The counsel seeks permission to approach the Dias.

Good afternoon to the Hon’ble bench

If it may please, the counsel seeks permission to address the bench as your Lordship collectively.

Much Obliged your Lordship.

The counsel is appearing before the Hon’ble Court in the matter of Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal v. union of
stan, on behalf of the Appellants under Article 136 of the constitution

Your Lordships, there are three main issues involved in the present case.

The counsel will be dealing with the first and the third issue and would be speaking for  ___7__ mins, and the co-
counsel would be dealing with the second issue and would speak for __5__ mins

if your lordship are well versed with the facts, the counsel seeks permission to proceed with the pleadings.

Much obliged

I. Your lordship, the first issue is WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS
MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 136 OR NOT?

The Supreme court is not only a court of law but a court of equity as well,

Art 136 of the constitution my lord vests plenary jurisdiction in this court to entertain
appeal otherwise not maintainable under Art.134of the constitution by granting Special
leave against any order, my lord, to impart justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice.

In PRITAM SINGH v. STATE, it was held, such special leave is granted only in special
circumstances.

In the instant case, my lord, such special circumstances do exist. AS

I am a student of cyber security and had clear intentions to find the loopholes in the
cyber security of the SSRO, but the impugned order of hon. High court reversed the
decision of the trial court and decided the case without considering the mental element
behind my conduct. And my academic endeavors resulted in conviction under inter alia
cyber terrorism.

The interference of this hon, court is pertinent in the interest of justice. The petition
should be maintained and the special leave should be granted
If it may please, the counsel seeks permission to proceed to issue No. 3

III The Third issue your lordship is whether the petitioner have intention as required
under s 66, 66F of the IT act and sec 441 of Stanian penal code?

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is well recognized in criminal jurisprudence,

In present case also, my lord, the counsel submits that there is a lack of mens rea on part
of the petitioner for the sections they are charged under.

AS under section 66 of the IT Act 2000,

A cyber contravention becomes a cyber offence if pursued either dishonestly or

fraudulently .

my lord IN State of mp v S Dariyav and ors , dishonestly, is anything

done with intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss . it’s clear, my lord, neither I
had to gain anything from the transaction and the fact that I forwarded the mailed to
authorities as soon as the virus started behaving unprecedently, CLEARS that I didn’t
intend to cause wrongful loss either.

MY LORD IN S P C Naidu v JagganNath & ors. fraud is A deception in order to gain

by another’s losses , however , it is humbly submitted . that the only intention I had was
to prevent the SSRO from any deception, rather that deceiving it.

Further, your lordship

AS per Divyabharti @ v. Inspector of police & Ors. it was observed, In order to commit
an offence under S.66-F, it must be shown that the act was threaten the unity, integrity
security or sovereignty of the state or to strike terror in the people.

However, my lord, it is humbly submitted that I AM a bona fide student of ethical hacking
in a reputed university, and I was part of an official hacking competition started by SSRO
itself, and had no such intention as required under sec 66F.

Further it is humbly submitted, that my test runs with the virus showed completely
different behavior and I had no prior knowledge that virus could behave in such a
manner.

At last , my lord

for liability under section 441 of the stanian penal code , my lord

it is imperative that the entry to the property was done with requisite intention ,

In Issac Musumba and ors. V state & ors. The intent to commit an offence or to
intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property is a necessary
ingredient of criminal trespass ,

My lord , it is submitted , I had no intention to intimidating or insulting or annoying the

respondent , and my act was purely an academic endeavor aimed at finding the loophole
in the respondents cyber infrastructure for there good.

In the light of stated assertions , it is prayed that the petitioners are not guilty under
section 66 , 66F of IT ACT and section 441 Staninan penal code