1.What is the nature of PIL filed; civil or criminal?

Can a person be charged for

criminal offense under PIL?

It is partly both, civil and criminal.

Civil- infringement of privacy.

Criminal- Section 408, 409 IPC are also being claimed

Yes, a person can be charged for criminal offenses. One of the writs is Mandamus which
means “We Command”, so in a way, yes, PIL can be filed for criminal charges, which if
accepted, will lead to investigation of those criminal charges and if found to be true, will be
penalised accordingly.

2. Can we assume that the government has bought the nefarious spyware because all the
4 issues in the moot proposition seem to point towards this assumption?

And if we won't assume this inference, then it will be very difficult to present arguments
from the side of the respondent i.e. government.

I will suggest that this should be left open-ended.

For each team to decide on their own, whether they want the govt to be represented like that
or not.

If they choose yes, then they can take following defences (and others which they can think
off.)

Section 69 in The Information Technology Act, 2000

Power to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information
through any computer resource.

Section 5 in The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

Power for Government to take possession of licensed telegraphs and to order interception of
messages.

If they choose no, then let them defend in a manner as in a “Hypothetical Space” that though
we have not purchased it, but even if we would have purchased it, we could have used it
because so and so defences and “above given provisions” allows us to do so. OR EVEN
BETTER, we cannot reveal such information as it will hamper national security etc etc.

3 and 4

3. How is Section 408, IPC invoked? 4. How is Section 409, IPC invoked? (Can
government be considered a public servant?)

Yes, government is public servant. Refer to clause 12 of section 21 IPC.

Public money in form of tax etc. is 'entrusted' to the govt. By common people, and if govt.
has bought this alleged software it has used this money for its own purpose, thus attracting
section 408/409 IPC

5. What is the relevance of the annexure 2?

Just to make the point clear, regarding as to what is the issue.

6. If the government has bought Nefarious, then the Factsheet is silent regarding the
source of money the government has used to buy it. There is no mention of funds in the
proposition. So how can we say that the government has or has not followed the
procedure of parliament before using money from the funds? Overall, please provide
some clarity regarding the Nexus of Article 266,267 and 283.

From the petitioner’s side, that is the whole point, is not it ? That the govt didn’t followed
procedure of parliament before using of funds. If at all, such things will be mentioned in the
fact sheet then on what basis will they be able to argue it, because then they will be become
facts.

Like suppose, if we write in the factsheet it self that so and so funds were used, then how will
the Respondent defend them?

As it is not mentioned in the fact sheet, it is open to both the parties to present their points.

There is not much to be done for Article 266, 267 and 283, in this moot problem.

Just have a brief idea that these Articles lay down the rules as the proper procedure how to
collect funds and where to use them.

While Article 266 and 267 discuss Consolidated Fund and Contingency Fund respectively,
Article 283 discusses its Custody and how is it credited to Public Accounts etc.

7. Please provide some clarity regarding Section 3, official secrets act.

Section 3 of Official Secrets Act talks about Penalties for spying, which is being referred to
in the 4th issue i.e. that are these Penalties being attracted as offences or not.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64934656/

8. What is the ground of filing PIL? Is it filed on the basis of the report of THE
TOWER?

Basis of PIL is Cumulative; it is because of the report of The Tower, WhereApp public
statement, Request of enquiry by Editor’s Guild of FIndia, raising privacy concern of citizens
among other things.

9. Is the stand of NSO conclusive or not? Can we rely on NSO's assurance that it sells
software only to vetted governments?
Yes, we have to rely on their assurance, because as they are not the party to the case, we
cannot bring them in question. Moreover, it is not something which they are stating as a
dialogue, it is written as a fact. Thus, this point of Fact Sheet shall be considered conclusive.

10. Who will be the respondent ? Prime minister or PMO or president or government as
a whole?

Central Government of India - thus Union of India

11. Can we use the Pegasus case which is pending before the court?

Yes, you can. That is the only reason why most of the moots are done on the basis of real-life
incidences.

12 Can we use the Pegasus order which SC of India passes in which it directed inquiry
in the matter of snooping?

Yes. Same as 11th point.

13. In Issue 1, the term vested political interest has been used, thus how will the
respondents justify their arguments?

They can simply deny such term. The issues were decided either by the person who filed the
PIL i.e. NK Singh or the Supreme Court, but not by Respondent. They can simply deny and
say that they don’t have any such vested interest, but only the country-wide interest.

14. The moot problem is silent on the National Security, peace and stability of Findia.
So how do we have to argue on the points of National Interest of the Country. Can
assumptions be used in the National interests?

Yes. You have to add these things to support your arguments. Not every word will be added
in the moot sheet.