7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER

TEAM CODE: ZN60-RESPONDENT

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD

TH INTERNAL ZENITH MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDOSTAN

IN THE MATTER OF:

WRIT PETITION NO.W.P.___________/2021

MR. SANGITAN & Anrs……………………………………………………..PETITIONER

VS.

THE UNION OF INDOSTAN & Ors……………………………….....RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDOSTAN

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDOSTAN

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ 5

STATUTE ...................................................................................................................................... 5

LEGAL DATABASE REFERRED ............................................................................................. 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................... 6

ISSUES RAISED........................................................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.................................................................................................. 9

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF THE GOVERNOR WAS

CONSTITUIONALLY VALID? ........................................................................................... 10

ISSUE 2. Whether the allegation of defamation against the governor is valid in law?.... 10

ISSUE 3. Whether the defamation claim lies against Zonama and Seven Stars for the
released series? ........................................................................................................................ 10

ISSUE 4 .WHETHER ZOMANA IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM LIABILITY

ON THE GROUNDS OF BEING AN INTERMEDIARY IN LIGHT OF
INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES? ...................................................................................... 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................................... 10

1. WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF THE GOVERNOR WAS CONSTITUIONALLY

VALID? .................................................................................................................................... 11

THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEOFRE THE HON’BLE COURT

................................................................................................................................................... 11

THE REMOVAL OF THE GOVERNOR IS CONSTITUTIONAL ................................. 12

 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
THERE ARE SEDITION CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNOR ................................ 12

Whether the allegation of defamation against the governor is valid in law? ........................ 13

2.1 All the essentials of defamation were fulfilled by the petitoner. ................................... 14

2.2 Article 19 and 361 of Constitution has reasonable restrictions and certain exceptions
respectively .............................................................................................................................. 15

Whether the defamation claim lies against Zonama and Seven Stars for the released series?
....................................................................................................................................................... 17

3.1 The web series had an uncanny resemblance to Ms. Lucita Binner and the state of
Bongalistan .............................................................................................................................. 17

WHETHER ZOMANA IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM LIABILITY ON THE

GROUNDS OF BEING AN INTERMEDIARY IN LIGHT OF INTERMEDIARY
GUIDELINES? ........................................................................................................................... 19

ZOMANA IS EXEMPTED FROM THE PROVISIONS UNDER SEC 79 OF THE IT ACT

................................................................................................................................................... 19

ZOMANA FAILED TO COMPLAINCE WITH THE DUE DELIGENCE UNDER PART

II (3) of THE IT INTERMIDEARY GUIDELINES, 2021 ................................................. 20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF............................................................................................................. 21

 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL-FORM
AIR All India Report
& And
Anr. Another
Art. Article
cl Clause
SC Supreme Court
Corp. corporation
Govt Government
H.C. Highcourt
Hon’ble Honourable
IT Act Information Technology Act
Ltd. Limited
No Number
Ors Others
i.e. That is
¶ Paragraph
V. Versus
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.NO INDIAN CASES REFERRED

01. Ramesh Thappar vs The State of Madras
02. B.P.Singhal Vs UOI
03. Surya Narain Choudhary vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors
04. Naurang Singh Vs State Of Punjab
05. C.M. Trivedi Vs C.B.L Bhatnagar
06. V.K. Javali v. State of Mysore
07. Google India Private Ltd vs M/S. Visakha Industries

STATUTE

SL.NO NAME OF THE STATUTE

1 The Constitution of India, 1950

2 The Information and Technology Act, 2000

3 The Indian Peneal Code, 1949

LEGAL DATABASE REFERRED

MANUPATRA https://www.manupatrafast.com/
SCC ONLINE https://www.scconline.com/
LEXIS NEXIS https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page
WESTLAW https://www.westlaw.com/
HEIN ONLINE https://home.heinonline.org/
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

On behalf of Respondent the Union of Indostan and Ors, the Council seeks to contest the writ
petition’s maintainability filed by Mr. Sangitan before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indostan
under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indostan, seeking appropriate remedies for the
Determination of the validity of the removal of the Governor of Bongolistan and order the transfer
of the matter pending in the Court of Sessions before it. The reasons for the same have been
elucidated in Issue 1 of this memorial.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution Reads As:

(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 clauses (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.
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY CHALLENGES THE JURISDICTION OF THE WRIT
PETITION. THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS
CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE INSTANT CASE.

ISSUES RAISED

Issue I

WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF THE GOVERNOR WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

Issue II

WHETHER THE ALLEGATION OF DEFAMATION AGAINST THE GOVERNOR IS VALID IN

LAW?

Issue III

WHETHER THE DEFAMATION CLAIM LIES AGAINST ZOMANA AND SEVEN STARS FOR
THE RELEASED SERIES?

Issue IV

WHETHER ZOMANA IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM LIABILITY ON THE GROUNDS

OF BEING AN INTERMEDIARY IN LIGHT OF THE INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES?
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Indostan having a quasi-federal government was severely hit by the fatal Demivid
pandemic in 2020. Bongolistan a state in Indostan got the worst affected by the pandemic,
facing an acute shortage of essential drugs and improper vaccination of its people. Thus, it
faced an outrage by the general public and several other NGOs.

2. Ms. Lucita Binner of the Tristar Party was appointed as the Chief Minister of Bongolistan.
Bongolistan is one of the fewer states to have a female leader. Indo Raika, the opposition
party, has been engaged in conflicts since the declaration of elections results. It became
worst when Mr. Sangitan was appointed as the Governor of Bongolistan.

3. The Governor being critical of the chief minister, criticized her way of handling the
pandemic and time and again alleged the CM and her party members of involved in drug
rackets; as a result, essential drugs such as 'Omdaxin' are being hoarded and inaccessible
to the public, and further are at an exorbitant price to them.

4. During the pandemic, the OTT industry witnessed a boom in Indostan. The OTT platforms
like Holaflix, Zonama, Neystar, etc. In April, Zonama launched 'The Chief Minister's
Chains: Twisting the Acreage of Peace.' This Series showed how a female politician led
her party to win in a state called Bongostan and became the first female CM.

5. The Series had an uncanny resemblance to Lucita Binner. The main plot of the Series
showcased how the chief minister engaged in bribing the general public to earn votes and
election booth hijacking, as well as corruption, kidnapping and murder of journalists and
spokespersons who spoke out against the party.

6. As the plot progressed, Bongostan saw an epidemic outbreak, gradually turning into a
deadly pandemic. People n Bongostan were seen dying without recourse to appropriate
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
medication. The directors of the Series were seen supporting Indo Rika. Post-release of the
Series, there were mob fights between the rival parties, hindering public order.

7. Within a few days of the Series's release, Mr. Sangitan, shared his views and thoughts about
the Series on 'Flitr Chat.' Which led to a series of violent acts in public and over the internet.
Many even resorted to violence.

8. Enraged by the Governor's post, an application was made to the President of Indostan for
the removal of the Governor on the ground that the Governor's post was nothing but wrong
derogatory against the Government of Bongolistan. On the advice of the Union Council of
Ministers, the President approved the removal of the Governor with immediate effect.

9. The government of Bongolistan filed a single defamation complaint against the Governor,
Zonama, and the production company, Seven Stars, in the Court of Sessions at Kandolistan.
The Governor challenged his removal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through a writ
petition, basis the ground of his removal being unjustified. The Governor also challenged
his removal on account of difference in opinion.

10. News Today's leading regional newspaper reported that Zonama portrayed confidence in
the instant case and mentioned that it was a fictional show and appropriate disclaimers were
put in place. It bore no resemblance to Ms. Binner and was ideated by Seven Star long
before production.

11. Zonama also stated that it does not have any liability in this case as its participation is an
intermediary's capacity.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF THE GOVERNOR WAS CONSTITUIONALLY
VALID?

The Counsel pleads brfore the Hon’ble court that the removal of governor is constitutional under
Art 156 and Art 361 of the Constitution. Thus, the writ filed by Mr. Sangitan under Art 32 of
Constitution is not maintainable before the court.

ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE ALLEGATION OF DEFAMATION AGAINST THE GOVERNOR IS VALID IN
LAW?

It is contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indostan that the allegation of Defamation
against the Governor is valid in law

ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE DEFAMATION CLAIM LIES AGAINST ZONAMA AND SEVEN STARS FOR
THE RELEASED SERIES?

The counsel humbly pleads that the defamation claim against the OTT platform Zonama and the
production company seven star are valid under the section 500 of IPC.

ISSUE 4
WHETHER ZOMANA IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM LIABILITY
ON THE GROUNDS OF BEING AN INTERMEDIARY IN LIGHT OF
INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES?

The counsel humbly pleads before the Hon’ble court that Zomana shall be held liable in the present
matter as it failed competence with the Due Diligence by Intermediaries under Part II (3) of the IT
(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
1. WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF THE GOVERNOR WAS
CONSTITUIONALLY VALID?

¶ The Counsel pleads before the Hon’ble court that the removal of the govern Court or is
constitutional under Art 156 and Art 361 of the Constitution. Thus, the writ filed by Mr.
Sangitan under art 32 of Constitution is not maintainable before the court.

¶ The Counsel further pleads that the argument for this isthreefoldree fold. Firstly, the counsel
contest that the writ petition is not maintainable, Secondly the counsel contest that the removal
of the Governor is constitutional and lastly the counsel contests that sedition has been
committed by the governor.

1.1. THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEOFRE THE

HON’BLE COURT

¶ The Counsel humbly pleads before the court that the writ petition in the present matter filed by
Mr. Sangitan is not maintainable under Art 32. Firstly, the council pleads that since the rights of
Mr. Sangitan has exhausted, the writ petition under Art 32 is not maintainable. The counsel further
that there were alternate remedies before exhausting the right to writ.

¶ The counsel relies on “Ramesh Thappar vs The State of Madras”1, where the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the Petition before the court was not maintainable under the Art 32 since
there was no violation of fundamental right. Similarly in the present case in any scenario, the
fundamental rights of the governor has not been infringed and his removal is justified under Art
156 of the constitution.

¶ The Counsel further pleads that the petitioner had other alternative remedies of approaching the
High Court of Bongalistan under Art 226 A of Constitution before approaching the Supreme Court
under Art 32 of the constitution.

1
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
1.2.THE REMOVAL OF THE GOVERNOR IS CONSTITUTIONAL

¶ The Counsel humbly pleads before the Hon’ble Court that the removal of the governor is
constitutionally valid under Art 156 and Art 361. The counsel pleads before the court that a
Governor can be removed in exceptional circumstances. The counsel further pleads that in any
given scenario The President is not answerable for its actions to the courts at any point of given
time.

¶ The counsel relies on “B.P.Singhal Vs UOI”2, where the supreme court held that a president
can be removed in rare cases with a valid reason and in the present matter Mr. Sangitan’s
appointment increased prevailing tensions in the state and furthermore when he issued a derogatory
statement it led to public disorder in the state and thus to maintain harmony he was removed by
the president with consultation with the Chief Minister and council Minister.

¶ The Counsel further refers to the “ Doctrine of Pleasure”, where in the president can not be
questioned about it’s action. Referring to the Art 156 of the constitution the counsel pleads that
the Governor hold it’s office in the pleasure of the president. The counsel relies on “ Surya Narain
Choudhary vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors” 3, where it was held that the President can,
certainly exercise the powers vested in him under Article 156(1) of the Constitution, Moreover, as
already mentioned above, for certain functions, the Governor is directly responsible to the
President. For not discharging his duties, the Governor can be removed by the President, by order.

In the light of all the above arguments made the counsel pleads that the removal of the Governor
occurred in an rare case and with valid reason and since Governor hold office at the pleasure of
the president, thus it’s removal is constitutional.

1.3.THERE ARE SEDITION CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNOR

2
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331
3
Surya Narain v. Union of India, 1981 SCC OnLine Raj 37
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
¶ The counsel pleads that there has been sedition claim against the Governor in the present
matter has committed sedition against the state of Bongalistan, as the statement made by him
instigated a large mass of people which inturn led to public distress in the state.

¶ The Counsel relies on “Naurang Singh Vs State Of Punjab”,4 The Punjab and Haryana high
court held that even though the accused didn’t instigated people to commit violence directly, but
the intensity of the speech was enough to not only carter violence and public disorder in the state
but also contempt the state government.

ISSUE 2
2. Whether the allegation of defamation against the governor is
valid in law?

4
Surya Narain v. Union of India, 1981 SCC OnLine Raj 37
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
¶ It is contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indostan that the allegation of Defamation
against the Governor is valid in law. According to the “C.M. Trivedi Vs C.B.L Bhatnagar”5
case, regardless of anything else in this Code, if any offence under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal
Code (other than defamation by spoken words) is alleged to have been committed against the
President, Vice-President, GOVERNOR of a State, or a Minister, or any other public servant
employed in connection with the Union or a State, in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his
public functions, a judicial inquiry shall be held.

¶ The counsel humbly submits that Issue 2 is further divided into two sub-issues, first the counsel
pleads that the plaintiff was able to fulfil all the essentials of defamation. Secondly, the counsel
will prove that Article 19 has reasonable restrictions and that article 361 has certain exceptions.

2.1. All the essentials of defamation were fulfilled by the Petitoner.

¶ It is contented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indostan that, for constituting the offence
of defamation, various essentials of defamation are required to be fulfilled to consider a particular
statement defamatory.

¶ The essentials of defamation are listed below, with proper clarifications given on how the
petitioner has fulfilled all the essentials of a defamatory statement.

1) THE STATEMENT MUST BE DEFAMATORY: ¶ The very first essential of a defamation crime
is that the statement must be defamatory, that is, it must tend to harm the person’s
reputation. The standard for determining whether or not a remark is defamatory is
based on how it is likely to be interpreted by general public.
It is clearly stated in the facts of the case that the post by the Governor took the internet on
a wild ride and led to a series of violent acts in public and over the internet. The state
witnessed great unrest amongst the public. People started sharing this post and adding
hateful and inciteful comments and reactions against the Chief Minister and the Tristar
party. Many even resorted to violence and burnt portraits of the Chief Minister and
vandalized public property, and also protested in front of the Chief Minister’s residence.

5
C.M. Trivedi v. C.B.L. Bhatnagar, 1958 SCC OnLine Bom 211
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
Therefore, since the general public interpreted the post in a negative way, hence the
statement of the petitioner is defamatory.

2) THE STATEMENT MUST REFER TO THE RESPONDENT:

¶ In an action for defamation, the respondent has to prove that the statement of which he
complains referred to it, it will be immaterial that the petitioner did not intend to defame
the respondent. If the respondent, to whom the statement was published could reasonably
infer that the statement referred to them, then the petitioner will be held liable for
defamation.
¶ it is clearly evident that the petitioner mentioned the Chief Minister several times in his
post. For instance, he mentioned that the “Chief Minister is a failed bureaucrat”, “The
Chief Minister has never been able to demonstrate political competence” etc. Hence,
the statement of the petitioner is referred to the respondent.

3) THE STATEMENT MUST BE PUBLISHED:

¶ The publication of a defamatory statement to someone other than the person who has been
defamed is a crucial part of holding someone accountable, and without it, no case for
defamation would be possible.

Since, the petitioner publicly posted the statement on ‘Flitr Chat’, which implies that people other
than the person who is defamed are also included. Hence, the third essential is fulfilled by the
petitioner.

Hence, it can be concluded that the allegation of defamation against the petitioner is valid, as the
petitioner was able to fulfil all the essentials of defamation.

2.2. Article 19 and 361 of Constitution has reasonable restrictions and

certain exceptions respectively
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
 REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS:-

¶ It is contented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indostan, that the article 19 (2) of the
constitution authorizes the government to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions upon
the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of factors like public order, defamation,
security of the state, etc. Since, it is already proved that the petitioner had defamed the respondent
through his statement and also because of his statement violence had spread across the state, which
caused public disorder in the state. The counsel relies on the facts of the case of “V.K. Javali v.
the State of Mysore”6, which stated that under Article 19(2), a restriction can be imposed ‘in the
interest of’ public order, etc. The expression ‘in the interest of’ gives a greater leeway to the
legislature to curtail freedom of speech and expression, for a law penalizing activities having a
tendency to cause, and not actually causing public disorder, may be valid as being ‘in the interest
of’ public order.

¶ Hence, according to article 19(2) of the constitution, the petitioner had reasonable restrictions
upon his freedom of speech and expression in the interest of factors like public order and
defamation. Therefore, the actions of the petitioner cannot be justified under freedom of speech
and expression.

 EXCEPTIONS:-

¶ It is contented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indostan, according to article 361 of the
constitution, the President, the Governor, or the Rajpramukh of a State shall not be held liable in
any court for the execution and performance of his authority. However, article 61 is an exception
to the article 361 of the constitution. Under article 61, there is a provision which says that nothing
in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate
proceedings against the government of India or government of state which consists of the governor
and the council of ministers.

6
V.K. Javali (Dr.) v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1387
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER

ISSUE 3
3. Whether the defamation claim lies against Zonama and Seven
Stars for the released series?

¶ The counsel humbly pleads that the defamation claim against the OTT platform Zonama and the
production company seven star are valid under section 500 of IPC. The counsel pleads that issue
3 is further divided into two sub-issues. Firstly, the counsel contest that both the parties don’t have
locus standi to file a writ against the civil suit of single defamation. The Counsel further contest
that the defamation claim lies against the OTT platform Zonama, and in the second sub-issue, the
counsel will prove how the defamation claim lies against the production company seven star.

3.1. The Companies do not have the locus standi to file a petition
against the civil suit of Defamation

¶ The counsel pleads that in the present matter both Zomana and Seven Star Production doesn’t
have the Locus standi to file the writ against defamation suit. The counsel contends that Zonama
is a social media intermediary under 2 (w) of the IT Act 7 and it violated the IT guidelines related
to defamation and is held liable which is further proven in issue 4.1 of the given memorial. The
Counsel further pleads that the Seven Star Production being a company doesn’t have the discretion
to file writ under Art 32 of the constitution 8.

3.2. The web series had an uncanny resemblance to Ms. Lucita Binner
and the state of Bongalistan

¶ It is contented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indostan, that it is clearly stated in the latest
guidelines issued by the Ministry of electronics and information technology, that an
intermediary such as Zonama shall not host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store,
update or share any information that impersonates another person.

7
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY(
8
THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, 1950
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
¶ According to the facts of the case, the series portrays how a female politician led her regional
political party to victory in the state of BongoliStan and went on to become its first woman chief
minister. The series bore an uncanny resemblance to the Chief Minister of Bongalistan. The female
lead in the series was depicted to dress as Lucita Binner, and speak in a typically accented manner,
quite akin to Lucita Binner. Since, the series clearly impersonates the Chief Minister of
Bongolistan, therefore, it can be concluded that the OTT platform Zonama was not able to fulfil
due diligence while discharging its duties. Hence, the defamation claim lies against the OTT
platform Zonama.
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER

ISSUE 4
4. WHETHER ZOMANA IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM
LIABILITY ON THE GROUNDS OF BEING AN INTERMEDIARY
IN LIGHT OF INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES?

¶ The counsel humbly pleads before the Hon’ble court that Zomana shall be held liable in the
present matter as it failed competence with the Due Diligence by Intermediaries under Part II (3)
of the IT ( Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and also with
respect to some exception as mentioned under Sec 79 of IT Act.

¶ The Counsel pleads that the arguments are two folds. Firstly, the counsel contest that Zomana is
exempted from the provisions under Sec 79 of the IT Act. The counsel further pleads that Zomana
has violated the PART II (3) of the Intermediary Guidelines.

4.1. ZOMANA IS EXEMPTED FROM THE PROVISIONS UNDER SEC

79 OF THE IT ACT

¶ The counsel pleads that Zomana made the series in question accessible to the people, which
further lead to public disorder and violence, thus leading to conspiracy against the state.
Therefore, Zomana is Exempted from the provisions under Sec 79 of the IT ACT. The Counsel
relies on “ Google India Private Ltd vs M/S. Visakha Industries” 9, where the Supreme court
held that under the modified Section 79, if the intermediary participates in any conspiracy, the
immunity under Section 79 of the Act cannot be invoked. In addition, even after acquiring actual
knowledge of the offensive material or criminal activities, the intermediary could not claim an
exemption if he failed to delete or prevent access to it promptly.

9
Google India (P) Ltd. v. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER
4.2. ZOMANA FAILED TO COMPLAINCE WITH THE DUE
DELIGENCE UNDER PART II (3) of THE IT INTERMIDEARY
GUIDELINES, 2021

¶ The Counsel pleads before the Hon’ble court that Zomana failed to comply with the Part II
Clause 3 ( b) ( ii) and (vii) of the IT guidelines. In the present matter, the series in question bore
an uncanny resemblance to Ms. Binner and simultaneously the few scenes of the show such as the
constricting situation of Bongolistan due to rat fever was relatable to the situation of Bongalistan
due to Demivid vaccine, which further led to the lack of trust of the people on the state government.
The counsel further pleads that the tone of the series was volatile enough to incite violence in the
state of Bongalistan.

¶ The counsel further relies on “Google India Pvt Ltd Vs M/s Visakha Industries and Anrs”10
where it was held that another faulty premise would be that the intermediaries and hosting service
provider are required to supervise and pre-censor anything published on its platform.

10
Google India (P) Ltd. v. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162
 7th ZENITH INTERNAL MOOT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL FOR PETITONER

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in the lights of the Issues Raised, Authorities Cited and Arguments Advanced, it is most
humbly requested that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indostan, be pleased to declare that:

1. The Removal of the Governor is constitutional

2. The allegation of defamation against the Governor is valid in law

3. The defamation claim lies against Zonoma and Seven Stars for the released series.

AND

4. Zonoma is not entitled to protection from liability on the grounds of being an intermediary
in light of the Intermediary Guidelines

AND/OR

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, WRIT, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT BELIEVES IS IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF

JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY, AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.

Sd./
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT