Petitioner

Respondent
COLLEGE.GROUP
CODE:
P4
INLIMCA
COMPETITION
2021
OF
LAW COURT OF OF Petitioner/
COURT MATTER
DANDEKAR BEFORE NO:
SUPREME
PETITION
MOOT THE of
Versus
Behalf
HON'BLEWRIT IN
COLLEGE
SONOPANT on Petitioner
ofMemorial
Ors.
Submission
INTRA THE &
Count
Inlimca
ofRepublic
Monto
Written
Mr.
 Page
n0.
COLLEGE
COMPETITION
LAW
COURT
DANDEKAR
MOOT Bibliography
Webliography
/
Statement
of
Jurisdiction Consideration
for
IssuesSummary
ofArguments
COLLGE List
ofAbbreviations
Advanced
Arguments
SONOPANT Index
of
Authorities Statement
ofFacts
TABLE
OF
CONTENT
INTRA Particulars
Prayers
SR.
No
1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9.
5
COLLEGE.
COMPETITION
LAW
1885
COURT
DANDEKAR bill.
Act,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
WEBLIOGRAPHY
/ protection
MOOT Telegraph
Inlimca
COLLECE
Legalservicesindia.com
2.
SONOPANT of data Web Indiankanoon.com
Referred:
Sources
2000Inlimca
Constitution
personal
INTRA Act Bills
referred
Statues
Referred: The
I.T
The
1. 2. 3.
1.
1.
 Government
Team
Investigation
Special
Inlimca
of Public
Interest
Litigation
Front
National
Inlimca
COLLEGE.
COMPETITION
Front
Organization
LAW ABBREVIATIONS
OF
LIST Socialist
COURT
Full
form That
is Article
Versus
DANDEKAR And Non
MO0T
COLLEGE
SONOPANT
INTRA
ABBREVIATIONS
NGO ART
INFSFIPILSIT
& 1.e
V
 1982
India
Government
COLLECE
COMPETITION of Rayala
Union
Government
Union Nagaphomender
LAW v.
AUTHORITIES
OF
INDEX
Rights
COORT v.
DANDEKAR
Liberties
Union
Democratic
MOOT
v.
Civilv, Bhuvneswari
COLLEGE K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd)
SONOPANT for for
Union
Union
INTRA
M.
1.
People
's 2.People
's
Rayala
3. 4.
 trailed
Supreme
be
Hon'ble
can
COLLEGE,. petition
COMPETITION Before
this
Petition
JURISDICTION
STATEMENT
OF Constitution
LAW
Writ
COURT
DANDEKAR thisof
filed32
MOOT Art
has
andunder
COLLECE
SONOPANT resident
fled
been
INTRA Inlimca
has Court.
petition
an Hon'ble
is
Petitioner
this
the
as
before
Court
The
 yearINF usingfurther internationals
Juridiction as Sabha no no underopposition ranking
unethical
known has was
INFSecurity
from
party,
profession. for but Lok analysis there
were
INF an high-
COLLEGE. with Citizens is of andfrom was
Nationalof which
other period matter targeted a
COMPETITION address members news members thisand
by software
by
newspaper on 16 same as committed
having ruled of spying was the resign
promise with were
disgruntled it thatthe included
been spyware
LAW FACTS
OF
STATEMENT was along and allegations in citizens should
resident
an that has
COURT of is and software 2019
government
which
editor agency stated that ministers
DANDEKAR Inalimca
agendaof same
the
&
300
behalf thanand
nation.
2018 to Government
andgovernment that news
MOOT with responding moresoftware,cabinet
thatyear
and is
petitioner
on and of union
party, 2019software online
analysis
withdrawn. in
citizens
COLLECE is that that
Monto Union used further same the
SONOPANT nationalyear is while of revealed demanded
nation.
demanded.
was
enquiry
the a been that
in spyware
a election. which the
Mr. court,
is made andprivacy
governnment act
INTRA respondentfiled was was the basis wasby
petitioner a is Shodhika
publications unlawful
Hon'bleINFthewas a PILThread in
Shodhika
of it surveillance
SFI
also.
party
won same elections invasion
concrete Further, Further
2019. PIL
The The has theThe The and
of A
I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
 Article prior
without
under nation?
enrichedof or
COLLEGE. reason
security
COMPETITION as
privacyof valid
CONSIDERATION
FOR
ISSUES
Inlimca? name
without
to under
LAW right
of intentionally
Constitution rights
fundanmental
COURT
DANDEKAR fundamental
MO0T the virus
under
violatingultracitizens
maintainable
COLLEGE performs
SONOPANT or
infringed invade
Constitution?
is government
Petition government
INTRA government
Writ Inlimca
Union
this intimation?
Union
Whether
the Whether
Whether
of Can
21
1. 2. 3. 4.
 Court,
is Article except provided it is governmentthat prior anddeprived respect
petition people,
it
security, Constitution
liberty without with
ble
Hon'
before under nation? be
this right the
shall was
COLLEGE, country enriched personal fundamental
of
by national
elected seems or
act
security reasonis personthis
COMPETITION Inlimca? power
Petition
Writthis as or alike. guarantees.of it
privacy life are name outset Nolaw.that
The of valid
of who security. Supreme
Liberty:
by information
of citizen ofhis foreigners name government.
liberty. theat without established
Constitution to
right deprived members
Constitution targeted,
LAW under under
ARGUMENTS
OFSUMMARY a an
can is
file and personal
national but Personal
COURT power
intentionally rights powers legit
petitioner fundamental be citizens to also procedure of
DANDEKAR under person shall to the given of were
and or intentions
the name fundamental valid
MOOT maintainable person person,2)Right that
are used
has Life
any
Inlimcathe
the virus party
rights power the govemment
of to malatide
any
asand
violating No life hasopposition
under according
Protection furnished
law." every ultra
COLLEGE Liberty: to important the
government citizens
ispetition
of violated
Constitution by to 1)Rightperforms intentionally the
country
SONOPANT infringed established
or
Personal
available
from
countryexcept
invade that
not shows
maintainable
under
constitution.
Constitution? most
are rights power states has
liberty
Writ government
Democraticmembers Govermment
INTRA rights 21: procedure is the democratic
virus government act
this g0Vermment and right two of in Inlimca this
of
32 tudamental Article provides
one stay ultra personal security
Whether InlimcaLife tundamental that
ArMcle
Under is Union a to observed performed being
to "Protection
of to 21 is of Union
Constitution
that or
according
the According
WieuieT 21l Article Inlimca intimation?
Union
life national
1: Article Whetherseemed
Issue icit of Inlimca Further
This his
21 by As alsohad Can of of
2. 2. 3. 3
4.
 authorization
safeguarding
message Union specificcitizens"
the under
ifconducted authorizing
and ending follow
themessages whilegovernment'
be s Therelating
andPractices implement
certain M. wifedivorcewvife' s
privacy
by law. privacy. overreachof66A cannot confidentiality Ravala
act his the illegal.
v. fall towards mustprivacy
clear S.Puttaswamy(Retd)
down conducted
maintaining
by thisprovisionsfor
Security their to
recorded
must
established offensive governmentthat continuing mandatory
section and Judgement On right
of and be of for in infringedwas
a
importance
sendsscrutiny
laid surveillance
onlyinvasion prevent
necessary approach to the and data
(Reasonable
evidence cited Government
COMPETITION also surveillance down rightin right contains
of who
It while procedures can sending oversight breach it personal
courtConstitution.
but surveillance and
government.
judicial its
to struckserious thefundamental fundamental for make on husband as The
the privacy
surveillance electronicjustify is warrants 2000
restrain disclosure. illegal
relied recording
K. oversight for that for Technology
2011 Union
underscores lives.
of Court judicial penalties of evidence.
that matter to electronic the
punishment
areflects guidelines Act, privacyhasthat was thethe
private must of be Rules,
theand right followconduct electronic Supreme citizens' Technology
should herconversations
observed
surveillance issuing
judicial and a is or petitioner of by
by electronic privacy imposes access
Information)
COURT tolerated
andpower citizens'
in
Court fundamnental
any
judgment specific proportionality, Information
the
submitted as 21 done
usedarticle
strictly thefor government. reaffirms and
precedent to words, the unauthorized
protect Court act
of be into Supreme that interest that provided
India, that Information
illegal Act crime be under
should thatnmandatory. This provides and not the
MOT misuse conduct the the
not stated other heldunderscored clear the
the the could that
recording
overreach the govemment' of s of medium. It 1s of orDatato is knowledge liberty
a will of upbeld and results judgment 2000,which
Union necessity,
surveillance.it government Additionally,
agencies,
privacy
Rayala states
set the citizens Judeement maycategoricallyIn proportionality.
the judgment
Government.
makes The
72 prevent recording
COLLEGE preventing
iudøment law be
communication
by Section Personal personal
prtitioner
must v.
government onlygovernment
by
the
PUCL
citizens Judgement 2000: Nagaphomender
invading of
heract
authorized and II court officials provisions, privacy. government
to
on
on not the Puttaswamy Act, ll
Puttaswamy
electronic Union
Act, records.Sensitive
measures without
the the and
Indiaandspyingrelied court that
exist, The law, of thereforeJudgement
court surveillance
Technology even Technology that life
INTRAof privacy government
prevent the heldandoptions surveillance.
government
case electronic activities.
surveillance
mentionedby and that
conversion
one, done electronic
legal and security ruled to
Union has thehow Thebe alsonecessity related conducting protectionincluding submit right
petitioner
judgment,must the the Procedures v. courtprivacy,
to to rights. judgment viable clear any is Information Bhuvneswari this
appropriate the
11gnt necessary on govermment Furthermore, Information
v.
summary,
arbitrary by that
above of to telephone on
PUCL Government
guidelines of by another
electronic an requiringinvaded entities, The of Relying
ta8 through act dataprivacy Further to part
sFurthertms privacy testother misuse while The right
case.
The and as
he The theno the In to
are n In 11. 12.
T 10
9.
 DANDEKAR LAW COLLEGE,
SONOPANT
Prayers

1.
1o appoint ST as investigation team in current situation. privacy of the citizens of the country under
2 To decare that
surveillance by the state is an invasion of
Art.21 of the Constitution and also deters free speech and expression
which is fundamental
right.

3. To restrict Union Government from performing such act in future.

4. To dispose the Collected data without disclosing identity.
5. Any other order that deem fits.