Moot Appellant Final - HB

Aditi Shah vs. State of Mahanagar and Ors.
LAWTRYST CODE: LT15
ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDUS
W.P. (CIVIL) NO. XXX OF 2019
UNDER ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS
IN THE MATTER OF
ADITI SHAH ...APPELLANT
vs.
STATE OF MAHANAGAR & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDUS
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... 01
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................... 02
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................... 04
STATEMENTS OF ISSUES....................................................................................... 05
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................... 06
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS ............................................................................. 13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................... 19
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................. 24

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Full Form

Anr. Another
Art. Article
ATIS Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions
CAR Civil Aviation Requirements
DGCA Directorate General of Civil Aviation
DJI Dà-Jiāng Innovations
DSDO Defense Study and Development Organization
ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute
Hon’ble Honourable
HRLG Human Rights Liberation Group
NCCP National Customer Call Preference
NDNC National Do Not Call
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
No. Number
NPNT No Permission – No TakeOff
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
Ors Others
PDPB The Personal Data Protection Bill
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Pvt Private
RPAS Remotely Piloted Aircraft System
SC Supreme Court
TFAS Task Force for Aerial Surveillance
TRAI Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
UAOP Unmanned Aerial Operator Permit
UAS Unmanned Aircraft System
UIN Unique Identification number
vs. Versus
Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LEGISLATIONS REFERRED
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) ACT, 2000
3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
4. MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
5. THE PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL, 2019
CASES REFERRED
Sr. No. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. Union of
1 MANU/SC/1044/2017
India (UOI) and Ors.
2 Kharak singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 1 SCR 332
3 People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. AIR 1997 SC 568
Union of India And Another (1996) 1 SCC 301
4 Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 1 SCC 248
5 R. Rajagopal VS. State of Tamil Nadu 6 SCC 632
Naz Foundation VS. Government of NCT and
6 160 DLT 277
Delhi and Ors. 2009
JODHPUR S.B. Civil
7 Basanta Jain v. Dilip Kataria
Writ No. 12501/2018
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
1. United Nations Human Rights Instruments

2. Council of Europe Treaties on Human Rights & the Protection of Personal Data
3. European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Privacy, Data Protection & the Impact
of New Technologies

WEBSITES REFERRED
1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com
2. Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica
3. Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
4. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in
5. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.
6. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/data-protection-laws-and-regulations/india
7. https://uavcoach.com/drone-laws-in-india/
8. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/18/facebook-makes-changes-to-comply-with-eu-
privacy-law-gdpr.html

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED

THIS HON’BLE COURT AGAINST THE IMPUNGED ORDER OF THE
HON’BLE HIGH COURT INVOKING ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE
132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS READ WITH ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDUS AS IT RELATES TO VIOLATION OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS:

Article 132 in the Constitution of Indus
1. 132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts
in certain cases ( 1 ) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any
judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of Indus,
whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies
under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of this Constitution
2. (2) Omitted
3. (3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to
the Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has
been wrongly decided Explanation For the purposes of this article, the
expression final order includes an order declaring an issue which, if
decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final
disposal of the case

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I.Whether the existing laws of the Government of Indus are adequate to regulate
the drone usage in the country? If yes, what remedies are available? If no, what
can be done about it?
II.Whether the implementation of the Task Force for Aerial Surveillance (TFAS)
will violate the fundamental rights to privacy of Citizens?
III.Whether the Aditi Shah is entitled for compensation due to negligence, if any, of
the Police Department?
IV.What is the liability of News Today newspaper for illegally acquiring the footage
and publishing it in a derogatory manner?

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Aditi Shah
Vs..
State of Mahanagar & Ors.
1. The Appellant ‘Aditi Shah’, an Indian National is an employee of TCA
International.
2. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Mahanagar which also includes the Central
Government for constituting the Task Force and the State Police Departments
for executing the pilot run of the drone surveillance.
3. Respondent No. 2 is a newspaper named News Today.
4. Launch of TFAS: On 01.10.2019, the Central Government announced the
launch of a program called Task Force for Aerial Surveillance (TFAS). The
aim if this task force was to empower certain State Police Departments with
Aerial Surveillance Mechanisms. The drones could be used to analyse huge
crowds gathered in large numbers for public events where in any trouble could
be spotted and neutralized.
5. The advantages stated of using the drones were as follows:
a. To have a bird’s eye view of the scene.
b. It would be beneficial in those States where there is a shortage of
official manpower.
6. Pilot run decision: On 02.11.2019, the Bureau of Police Research and
Development in the State of Mahanagar gave the Parla City Police

Department 15 drones which were to be used by them for six (6) months as a
pilot study. The data collected would then be used to decide the success rate
of TFAS programme in fulfilling its objectives as stated above point.
7. On 24.12.2019, two events took place near JUZU beach. One was a public
event that is a political gathering which took place at an open ground near
JUZU beach. With this information in hand, the Parla City Police Department
decided to use drone surveillance for the event.
8. On the same day, the Appellant attended a 4-day private event organized by
her colleagues of TCA International consisting of 11 members in all, near
JUZU beach which was from 24.12.2019 to 27.12.2019. The Appellant and
her colleagues had rented out a vacation home - a private property lining the
beach of one Ramnish Suri. The property had a pool in the backyard and the
employees decided to have a pool party on 24.12.2019. There were a few
drones flying in the area for surveillance of the public event.
9. The petitioner and her colleagues were looking forward to a welcome break
from their hectic schedule. Dressed according to the theme of a pool party, all
the members of the private party were enjoying the swimming pool, relishing
the food and consuming drinks. They could hear the noise of the loudspeakers
from the ground of the political party, but mostly ignored it to enjoy their own
musical world and friendly banter. They also spotted the drones in the sky but
did not give much thought to it.
10. The glitch: The data collected by the drones was being downloaded on the
spot by the technical analysts (two-member team) of TFAS. They had three
drones in the air: viz. Alpha, Beta, & Gama. One of the team members
realized that there was a malfunction in Beta. On examination he realized that

the drone’s frequency was compromised and the intruder had access to the
data of the drone. Precautionary measures to prevent the breach failed and the
drone was brought down and deactivated. Monitoring of the public event
continued with the two activated drones.
11. The Breaking news: The next day i.e. on 25.12.2019, which happened to be a
public holiday, three newspapers covered this political event; The INDUS
times, News Today, and The Gerald paper. News Today covered the political
event on page 2. News Today were able to provide aerial shots of the event.
Taking advantage of the aerial shots, the newspaper also decided to add one
more article on the 12th page of the same newspaper. It was titled “HERE IS
WHAT THE YOUTH OF INDUS WANT TODAY”. The article had pictures
(aerial shots) of the above-mentioned pool party that had been conducted in
Mr. Ramnish Suri’s house. The article spoke about the present party culture
adopted by the youth in a very derogatory manner. At this point neither
Ramnish Suri nor the 11 members of the pool party were aware of any aerial
shots being taken of their private party/property. Given that it was a public
holiday on 25.12.2019 and people had time to spare as opposed to the daily
hustle, the news was read by a larger population in detail.
12. Privacy infringed: Aditi Shah (the Appellant) and Divya Sharma, one of her
colleagues, belonged to conservative families who for the first time were
given permission to attend the same. Their families did not take the news well
and were embarrassed and felt humiliated about the same. Heated phone calls
were made to the respective girls by their family members and they were
finally asked to cut their trip short and return home which was on the outskirts
of the state of Mahanagar.

13. Filing of complaints: On 29.12.2019, fathers of both the abovesaid women
visited the Parla City Police Station to file their complaints. On reaching there
they informed the officer in – charge, Srikanth Shukla regarding the pictures
that appeared in the newspaper of a private party. While looking into the
matter the officer in – charge realized that these photographs could not have
been taken at ground level and were shot from above the ground.
14. Internal investigation: The officer in – charge realized that the photographs
were taken on the same day that their own drones were in the air. Upon
internal inquiry, it was revealed that one of their drones (Beta) had captured
identical shots of the party which were stored on the device memory. The
technical analyst informed him of the interference glitch faced before the
drone was brought down from the air. The officer in – charge reprimanded the
technical analyst for not making a formal report realizing the gravity of the
situation.
15. Investigation with Newspaper and internal matters: The officer in –
charge, constituted a team of two officers and one cybercrime specialist
officer to look into the matter with the newspaper. Meanwhile Appellant’s
father through his contacts in the department unofficially found out about this
technical issue with the drones. Only on confrontation with the officer in –
charge, the Appellant’s father was told to wait as an official inquiry was being
conducted as per the department protocol before anything else can be stated
formally therefore neither affirming nor denying the facts.
16. The Delay: On 29.01.2020, after a month, with no updates at all from the
police department even after several visits, the Appellant filed a petition
before the High Court to seek the following reliefs:

a. That the Task Force for Aerial Surveillance (TFAS) pilot violated the
fundamental right to privacy of citizens and therefore should be
aborted,
b. That the Police department has been negligent with the use of drones
and
c. The Police Department was liable to compensate the Appellant.
17. Time Lines of Events that occurred:
1st of October 2019, (01.10.2019):

● Launch of TFAS - Task Force for Aerial Surveillance. Drones provided
for surveillance.
2nd of November 2019, (02.11.2019):

● Pilot run decision to be carried out by the Parla City Police Department.
Decision taken by the Bureau of Police Research and Development in the State of
Mahanagar.
24th of December 2019, (24.12.2019):

● 2 events took place near JUZU beach – one political gathering and second
a private pool party on My Ramesh Suri’s property lining the JUZU beach.
● Malfunction in Beta drone out of the three drones monitoring the public
event. Drone deactivated by technical team.
● Malfunction unreported to senior officials by the Technical analyst.
25th December 2019, (25.12.2019)

● News Today reported the private pool party pictures on page 12 of its
newspaper.
● The article portrayed the pool party in a derogatory manner leading to

public humiliation of the private party members and additional cultural shock to
the family members of the Appellant and one Divya Sharma, the above said party
members.

● Heated phone calls were made to the respective girls by family members
and they were finally asked to leave the private party and return home.
29th December 2019, (29.12.2019)

● Both fathers of the Appellant and one Divya Sharma, filed their complaint
with respect to the newspaper article.
● This was the first time that the officer in-charge of TFAS realized about
the drone compromise and the glitch that took place at their end.
● Team sent to News Today office for further investigation.
● The Appellant’s father unofficially learnt about the drone malfunction and
that the drones belonged to TFAS.
29th January 2020, (29.01.2020)

● No updates from TFAS, finally the Appellant filed a petition before the
Hon’ble High Court.
18. Apart from the above facts, though Indus has seen a technological revolution
in use of drone - Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS), robotics and
artificial intelligence, it is yet to see a blend and adherence of the
advancement in technology with human rights of citizens of Indus. Indus
being a multi lingual and multi religious country with a diverse population the
sentiment of citizens are prone to be hurt by acts with no mala fide intent, but
which could very easily flare into a riot-like situation which the country has
seen in the past. The HUMAN RIGHTS LIBERATION GROUP (HRLG), an
NGO has actively been working on these issues. Without the ability to
identify the drone operator, neither the private property owners nor the
citizens can get any relief from the authorities. HRLG has filed a PIL before
this Hon’ble Court stating that permission should not be given to use drones
unless guidelines are laid down on

a. How to prevent violation of privacy rights of individuals and
b. The penalty / compensation for the same.
19. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the TFAS is
a government policy of a surveillance program which is initiated in national
interest. On the issue of negligence, the court refrained from passing an order.
However, the Hon’ble High Court granted a leave to appeal and hence the
present appeal was filed before this Hon’ble Court.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I.Whether the existing laws of the Government of Indus are adequate to
regulate the drone usage in the country? If yes, what remedies are available?
If no, what can be done about it?
No, the existing laws of the Government of Indus are not adequate to regulate
drone usage in the country.
Technology is ever advancing. With the improvement in technology to zoom in

on objects, it is evident that even if the drone is considerably away from the
property and not even around the perimeter of the property, it may have the
wherewithal to take well defined high quality, high resolution pictures of objects
far away, thereby posing a grave risk to personal space and privacy. There are
certain restrictions under Section 3 of the Central Aviation Requirements – Air
Transport Series X Part 1 Issue 1, dated 2, August, 2018 an extract given below:
“3. CATEGORIES OF RPA 3.1 Civil RPA is categorized in accordance with

Maximum All-Up-Weight (including payload) as indicated below:
i) Nano: Less than or equal to 250 grams.
ii) Micro: Greater than 250 grams and less than or equal to 2 kg.
iii) Small: Greater than 2 kg and less than or equal to 25 kg.
iv) Medium: Greater than 25 kg and less than or equal to 150 kg.
v) Large: Greater than 150 kg.”
The weight carrying capacity of lighter drones is continuously increasing with

increase in motor capacity, thrust and speeds in RPM and advancements in
aerodynamics technology. Hence, it would be archaic to categorize drones solely
based on their own weight. It is akin to categorizing a vehicle based on its weight
instead of maximum speed, or to categorize a weapon based on its weight instead
of capacity for destruction. This gives leeway to drone manufacturers to make
drones. Chinese Companies like DJI, who are one of the largest drone

manufacturing companies are already bypassing the laws by smartly creating

drones that fall into the category that is currently not regulated. For example: the
“DJI MAVIC MINI”, which is a drone weighing 249 gms, thereby falling in the
nano category but which functions similar to Micro category.
The manufacturer of the drone, on its official website and brochure mentions
categorically as under:
“The Mavic Mini from DJI is a compact drone that offers professional-quality
results with no restrictions. Thanks to its small size, the Mavic Mini can fly
where larger drones are legally not permitted, or where a drone license is
required. This freedom of flight is combined with a stabilized 3-axis gimbal and
sophisticated flight modes, which can achieve up to 12MP images, 2.7K Quad
HD videos, and complex cinematic shots with just a touch in the DJI Fly app.”
The counsel for the Appellant strongly recommends that the UIN numbers
should be provided at the seller end and not voluntarily by the buyer.
Demerits of Current Drone Legislation, in terms of the CAR are elaborated

further in the Arguments Advanced section.

II.Whether the implementation of the Task Force for Aerial Surveillance

(TFAS) will violate the fundamental rights to privacy of Citizens?
Yes, the Implementation of the task force for aerial surveillance (TFAS) will
violate the fundamental rights to privacy of Citizens.
TFAS needs to increase accountability and responsibility, and infuse reasonable

and tangible checks and balances in exercising these surveillance powers. The
Constitution of Indus guarantees every citizen the right to a dignified life and
personal liberty under Article 21. The Supreme Court, in Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy vs. Union of Indus (2017), ruled that privacy is a fundamental
right.
In an important section of the joint judgment headed “Essential Nature of

Privacy”, Hon’ble Justice D Y Chandrachud analyses the concept of privacy as
being founded on autonomy and as an essential aspect of dignity:
“Dignity cannot exist without privacy. Both reside within the inalienable values
of life, liberty and freedom which the Constitution has recognised. Privacy is the
ultimate expression of the sanctity of the individual. It is a constitutional value
which straddles across the spectrum of fundamental rights and protects for the
individual a zone of choice and self-determination” [169]
At the outset, there still are not any stringent laws on privacy and data protection,
given that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (which maintains an individual's
right to privacy of information and data. Any digression from the ethical and legal
parameters set by law would tantamount to a deliberate invasion of citizens’
privacy and make Indus a surveillance state. However, the question that arises is
that can an individual’s right to privacy be superseded to protect state interest?
More so, since the Appellant was neither part of the gathering, nor volunteered or
consented to being a part of the surveillance nor was present in the perimeter of
the surveillance.

The Indian Constitution is a living instrument. The Courts have sought to give
effect to the “values” which the Constitution contains, by interpreting express
fundamental rights and protections thereof, as containing a wide range of other
rights.
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law”
There is no regulation on drones taking pictures of private property falling under

the ambit of “personal space” which may blatantly be violated. This is similar to
the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) having rules with regard to an
NCCP- TRAI National Do Not Call (NDNC) register. This allows users to opt out
of unsolicited communication. But an even more grave risk to personal space and
privacy by pictures or videos is totally left out. There is currently no opt-in or opt-
out feature in the regulation of geo-fencing for aerial surveillance by other private
users to have their property opted-out of being captured by other drones This
leaves no option in the hands of individuals, occupants, tenants, owners to protect
their homes, residents, tenancies or hereditaments as being a private area.
Legal maxim: “Domus sua cuique tutissimum refugium” (A person’s home is his
ultimate refuge). If the person’s home is not considered private and safe anymore,
it is a grave miscarriage of any personal law and it violates several tenets of what
makes Indus a democracy.
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (1996), the Supreme
Court had set rules for the judicious exercise of surveillance and interception in
phone tapping cases. The same fundamental principles should hold good in aerial
surveillance too.

III.Whether the Aditi Shah is entitled for compensation due to negligence, if any,
of the Police Department?
Yes, Aditi Shah the Appellant is entitled for compensation.
On 01.10.2019, as per the announcement made by the Central Government to
launch a program called Task Force for Aerial Surveillance (TFAS), empowered
certain State Police Departments with Aerial Surveillance Mechanisms. This set
the premises for vicarious liability on the State Police Department. There was no
official report made by the two technical analysts belonging to TFAS regarding
the drone malfunction and the subsequent images leaked. This being a classic
case of negligence, “Res Ipsa Loquitur” which means “the thing speaks for itself”,
it is evident from the facts of the case, that there has been negligence on the part
of the technical drone analyst (operator), and therefore TFAS should be held
vicariously Liable for the lapse and subsequent sequence of unfortunate events.
1. The negligence of the drone operators was established as “Res Ipsa Loquitur”
since the drone malfunctioned and private images were leaked and libel damage
to Aditi Shah, the Appellant was done.
2. Since the drone operators reported to the TFAS, and the TFAS was set up by
the Central Government; by the principles of Respondent Superior, the Central
Government is vicariously liable for the actions of the drone operators.
3. Since the drone operator was aware of the malfunction, but still wilfully
decided to conceal the same from the senior authorities, it indicates clear Mens
Rea.
4. Since the police department had instructed the drone operators and were liable
to oversee their operations which were a result of their instructions to them, the
police and TFAS were in furtherance of a common cause.
This negligence on the part of the TFAS and the police has caused great mental
trauma and the Appellant should be compensated with Rs. 10, 00, 000/- for
mental harassment.

IV.What is the liability of News Today newspaper for illegally acquiring the
footage and publishing it in a derogatory manner?
The Appellant would also like to involve the Newspaper as a co-accused since the
footage of the drone was clearly stolen and reproduced in an unauthorized and
derogatory manner. No permission was sought from any authority or the
Appellant, and hence, this is a case of trespass to person. Maxim “Nemo debet
quad non habet” aptly applies here as the newspaper had absolutely no
authorization to use the footage, more so, for commercial gain.
Even under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act 2000, only the State
had power to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any
information through any computer resource, that too, after due process of law is
followed, the newspaper was in blatant violation of the said section and did not
possess any right or authorization, expressed or implied, to gain said footage,
lawfully or unlawfully. More so, going ahead and publish such illegally acquired
footage with impunity is a grave miscarriage of the tenets of responsible
journalism.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
This Hon’ble High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present
application, and the present application is maintainable in this Hon’ble
Court:
According to Article 21 of the constitution of India, “No person shall be deprived

of his life or personal liberty, except according to procedure established by law”.
Although unlike USA constitution ‘Due process of law’ has not been mentioned
in our constitution even though, after the decision of Maneka Gandhi vs Union
of India we follow the principle of natural justice. This article is very important
article because it is a magna carta for human rights. This article cannot be
suspended even during emergency. The court while delivering this landmark
judgment changed the landscape of the Constitution by holding that though the
phrase used in Article 21 is “procedure established by law” instead of “due
process of law” however, the procedure must be free from arbitrariness and
irrationality.
Even in the case of Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P & Ors. right to privacy is not
a fundamental-rights under Articles 19(1) (d) (e) & 21. Minority opinion- J.Subba
Rao, “Right to personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions
placed on his movements but also free from encroachments on his private life. It
is true our constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a
fundamental right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.”
In the case of R. Rajagopal VS. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held
that
“Every person has a right to privacy and it is immoral and illegal to defame a
person based on the observations of a single person whose opinions may have in
biased. Thus, even though the act of public officials is public service they must be
entitled to such right of privacy with respect to their official duties equal to all
other people.”

In the case of Basanta Jain vs. Dilip Kataria, the Rajasthan High Court affirmed
that the CCTV cameras had no right to capture some other private premises
leading to unwarranted surveillance and thereby infringing upon the privacy of
other individuals.
In the case of Naz foundation VS. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, it
was established that right to life and liberty under article 21 includes right to
privacy. Right to privacy is ‘a right to be let alone’. A citizen has a right to
safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood,
child-bearing and education among other matters. Any person publishing anything
concerning the above matters except with the consent of the person would be
liable in action for damages. Position however, be different, if a person
voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a
controversy.
The counsel for the Appellant further puts forth that:
1. UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM – For every wrong there is a remedy. The fact is
that the private life of the Appellant was encroached upon unethically and
illegally leading to a social and public humiliation. So, the fact is established
that a wrong was committed. If there is no remedy available, it would imply
that no wrong was done and violates the premise of Natural Justice.
2. The negligence of the drone operators was established as “Res Ipsa
Loquitur” since the drone malfunctioned and private images were leaked and
libel damage to the Appellant was done. This grossly calls for implementation
of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 viz. Punishment for
sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.
3. Since the drone operators reported to the TFAS, and the TFAS was set up by
the Central Government; by the principles of Respondent Superior, the
Central Government is vicariously liable for the actions of the drone
operators.

4. Since the police department had instructed the drone operators and were liable
to oversee their operations which were a result of their instructions to them,
the police were in furtherance of a common cause.
5. Since the drone operator was aware of the malfunction, but still wilfully
decided to conceal the same from the senior authorities, it indicates clear
Mens Rea and a clear case of violation of Section 120 of the Indian Penal
Code. Therefore, the drone operator was “accessory after the fact”.
6. It is also evident that the intent of drone surveillance was to capture pictures
and videos, there was also common intent.
7. This being the pilot run, there should have been a police officer of a competent
rank overseeing the operations. Since the technical team was unsupervised, there
was a lapse in data security and the police were kept unaware of this. In fact, the
police were not informed of anything till a complaint was filed by the Appellant.
8. There was gross negligence as neither the TFAS nor the police have
performed their duty with due care, caution and precaution. If that had been the
case, the police would have made an inquiry and such negligence could have been
avoided. Such negligence made it possible for the leak of the images of the
Appellant without her consent.
9. Given in Fact #3 that there have been 45 instances of complaints regarding
drones being flown over private property. Either due to crashes or causing
irritation to pets or just on the grounds of trespass. This indicates that this is not
a new, unpredictable, unforeseen event where the authorities were caught off
guard about such a possibility or an eventuality happening. If there were rampant
instances in the past, it’s prudent to ensure safeguards by those upholding the
law, to ensure they themselves don’t end up being the cause of such grave
injustice as was evident in this case.
Limitations of current Drone Legislation (CAR):
1. In contrast, in case of drones, there is no visibility of the current possessor.

Neither is there any regulation indicating owner/ possessor of a drone after it
has been sold until the time it is registered by the buyer.
2. Currently, the time of registration is undefined by the buyer’s own volition and
at the time of his choosing, which might even be too late or never.

3. Another question that arises is that of abandoned drones. After a drone has
violated existing rules, it gives rise to an increasing disregard for registering
drones.
4. As is evident, the current rules and guidelines by the TFAS exempt certain
classes of drones from most regulations imposed on bigger drones. (The largest
selling drones being Micro and Nano drones are exempt from most restrictions).
These rules do not prohibit a drone from taking off in the absence of registration,
flight-plan, no-fly zones, time of day, etc.
5. Moreover, TFAS regulations lack verification of the identity of the UAOP
licensee, as opposed to the actual user of the drone, who might actually be
different from the authorised person. It is akin to the case of multiple users
sharing a motor driving license.
6. In case of motor vehicles, the driver is himself in the driving seat during any
spot check by the competent authority or during accident which leaves little room
for interpretation as to who was in actual control/ manning the vehicle. E.g. There
have been cases (even in “Res Ipsa Loquitur” cases) where the accused has
claimed to not be driving the vehicle, in case of financially sound or public
figures, where allegedly somebody else was implicated to be in control of the
vehicle.
7. To avoid the above impersonation capability, there are no rules of mapping any
biometric information of the UAOP with a device on the drone or on the Digital
Sky platform that needs the UAOP to biometrically authenticate himself before
every flight.
The counsel for the Appellant strongly recommends that the UIN numbers
should be provided at the seller end and not voluntarily by the buyer. This is
in line with the rules set within the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It completely traces
possession of the vehicle since it departs from the manufacturer’s premises.
1. Any automobile sale is effective only after due registration of the vehicle
at the point of sale by the manufacturer or its authorised representative/
showroom.
2. It should have a complete sale document, registered in the name of the
buyer including all his details or a temporary registration of the vehicle clearly
indicating the current possessor of the vehicle.

In the absence of the above safeguards, it is clearly evident that the existing
regulations are inadequate and it is the need of the hour to have newer, better,
more relevant regulations.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
In the light of the arguments presented, cases referred and authorities cited, the
counsel for the Appellants humbly pray this Hon’ble Court to:
1. In the absence of adequate legislature governing drones, to form interim
guidelines so that drone usage does not violate the fundamental right to
personal privacy which is an integral part of the right to liberty as enshrined in
article 21 of the Constitution.
2. To hold the TFAS, State and Central Government liable for breach of privacy
of the Appellant and award damages.
3. To hold the newspaper criminally liable for publishing stolen footage acquired
in a wrongful and criminal manner and for showing the same in a derogatory
manner thereby defaming the Appellant and causing grave mental trauma and
loss of social repute.
4. Orders as to costs.
5. And to pass any such order as it may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and
good conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.
Place- Capital of Indus
Date- 04th March, 2020
S/d-
(Counsels for the Appellant)

Moot Appellant Final - HB

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

Moot Appellant Final - HB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aditi Shah vs. State of Mahanagar and Ors.

LAWTRYST CODE: LT15

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDUS

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. XXX OF 2019

UNDER ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS

ADITI SHAH ...APPELLANT

STATE OF MAHANAGAR & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... 01

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................... 02

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................... 04

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................... 06

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS ............................................................................. 13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................... 19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................. 24

Abbreviation Full Form

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 1

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

Sr. No. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

1. United Nations Human Rights Instruments

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 2

1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com

2. Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica

3. Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal

4. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in

5. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 3

IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED

ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS:

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 4

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 5

State of Mahanagar & Ors.

1. The Appellant ‘Aditi Shah’, an Indian National is an employee of TCA

for executing the pilot run of the drone surveillance.

3. Respondent No. 2 is a newspaper named News Today.

4. Launch of TFAS: On 01.10.2019, the Central Government announced the

Aerial Surveillance Mechanisms. The drones could be used to analyse huge

be spotted and neutralized.

5. The advantages stated of using the drones were as follows:

a. To have a bird’s eye view of the scene.

b. It would be beneficial in those States where there is a shortage of

6. Pilot run decision: On 02.11.2019, the Bureau of Police Research and

Development in the State of Mahanagar gave the Parla City Police

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 6

of TFAS programme in fulfilling its objectives as stated above point.

decided to use drone surveillance for the event.

her colleagues of TCA International consisting of 11 members in all, near

employees decided to have a pool party on 24.12.2019. There were a few

drones flying in the area for surveillance of the public event.

did not give much thought to it.

realized that there was a malfunction in Beta. On examination he realized that

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 7

continued with the two activated drones.

adopted by the youth in a very derogatory manner. At this point neither

hustle, the news was read by a larger population in detail.

of the state of Mahanagar.

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 8