was the head & dean in the neuropsychology department.
Realizing this & infuriated by the report & the editorial he approached Supreme Court of Silvia
seeking redress for the violation of his privacy against the „Media House Pvt. Ltd. ‟ & „Only
Truth‟ against trial by media as it has not only distorted his reputation but also infringed his right
to privacy.
WRIT PETITION BY CAVIER
In his petition Mr. Caviar contended that the guarantee of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution
only affirms what already exists in the natural persons with the rider that the state can make
reasonable restrictions in the exercise of the rights which is right to freedoms listed under
Article19 (1). It cannot take into its ambit what did not exist naturally.The petition also
challenges the constitutional validity of section 69 of the Information technology Act broadly on
the ground that the said provision does not satisfy the test of proportionality vis-a-via right to
privacy.
Taking urgent notice of the constitutional issues involved in these matters the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has clubbed both the matters and has listed them for further arguments.
XI
ISSUES RAISED
-I-
Whether The Writ Petitions are Maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution.
-II-
Whether Dr. Simpara is entitled to enjoy the right to privacy.
-III-
Whether the guarantee under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution extends to artificial persons.
-IV-
Whether section 69 of the Information Technology Act is constitutional.
XII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
It is humbly submitted before, the Hon‟ble Court that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
not maintainable as there is no violation of any fundamental right in the instant case and the writ
jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court can be invoked only when there is an infringement of a
Fundamental Right. Furthermore, this Hon‟ble Court can entertain a petition under its writ
jurisdiction only in a case where the opposing party is state. Also, the petitioner has not
exhausted alternative remedies available to him, before proceeding to this Court. Hence, the
present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
2. WHETHER DR. SIMPARA IS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
It is humbly put forth that Dr. Simpara who is residing in Silvia on Dubious means is not entitled
to right to Privacy. Several International Conventions as well as legal provisions in other
countries recognize that fundamental rights of the people can be restricted in the interest of the
security of the state. In Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, case the Court has held that the right
to privacy can be restricted if there is a compelling state interest to be served and recognised
threat to national security in the nature of compelling state interest. Hence, owning to the
security of the state, Dr. Simpara is not entitled to privacy. Furthermore, Right to privacy is not
an absolute right, reasonable restriction are there. String operation in the present case, did not
violate the Right to privacy. Furthermore, media is the 4th pillar of the democracy and it can‟t
stop functioning as people also have right to information.
3. WHETHER FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 19(1)(A)

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA APPLIES TO ARTIFICIAL PERSONS.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the Freedom of Press is an integral part of
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as has been
observed by the this Hon‟ble Court in various cases. Therefore, the freedom of speech and
expression does apply to artificial persons as well apart from the natural persons. It is further
submitted that the present case does not warrant a situation wherein the freedom of press is
curbed by imposing restrictions as provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Freedom of
XIII
press is an integral part of freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, in the present case,
press has not exceeded its freedom of speech and expression.
4. WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONAL.
It is humbly submitted that Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules of the
Information Technology [Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption
of Information] Rules, 2009 is constitutional as IT Act itself contains self-contained safeguards
to ensure that the fundamental rights of any citizens are not infringed. Further, there are many
provisions under these Act and Rules to prohibit these constitutional contraventions.
Furthermore, Section 69 of the IT Act and IT Rules 2009 does not violate right to privacy and
even if it violates Right to privacy, the veil of the right to privacy can be lifted in the cases of
state interest. Lastly, these kinds of provisions are very important as it protects state from anger
from outside.
XIV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCE
[1] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION.
1. It is humbly submitted before, the Hon‟ble Court that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner is not maintainable as there is no violation of any fundamental right in the instant case.
The writ jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court can be invoked only when there is an infringement of
a Fundamental Right.1 Furthermore, this Hon‟ble Court can entertain a petition under its writ
jurisdiction only in a case where the opposing party is state. Also, the petitioner has not
exhausted alternative remedies available to him, before proceeding to this Court. Hence, the
present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
[1.1] WRIT JURISDICTION CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF A

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
2. It is humbly submitted that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32 can be
invoked only when fundamental rights have been infringed.2 No question other than relating to a
fundamental right will be determined in a proceeding under Art. 32.3 Thus, where there is no
infringement of Fundamental Rights or scope for enforcement of any fundamental right, the writ
petition is not maintainable on the fragile grounds.4 There is no State action, which infringes or
poses a threat to the fundamental rights of the citizens.
In the present case, no fundamental rights are being infringed by any state action in the instant
matter and the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant matter.
[1.2] WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 CAN INVOKED ONLY AGAINST THE
STATE
3. The Supreme Court of India has consistently adhered to the general position that the
Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution apply only against the government
1
P.M. BAKSHI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 74 (New Delhi: Universal Law Publication, 2000).
2
Gopal Das Mohta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 1.
3
Coffee Bd. v. Joint C.T.O., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 870.
4
Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 S.C.C. 715.
1
and not against private individuals.5 Majority of fundamental rights are enforceable against state
only.6 Supreme Court has observed that the object of Part III is to provide protection to the rights
and freedoms guaranteed under this part by the invasion of State.7 Part III and Part IV carry a
theme of Human Rights, Dignity of Individual and also of the unity and dignity of the nation.
These parts respectively act as a Negative Obligation of the State and that is not to interfere with
the Liberty of the Individual, and Positive Obligation of the State which is to take steps for the
welfare of the Individual.8 Therefore, Fundamental Rights under Part III have to be enforced by
the State and a breach of which will hold the State liable.
4. Under Art.12 of the Constitution of Atlantis, “the State” includes the Government and
Parliament of Atlantis and the Government and the Legislature of each States and all local or
other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of Atlantis.9
Unless an authority can be said to be a „State‟ within the meaning of Article 12, none of the
provisions of Part III which relate to the „State‟ will apply to such authority.10 In the present case
the authority is not a State therefore the petition is not maintainable. Also, in the landmark
judgment of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology,11 the SC gave a
guideline to the Courts when deciding whether a particular body is a State or not. It said that if
the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of
the Government, then it is a State under Art. 12.
5. In the present case, the Respondent i.e., Editor-in-Chief Mr. Petro, the MH Pvt. Ltd. &
news channel „Only Truth‟ does not fulfill any of the tests laid down by this Hon‟ble Court in
order to declare it a State under the category of Other authorities. Therefore, it is humbly
submitted that the Respondents cannot be held to be State in terms of Art. 12 of the Constitution.
Hence, the Petitioner has wrongly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court under
Art.32 of the Constitution.
5
Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society v. District Registrar, (2005) 5 S.C.C. 632.
6
Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 59.
7
Ibid.
8
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, 1954 S.C.R. 587.
9
INDIA CONST.
10
The University of Madras v. Shanta Bai, A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 67.
11
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 S.C.C. 111.
2
[1.3] DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES
6. The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Alternate Remedies directs that a litigant must approach
the forum that is nearest to him in the chain of judicial structure. The extraordinary jurisdiction
of the writ courts should not be obscured by cases that can be settled by other fora. 12 When an
alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to litigant, he should be required to pursue
that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the writ courts.13 Wherever the vires of
the statute are capable of being examined by the HC, the SC has usually redirected the petitioner
to pursue that course of action, before petitioning under Art. 32.14
7. In P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation Delhi,15 The SC redirected the petitioner to

approach the HC under Art. 226 and reasoned that the scope of the article was wider. Further, in
Satish Chandra v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies,16 the remedy under Art. 226 were specially
stated as the alternate remedy, and the petition under Art. 32 were consequently dismissed. In the
instant matter the alternative remedies have not been exhausted.17 The petitioner has approached
directly to the Supreme Court by-passing the procedure of law.
[2] WHETHER DR. SIMPARA IS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE RIGHT TO

PRIVACY
8. It is humbly put forth that Dr. Simpara is residing in Silvia on dubious means,18 is not
entitled to right to Privacy. Several International Conventions19 as well as legal provisions in
other countries20 recognize that fundamental rights of the people can be restricted in the interest
of the security of the state. Art. 19(2) of the Constitution of India provide that restrictions can be
imposed on rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a), if there exists a threat to the security of the
12
Rashid v. I.T.I. Commission, A.I.R 1954 S.C. 207.
13
Union of India v. T.R. Verma, A.I.R 1957 S.C. 882.
14
Louise Fernandes v. Union of India, (1988) 1 S.C.C. 201.
15
P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation Delhi, (1987) 4 S.C.C. 609.
16
Satish Chandra v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, (1994) 4 S.C.C. 332.
17
Ibid.
18
Moot Proposition, ¶3.
19
European Convention on Human Rights 1953, art. 8.
20
UK Human Rights Act 2000, art. 5(2).
3
state. In Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh,21 the Court has held that the right to privacy can be
restricted if there is a compelling state interest to be served &recognized threat to national
security in the nature of compelling state interest. Threat to the security of the state are all in the
nature of compelling state interest.
9. It is submitted that the reporters during the investigation against Dr. Simpara found that
two suspects has visited his clinic in Lymia before 29-09-201922, the day on which few state
installations in Genia were attacked by a group of terrorists.23 It was also found that Dr. Simpara
was residing on dubious means.24 Hence, he is not entitled to Right to Privacy.
[2.1] RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT

10. Exercise of right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution of Silvia is not absolute.25 The
government can impose reasonable restrictions as & when the situation arises in the interest of
the community.26 It is essential for the Government of Silvia to impose reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of Right to Privacy of its people, in view of larger public interest.27
11. European Convention on Human Rights also recognizes that right to privacy is not
absolute & lays down certain circumstances which include national security, public safety & the
economic well-being of the country, protection of health, rights & freedoms of others, inter alia
under which the right can be interfered with, by the state. 28 Though right to privacy is an
inalienable right; its curtailment is necessary for stability of the society. 29 Fundamental Right
must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest. 30 Right to privacy in
terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not an absolute one.31
21
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (1975) 2 SCC 148; See also, Investigating Directorate: Serious
Offences v. Hyundai Motor Distributors Ltd, 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC);Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union Of India
& Ors., AIR 1976 SC 789; Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 1993 SC 2295.
22
23
24
25
Sharda v. Dharam Pal, (2003) 4 SCC 493; See also, Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India,
(2012) 5 SCC 1.
26
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (1975) 2 SCC 148; See also, Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994)
3 SCC 569; Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa, (1963) Supp. 12 SCR 691.
27
Bihar Public Service Commission v.Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61;State of Bihar v. Kameshwar
Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252.
28
European Convention on Human Rights 1953, art. 8.
29
R v. Director of Serious Fraud Office, Ex parte Smith, (1993) AC 1.
30
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148.
31
Sharda v. Dharam Pal, (2003) 4 SCC 493.
4
[2.2] STING OPERATION DID NOT VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT:
12. It is humbly submitted that Sting operation are an “important part of society” as they help
uncover misdeeds & defamation law cannot be used to gag, suppress & silence the press & the
media.32 In the present case, MH Pvt. Ltd. in order to unearth truth started its own investigation
by its network of journalists across the nation & the globe.33 The larger public interest served by
it was so important that the little risk should not be allowed to stand in its way.34
13. As far as sting operation by T.V. Channels is concerned, it has been approved & even
appreciated by Supreme Court as an independent crime exposure mechanism in the case of R.K.
Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court35& Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha.36SC
permitted the sting made by a disinterested journalist or person prompted by desire to expose
corruption in public life without motive to seek any favour in exchange.37Sting operation is
covered by Art.19 (1) (a) if the private sting is made to exhibit the exposure of state of affairs
which it believes to be true. Moreover, Court must be pro-active & vigilant in protecting rights &
reputation of individuals.
14. In R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court38, the court upheld the legality of sting only
as it „was indeed in larger public interest & it served an important public cause.’ The BBC
Producer‟s Guidelines provide that programme makers should only go on such raid if they are
sure that there is a clear public interest involved.39 In R.v. Mack,40 the Supreme Court of Canada
illustrated 10 factors to test the acceptability of evidence of sting operations which are duly
fulfilled in the present case.
15. In the present case, the sting was based on the investigation done by the reporter in which
they found that the two suspects has visited his clinic in Lymia before 29 September 2019 & Dr.
Simpara has also paid visits to the foreign countries of the suspects several times during
32
Indian Potash Ltd v. Media Contents & Communication Services Pvt Ltd & Anr, LQ 2009 HC 8898.
33
Moot Proposition,¶ 1.
34
State of North Carolina v. Michael Odell Sibley, No. COA99-1206; State v. Cannon 92 NC App. 246; Durga Das
Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, vol. 2 (8th edn, Wadhwa Nagpur 2007) 3032.
35
R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, 2009 (8) SCC 106.
36
Raja Ram Pal v. Hon‟ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, 2007 (3) SCC 184.
37
Rajat Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2014 (6) SCC 495.
38
R. K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106.
39
West v. BBC (QBD, 10 June 2002, Ouseley J); McMennitt v. Ash, (2005) EWHC 3003 (QB).
40
R. v. Mack, (1988) 2 SCR 903.
5
February to May 2019.41 They found some papers in coded terms & the map of the cities,
unconnected with medical practice.42 It was also found that Dr. Simpara was residing in Silvia on
dubious means.43 In light of the above discussed facts, judgments & rules & regulations, the
respondent humbly submits that there was no infringement of right to privacy by the respondent
& in public interest with a bona fide intention only MH Pvt. Ltd. had carried on the sting
operation. .
[2.3] MEDIA IS 4TH PILLAR OF THE DEMOCRACY AS PEOPLE HAVE RIGHT TO

INFORMATION
16. It is submitted that freedom of media is the freedom of people as they should be informed
of public matters. 44 It is thus needless to emphasis that a free & a healthy press is indispensable
to the functioning of democracy.45 The freedom of press also implies freedom of propagation of
ideas and freedom of circulation.46
17. Freedom of the press has always been a cherished right in all democratic countries & the
press has rightly been described as the fourth chamber of democracy.47 Freedom of speech and of
the press lie at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political
discussion no public education, which is essential for the proper functioning of the process of
popular government, is possible.48 It therefore received a generous support from all those who
believe in the free flow of the information & participation of the people in the administration; it
is the primary duty of all national courts to uphold this freedom & invalidate all laws or
administrative actions which interfere with this freedom, are contrary to the constitutional
mandate.49
[2.3.1]QUESTION OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY
18. It is further contended before this Hon‟ble Court that by bringing a frivolous claim
against the judicial framework, the claimant has needlessly questioned the judicial integrity of
41
Moot Proposition.¶ 2.
42
Moot Proposition ¶ 2.
43
Moot Proposition ¶ 3.
44
Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. CTO, (1994) 2 SCC 434.
45
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.
46
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129.
47
Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
48
49
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.
6
the judicial framework of Silvia. Judiciary is the repository of public faith. It is the only temple
worshipped by the citizens of the country regardless of religion, caste, creed or place of birth.50
In an advanced age of science & technology it is still the judiciary which performs the
quintessential task of maintaining social order in times of crisis.51 Hence, media trial is not
violating Right to life & liberty of Simpara & at the same time, it is it is acting as a watchdog
which is protecting state from immediate danger.
[3] WHETHER THE GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE

CONSTITUTION EXTENDS TO ARTIFICIAL PERSONS.
19. It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the Freedom of Press is an integral
part of freedom of speech & expression under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution has been
observed by the this Hon‟ble Court in various cases. Therefore, the freedom of speech &
expression does apply to artificial persons as well apart from the natural persons. It is further
submitted that the present case does not warrant a situation wherein the freedom of press is
curbed by imposing restrictions as provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
[3.1] FREEDOM OF PRESS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH &

EXPRESSION
20. It is humbly submitted that in order to preserve the democratic way of life it is essential
that people should have the freedom to express their feelings & to make their views known to the
people at large.52 Freedom of press is not specifically mentioned in article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution & what is mentioned there is only freedom of speech & expression.53 In the
Constituent Assembly Debates, it was made clear by Dr. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting
Committee, that no special mention of the freedom of press was necessary at all as the press &
an individual or a citizen were the same as far as their right of expression was concerned.54
50
KC Jena, „Judicial Independence & Accountability: A Critique‟ (2012) 39 Indian Bar Review 9.
51
Ibid.
52
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1; Indian Express Newspaper Ltd. v.
Union of India, 1985 SCR (2) 287; Union of India v. Association of Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294.
53
The Constitution of India, 1950, art. 19(1)(a).
54
The Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. VII, 780; MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th edn, Lexis-Nexis
2016) 1026.
7
21. In Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi,55 the Supreme Court took it for granted the fact that the
freedom of the press was an essential part of the right to freedom of speech & expression. It was
observed by Patanjali Sastri J. in Romesh Thaper case56 that freedom of speech & expression
included propagation of ideas, & that freedom was ensured by the freedom of circulation 57. For
achieving the main objects, freedom of the press has been included as part of freedom of speech
& expression which is a universally recognized right adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations Organization on 10th December, 1948. The heart of the declaration contained in
Article 1958 says as follows:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion & expression, this right includes freedom
to hold opinions without interference & to seek, receive & impart information & ideas
through any media & regardless of frontiers.”
22. The same view of freedom of holding opinions without interference has been taken by the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms.59
23. The above statement of the Supreme Court illustrates that the freedom of press is
essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process. The fundamental principle which
was involved in freedom of press is the “people‟s right to know” which is essentially a
fundamental right & is inherent in freedom of speech & expression as contained under Article
19(1)(a).60 It is therefore, the primary duty of all national courts to uphold this freedom
&invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with this freedom, are contrary to
the constitutional mandate.61
24. It is further submitted that the citizen is guaranteed the liberty of expression by way of
Preamble of the Indian Constitution. It states that the citizen has the liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith &worship. The liberty of thought & expression includes the right to free
55
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129.
56
57
Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305.
58
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, art. 19; See also, The International Covenant on Civil &
Political Rights 1976, art. 19; The Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, art. 13; See also, Life Insurance
Corporation v. Manubhai Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171.
59
Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294.
60
People‟s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1442; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain,
(1975) 4 SCC 428; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149; Secretary, Ministry I&B, Government of India
v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161; Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306.
61
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, vol. 2 (8th edn, Wadhwa Nagpur 2007) 2432.
8
press.62 This aspect of human liberty is regarded as the cardinal principle of human life, hence
liberty occupies a special place in the Indian Constitution. It is to be noted that freedom of press
was considered to be so important by our founding fathers that it found place in the preamble
itself. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the freedom of press is an integral part of the freedom of
speech & expression & therefore, it can be said that freedom of speech & expression does apply
to the artificial persons as well.
[3.2] PRESS HAS NOT EXCEEDED ITS RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH &
EXPRESSION
[3.2.1] DEFAMATION
25. it is submitted that injunction & defamation suits are the common ways of censorship.63
The Courts have earlier observed that defences to an action for defamation can be
compartmentalized in three compartments; truth, fair comment & privilege.64 Truth or
justification, is a complete defence, the standard of proof of truth is not absolute but is limited to
establishing that what was spoken was „substantially correct‟ whereas fair comment offer
protection for the expression of opinions.65 Standard of proof is not that the Court has to agree
with the opinion but is limited to determine whether the views could honestly have been held by
a fair-minded person on facts known at the time.66
26. In the IIPM v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan P. Ltd.,67 IIPM was aggrieved by an article
but the Delhi High Court held that prima facie the impugned portions were either based on the
statements made by several persons or on facts available in public domain or were the author‟s
personal opinions & conclusions based on extensive research & report. The defendants had
highlighted the evidence which was relevant & material on a matter of substantial importance &
there was no material at that stage to conclude that the stories have been published by the
defendants with a reckless disregard for truth or precipitated by actual malice or that the defence
of justification or truthfulness or fair comment was one that could not succeed.
62
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
63
Dr. Sukanta K. Nanda, Media Law (1st edn, Central Law Publications 2018) 54.
64
Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 2006 Delhi 300; Bata India Ltd. v. A.M. Turaz & Ors., 2013 (53)
PTC 536.
65
Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 2006 Delhi 300.
66
Pandey Surindra Nath Sinha v. Bageshwari, AIR 1961 Pat 164.
67
IIPM v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan P. Ltd., CS (OS) No. 3354 of 2015.
9
27. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that in the present case also, the respondents have
published the articles68& carried out the news item on the basis of the statements made by
several panelists during the live streaming of news69 or on the basis of the survey that was open
during the live streaming of the news70 or on the facts available in the public domain & the
author‟s personal opinion & conclusions based on the extensive research71& the sting operation72
which was conducted by them on the petitioner. Therefore, the present case does not attract the
action for defamation under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
[3.2.2] LAW & ORDER
28. It is humbly submitted that the violent conflict broke out due to the news which was
broadcasted by many other leading daily newspapers & news channels wherein the media carried
out a news item on the same subject matter but in a much-distorted manner with low quality
news disseminating intentionally false information.73 It is submitted that just because other
newspaper agencies did not carry their duty properly does not mean that the violent conflict
broke out due to the news broadcasted & published by the Respondents. Therefore, imposition of
any restriction on the Respondents under the head of Article 19(2) would be in violation of
Freedom of press which is an integral part of freedom of speech & expression as same would be
unreasonable.
[3.2.3] INCITEMENT TO AN OFFENCE
29. „Incitement to an offence‟ was added as a ground of restriction by the Constitutional

(First Amendment) Act, 1951. This ground permits legislation not only to punish or prevent
incitement to commit serious offences like murder which lead to breach of public order, but also
to commit any offence, which according to the General Clause Act, means „any act or omission
made punishable by any law for the time being in force.‟74
30. It is humbly submitted before the hon‟ble Court that in the present case, the Respondent
which is one of the reputed & oldest known English daily owned by „MH Pvt. Ltd.‟ in order to
68
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.
69
70
71
72
73
74
The General Clauses Act, 1897, s. 2(38).
10
unearth the truth started its own investigation75& it is only to find out the truth & make people
aware about the involvement of some intellectuals, the said channel had gathered, published &
broadcasted the views expressed by several individuals from different segments of the society.76
It is further submitted that there was nothing in the live streaming of news which was intended to
incite people of Silvia to commit any act which is prohibited by any law. Furthermore, without
any prejudice, even if it is assumed that the statements given by the panellists were in the nature
to incite people to commit any crime then also it could not be cut down as the statement was
given during live streaming of news & not during a recorded news. Hence, the present case does
not attract the heading incitement to an offence under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
[3.2.4] CONTEMPT OF COURT
31. The law of contempt does not prevent comment before the litigation is started nor after it
has ended. So long as the commentator got their facts right & keep their comments fair, they are
without reproach.77 They do not offend against the law as to contempt unless there is real &
substantial prejudice to pending litigation before the court.78 Matters of public interest
particularly academic questions which have no reference to a pending litigation but are of a
general educative character, no person can stop such comment by serving a writ.79
32. Section 3(2) of the Act,80 provides that even though there has been publication of any
matter which interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the course of
justice such publication shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of court if the proceeding
(whether civil or criminal) in relation to which such publication is made, are not pending. The
immunity under this sub-section is absolute.81 The Explanation attached to the section clarifies as
to when a judicial proceeding is said to be pending.82 In In re Subrahmanyan, Editor Tribune,83 it
was held that in case of criminal trial proceedings will be deemed to be pending after the accused
75
76
77
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th edn, Lexis-Nexis 2016) 1046.
78
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, vol. 2 (8th edn, Wadhwa Nagpur 2007) 2509.
79
Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd., (1973) 2 WLR 452.
80
The Contempt of Courts Act 1971, s. 3(2).
81
Samaraditya Pal, The Law of Contempt (4th edn, Lexis-Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur 2006) 260.
82
The Contempt of Courts Act 1971, s. 3.
83
In re Subrahmanyan, Editor Tribune, AIR (30) 1943 Lah. 329; R v. Parke, (1903) 2 KB 432, R v. Clarke, (1910)
103 LT 636; Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bihar v. Murli Manohar Prasad, AIR 1941 Pat 185.
11
is taken into custody & even before he has been committed for trial or produced before a
magistrate.
33. In the instant case, it is quite clear that at the time when these news items were carried
out by the respondents then no litigation was pending with respect to the terrorist attack occurred
in Silvia. Furthermore, even the FIBS who was conducting the investigation on the terrorist
attack didn‟t find sufficient evidence to indict anyone.84 Therefore, it is submitted that the
restriction of Contempt of Court as provided under Article 19(2) cannot be attracted to the case
in hand.
[4] WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL
34. It is humbly submitted that Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 & Rules
of the Information Technology [Procedure & Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring &
Decryption of Information] Rules, 2009 in constitutional in nature on the basis of these limbs.
[4.1] IT ACT ITSELF CONTAINS SELF-CONTAINED SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THAT

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ANY CITIZENS ARE NOT INFRINGED
35. The defendant submits that Section 69 of the IT Act which has been in existence since
2009 itself mandates self-contained safeguards to ensure that fundamental right of any citizen
either under Article 19(1)(a) or otherwise, is not adversely effected. The permissible purposes for
which power under Section 69 of the Act can be exercised, necessarily are those having
legitimate state interest & larger public interests. In other words, the exercise of powers under
Section 69 of the Act is permissible only for statutorily specified & precisely defined purposes
mentioned in the said provision & not otherwise. It is humbly submitted by the defendants that
Section 69(2) of the IT Act mandatorily & statutorily requires providing of the safeguards in the
exercise of the powers under Section 69 of the Act. Such safeguards are mandated to be provided
for by the way of delegated legislation namely by making statutory rules in the form of
Information Technology Rules, 2009.Thereafter, use of powers under Section 69 of the
84
12
Information Technology, 2000 is necessitated in the modern world, where modern tools of
information communication, including encryption, are being used & it is self-sufficed with
adequate safeguards.
[4.1.1] DIFFERENT PROVISIONS TO PROHIBIT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTRAVENTION
36. It is most humbly & respectfully submitted that it has been emphasized that there are
many provisions under these Act & Rules to prohibit these constitutional contraventions.
[4.1.1.1] No Blanket Permission to any Agency for Interception
37. There is no blanket permission to any agency for interception or monitoring or decryption
as the authorized agencies still require permission of the competent authority in each case as per
due process of law & justification for interception, monitoring or decryption. It is submitted that
such a permission can be given only for the purposes mentioned in the Section 69 of the IT Act
2000.
38. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India85, the
govt. framed Rule 419A in the Indian Telegraph Act & also safeguards in relation to telephone
interception were made in 2007 Rules. These safeguards have also been provided in the
Information Technology Rules 2009. Hence extant safeguards are adequate & are in place.
[4.1.1.2] Constitution of the Review Committee for Safeguard
39. It is humbly & most respectfully submitted that Rule 22 of the Information Technology
Rules 2009 provides that the Central Govt. & the State Govt. as the case may be, shall constitute
a review committee. The Rule 22 also provides for mandatory forwarding of the interception
order to the concerned review committee. The review committee within a period of sixty days
from the issue of direction shall make suo-moto make necessary enquiries & investigations
&record its finding whether the directions issued under Rule 4 of the Information Technology
Rules 2009 are in accordance with the provision of the Section 69 of the IT Act. When the
Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions
referred to above, it may set aside the directions & issues order for destruction of the copies,
including corresponding electronic record of the intercepted or monitored or decrypted
information.
85
People‟s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 1997 (1) SCC 301.
13
[4.1.1.3] Rule 23 Of The IT Rule 2009 Provides For Destruction Of The Information Unless
Functionally Required
40. The counsel most humbly submits that every record, including electronic records
pertaining to such directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of information & of
intercepted or monitored or decrypted information shall be destroyed by the security agency in
every six months except in a case where such information is required, or likely to be required for
functional requirements.86
41. The counsel further respectfully submits & state that there are sufficient mechanism of
oversight is in place under Rule 22 of the IT Rules 2009 as per the directions issued by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in PUCL v. UOI.87 Hence extant safeguards are adequate & are in place.
The review committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary is competent to review each & every
case of interception & also order for the destruction of the intercepted message or class of
message. Further, Art. 32 of the Constitution also provides for the Judicial Review of the
executive actions. Therefore, existing safeguards of oversight by the Cabinet Secretary at Central
Level & chaired by the Chief Secretary at the State Level, is adequate & provides for effective
supervision.
[4.2]SECTION 69 OF THE IT ACT & IT RULES 2009 DOESN’T VIOLATES RIGHT TO

PRIVACY
42. The counsel most humbly states that Right to privacy is very important Fundamental
Right. The impugned provision is justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure
which is just, fair & reasonable & that any invasion of any right is met by the three fold
requirement by (i) Legality (ii) Need; & (iii) Proportionality which means that :
i.) The action must be sanctioned by the law.

ii.) The proposed action must be necessary for legitimate aim;
iii.) The extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need of such interference.
There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.
86
Information Technology Rules 2009, r. 23.
87
People‟s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 1997 (1) SCC 301.
14
43. The counsel furthermore states that the Section 69 of the IT Act meets the aforesaid
requirements & further ensures that no fundamental rights including Right to privacy of citizen is
violated by any person, intermediary & any agency.
[4.2.1] THE VEIL OF THE PRIVACY RIGHT CAN BE LIFTED IN CASE OF STATE’S LEGITIMATE
INTEREST
44. The counsel most humbly submits & states that though Right to Privacy is sacred
fundamental right88& is being respected by the Government of India, the veil of the fundamental
right of privacy can be lifted for the legitimate state interest in the interest of sovereignty &
integrity of India, defence of the state, security of the state, friendly relations with the foreign
states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence
relating to abovementioned categories or for investigation of any offence. All the aforesaid
categories fall within the “legitimate state interest”89 making exercise of the power under section
69 permissible when violating & infringing upon the right to privacy as all factors are factors in
the furtherance of the Legitimate State interest.
[4.2.1.1] These Provisions are important for State’s Protection from Danger
45. It is further submitted that the grave threats to the country from the terrorism,
radicalization, cross border terrorism, cybercrime, & organized cybercrime can‟t be understated
or ignored & a strong & robust mechanism for speedy & timely collection of actionable
intelligence including signal intelligence, is imperative to counter threats to national security.
This is undeniably legitimate state interest.90 It is therefore imperative that the request for lawful
interception & monitoring must be dealt with by the executive authority to maintain speed &
promptitude in taking decisions. A well laid down procedure for oversight by a committee
headed by the Cabinet Secretary doubtlessly ensures that the provisions of the law & rules are
adhered to. Hence, the counsel most humbly & respectfully submits that the Section 69 of the IT
Act is constitutional in nature.
88
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
89
Roe v. Wade, (1973) 410 U.S. 113.
90
Distt. Registrar & Collector, Hyderabad & Anr.v. Canara Bank Etc., (2005) 1 SCC 496.
15
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issue raised, authorities cited, reasons given and
arguments advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon‟ble Court, that it
may graciously be pleased to adjudge and declare-
1. That, Writ Petitions should not be held maintainable.

2. That, Simpara is not entitled to Right to Privacy.
3. That, Article 19(1) does applies to artificial persons.
4. That, Section 69 of the IT Act should not be held unconstitutional in nature.
And pass any other relief that this Hon‟ble Court as it deems fit in the interest of Equity, Justice
and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humble and respectfully submitted.
For this act of kindness, the Respondents faction shall be duty bound forever.
S/d__________________
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
XVI

TC-30 R Memo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-30 R Memo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5TH ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

TEAM CODE – TC-30R

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SILVIA

In Writ Petition No. _____of 2020

DR. SIMPARA …PETITIONER

MEDIA HOUSE PVT. LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENT

In Writ Petition No. ______ of 2020

MR. CAVIAR …PETITIONER

THE UNION OF SILVIA …RESPONDENT

In Writ Petition No. 100 of 2019

MEDIA ASSOCIATION OF SILVIA …PETITIONER

THE UNION OF SILVIA …RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF REESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................... IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................................. X

ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................................. XII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................................... XIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE .................................................................................................................. 1

[1] That the Writ Petition is Not Maintainable ...................................................................... 1

[1.3] Doctrine of Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies ........................................................... 3

[2.1] Right to Privacy is Not an Absolute Right...................................................................... 4

[2.2] Sting Operation did not Violate Fundamental Right: ..................................................... 5

[2.3.1]Question of Judicial Integrity .................................................................................... 6

[3.2.1] Defamation ............................................................................................................... 9

[3.2.2] Law & Order .......................................................................................................... 10

[3.2.3] Incitement to an Offence ........................................................................................ 10

[3.2.4] Contempt of Court .................................................................................................. 11

[4] That Section 69 of the Information Technology Act is Constitutional ......................... 12

[4.1.1] Different Provisions to Prohibit the Constitutional Contravention ........................ 13

[4.1.1.1] No Blanket Permission to any Agency for Interception .................................. 13

[4.1.1.2] Constitution of the Review Committee for Safeguard .................................... 13

PRAYER ...................................................................................................................................... XVI

1.The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 ............................................................................................. 12

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860…….……………………………………………………………15

3. The Information Technology Act, 2000………...…………………………………………….12

4.The Information Technology Rules 2009 .................................................................................. 14

5. The General Clauses Act, 1897 ................................................................................................ 11

6.The Telegraph Act, 1885 ........................................................................................................... 13

1. Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa, (1963) Supp. 12 SCR 691 ................................................. 4

4. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129 ............................................................... 6, 8

5. Coffee Bd. v. Joint C.T.O., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 870 .................................................................... 1

6. Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306 ............................................................... 8

19. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 ................................................................. 4

21. Louise Fernandes v. Union of India, (1988) 1 S.C.C. 201 ....................................................... 3

27. Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. CTO, (1994) 2 SCC 434 .................................................................. 6

29. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 ....................................................... 15

30. R. v. Mack, (1988) 2 SCR 903.................................................................................................. 5

35. Rashid v. I.T.I. Commission, A.I.R 1954 S.C. 207. ................................................................. 3

36. Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 ........................................................ 6, 8

37. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 ...................................................................... 8

38. Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305 ................................................................... 8

41. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 59 ...................................................... 2

42. Sharda v. Dharam Pal, (2003) 4 SCC 493 ................................................................................ 4

43. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252 ........................................................... 4

1.Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd., (1973) 2 WLR 452.............................................. 12

2.McMennitt v. Ash, [2005] EWHC 3003 (QB) ............................................................................ 5

3.R v. Clarke, (1910) 103 LT 636 ................................................................................................. 12

4.R v. Director of Serious Fraud Office, Ex parte Smith, [1993] AC 1 ......................................... 4

5.R v. Parke, (1903) 2 KB 432...................................................................................................... 12

6.Roe v. Wade, (1973) 410 U.S. 113. ........................................................................................... 15

7.State of North Carolina v. Michael Odell Sibley, No. COA99-1206 ......................................... 5