Petitioner Memorial (P-35)

DNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
P-35
P-
Amity Law School Jaipur
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

COURT NO 111
In the Matter of:
STATE OF KERALA………………………………………………………….PETITIONER 1
v.
KRISHNA KUMAR ………………………………………………………...RESPONDENT 1

DR LALITHA ………………………………………………………...
PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF TITANIA
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON'BLE JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF TITANIA
1
P-35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether Titania’s prosecution of Aaron Chacko violates the relevant legal provisions?
1.1 Whether Titania’s prosecution of petitioner 1 infringes the fundamental rights as
enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India (COI)?
1.2 Whether Titania’s prosecution of Aaron Chacko is valid under the Information
Technology Act, 2000?
1.3 Whether Titania’s prosecution of Aaron Chacko is valid under Indian Penal Code,
1860?
2. Whether Titania’s prosecution of T-city violates the relevant legal provisions?
2.1 Whether Titania’s prosecution of T-City is valid under section 79 of Information
PRAYER
2
P-35
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Art. Article
IPC Indian Penal Code
COI Constitution of India
para Paragraph
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
AIR All India Reporters
UOI Union of India
Eds. Edition
Anr. Another
Govt. Government
HC High Court
Ors. Others
No. Number
V./VS Versus
& And
P. Page
SLP Special Leave Petition
Hon’ble Honourable
IT Act Information Technology Act
COT Constitution of Titania
3
P-35
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124, 128

2. Faheema Shirin R K v. State of Kerala & Ors, WP(C).No.19716 OF 2019(L)
3. Anuradha Basin v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308
4. Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia,AIR 1960 SC 633
5. Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. v. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. W.P.(CRL) 1376/2020,
CRL.M.As. 12009/2020
6. Gopal Vinayak Godse v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Bom 56.
7. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP, 1957 AIR 620.
8. Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr, Appeal (crl.) 491 of 2007.
STATUTES:
1. The Constitution of India,1950

2. The Information Technology Act,2000
3. The Indian Penal Code,1860
DATA BASE REFERED:
1. Manupatra - an online database for Legal Research (no date). Available at:
https://www.manupatrafast.com/ (Accessed: January 16, 2023).
2. SCC online® web edition (no date) SCC Online®, Legal Research Solution. Available
at: https://www.scconline.com/web-
edition?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIopDY67zM_AIVig4rCh2AkwuPEAAYASAAEgK8af
D_BwE (Accessed: January 16, 2023).
4
P-35
3. Livelaw (no date) Supreme Court News, Latest India Legal News, Supreme Court
updates, High Courts updates, judgments, law firms news, Law School News, Latest
Legal News, Live Law. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/ (Accessed: January 16,
2023).
5
P-35
4. Indian legal news, Supreme Court of India, High Court: Bar and bench (no date) Bar
and Bench - Indian Legal news. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/
(Accessed: January 16, 2023).
5. Aironline.in (no date) AIROnline: Indian Legal Database: Legal Research,
aironline.in. Available at: https://www.aironline.in/ (Accessed: January 22, 2023).
BOOKS:
1. Austin, G. (1966) The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.
2. Ranchhoddas, R. et al. (2014) Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's the Indian Penal Code: (act
XLV of 1860). Gurgaon, Haryana: LexisNexis.
3. Gaur, K.D. (2009) Textbook on the Indian Penal Code. Delhi: Universal Law Pub.
Co.
4. Bhansali, S.R. (2003) The Information Technology Act, 2000: An exhaustive, critical,
and analytical commentary of act no. 21 of 2000: With information technology
(certifying authorities) rules, 2000, Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal
(procedure) rules, 2000, Information Technology (Conditions of service of the
controller) rules, 2000, Information Technology (Certifying Authority) Regulations,
2001. Jaipur: University Book House.
5. Jain, M.P., Chelameswar, J. and Naidu, D.S. (2019) Indian constitutional law.
Gurgaon, Haryana, India: LexisNexis.
6. Shukla, V.N. and Singh, M.P. (2019) V.N. Shukla's constitution of India. Lucknow:
Eastern Book Company.
7. BASU, D.U.R.G.A.D.A.S. (2022) Introduction to the constitution of India. S.l.:
LEXIS NEXIS.
8. Malik, S. and Malik, S. (2019) Supreme Court on Information Technology Act,
internet & cyber laws and Aadhaar: Containing Bare acts, and case-law on the
subject since 1950 (since 1950 to date). Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.
9. Bhansali, S.R. (2015) Commentary on the information technology act. Universal Law
Publishing.
10. S., A.P.P. and Vibhute, K.I. (2018) P.S.A. Pillai's criminal law. Gurgaon, Haryana,
India: LexisNexis.
6
P-35
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court is competent to hear to the petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution of Titania.
As the matter involves determining the extent of fundamental rights and other Articles
provided under Part III of the Constitution of Titania, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Titania
to hear the matter which has all the jurisdiction to hear it. It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Titania that the Court is empowered to hear this case by the virtue of
Article 136 of the Constitution of Titania.1
1
Article 136 in The Constitution Of India 1949
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave
to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
7
P-35
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by
any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The current matter has been preferred by the petitioners through special leave petition
before the Supreme Court of Titania (“SC”) against the order of conviction by the
Trial Court. Petitioner 1 (“Aaron Chacko”) was convicted for publication and
distribution of the face image of Fionna Connelly resulting in the breach of her
privacy and was sentenced to one (1) year of imprisonment. Fiona Connelly is a
political leader and former Minister of Reconciliation. Petitioner 1 was also convicted
for inciting hateful speech and violence, or being reckless for the same through false
information and misrepresentation and fine of INR Fifty Thousand (50,000) was
imposed on him. Petitioner 1 is a citizen of Titania and a member of Thars for Titania
(“TFT”).
2. Petitioner 2 (“T-city”) was convicted for publication and distribution of fake image of
Fiona Connelly resulting in breach of her privacy and penalty of INR One Hundred
Thousand (100,000) was imposed on it. Also, penalty of INR One Hundred Thousand
(100,000) was imposed on Petitioner 2 for communicating and facilitating spread of
false information and delaying in expeditiously removal of false information.
Petitioner 2 is the most popular social media platform in Titania.
3. The controversy began on 1st August at 10:00 AM, when Petitioner 1 posted and
published a picture of naked Fiona Connelly in which she was reaching out for a bag
of cash being proffered by Jack Smith. Jack Smith is a controversial figure from Borz,
which is Titania’s neighbouring nation which has colonized Titania for several
decades until Titania’s independence. This picture was originally posted by an
account titled
“Patroit1”. The Petitioner 1 reshared it and tags ACT-FT News, which is a T-city
handle of Action-Finance Times and Fionna Connelly’s T-city handle as well. The
picture published by Petitioner 1 became the most trending post across Titania.
8
P-35
4. At 02:00 PM of the same day the Action-Finance Time removed the tag from the said
post and issues a public statement disassociating themselves. Fiona Connelly’s office
also issued the statement declaring that the post has no basis and has been
photoshopped. Her office sent an email to Petitioner 2 requesting removal of the said
post from trending list and from the platform to T-city. On 2 nd August, Fionna
Connelly’s counsel sent a letter to Petitioner 2 threatening to sue them for defamation
and breach of privacy if the post in not removed expeditiously. Petitioner 2 removed
the post on 3rd August. By the time it was removed, it garnered five hundred thousand
(500,000) re-shares and was third on “Trending across Titania” list.
5. In wake of the post, demonstrations were held outside of Fionna Connelly’s office and
she was also threatened by anonymous callers. She was accused for impropriety
conduct through comments and posts on T-city. Skirmishes broke out in various parts
of the nations between Thars and Zars where one such incident ensued in death of two
(2) members of Thar community at the hands of a Zar mob. On 7 th August, Connelly
resigned from her office.
6. A criminal search warrant was issues against the Petitioners. Petitioner 1 was arrested
and was convicted. During the trial, Petitioner 1 stated that he was under the
impression that Action-Finance Times News was about to break the story and he
wanted to post about it beforehand to maximise his influencer score. While surfing
through T-city, he came across the image of Connelly and ack Smith, which he
decided to use to “show the cations of Fiona Connelly.”
7. During the Court proceedings it was found that the image has been skilfully doctored
and Connelly’s face has been photoshopped over the image other person’s body which
has been obtained from a pornographic website and added to the picture of Jack Smith
in the room. The user of “Patriot1” could not be traced as the account was deleted on
5th August.
8. Currently, this matter is before the Hon’ble SC for final adjudication.
9
P-35
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of Titania (COT)?
1.3 Whether Titania’s prosecution of Aaron Chacko is valid under Indian Penal Code, 1860?
2 Whether Titania’s prosecution of T-city violates the relevant legal provisions?
10
P-35
11
P-35
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. The prosecution and conviction of Petitioner 1 is legally invalid as it is in violation of

Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (COI). It is firmly submitted that the actions of
Petitioner 1 did not violate any legal provisions and doesn't fall under reasonable
restrictions. Furthermore, any restriction imposed on the petitioner 1 on grounds
specified under Art. 19(1)(a) would not be reasonable hence, the conviction of
petitioner is invalid and his conviction should not be sustained.
2. That the prosecution and conviction of the Petitioner 1 is invalid under Information
Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). As the acts of the petitioner does not fulfil the
necessary ingredients S. 66E of the act. He merely shared the image which was
already available on the public domain. The act of resharing the picture in controversy
does not satisfy the requirements of Section 66E.
3. The prosecution and conviction of petitioner 01 is invalid under provision of the IPC,
1860. The act of petitioner doesn't fulfil the essentials of the relevant provisions under
the IPC, 1860. In addition, the act of petitioner 01 lacks mens rea which is an essential
elements to constitute an offence under the IPC. Hence, it is humbly submitted before
the Hon'ble Court that the prosecution and conviction on basics of provisions of the
IPC, 1860 is invalid and should not be sustained.
4. That the prosecution and conviction of T-City is invalid under the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). As T-city has not violated any legal provisions
which is outlined in the Section 79 of the (“IT Act”). The intermediary has followed
the guidelines that they legally had to follow and removed the post in due time
duration.
12
P-35
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of Titania (COT)?
• Act of petitioner is not violation of his Fundamental rights, enshrined under Article 19.
[1] It is firmly submitted before this Hon’ble Court the prosecution and conviction of the
Petitioner 1 is violative of his fundamental right under Part III, Art. 19(1)(a) of the COI.
Petitioner 1 was arrested and convicted for distributing a fake image of Fiona Connelly and
was also convicted for inciting hateful speech and violence. Petitioner 1 was exercising his
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) of COI and he
didn’t commit any offence. Article 19(1)(a) also provides freedom of speech and expression
on social media and the Internet. Freedom of speech and the press lay at the foundation of all
democratic organisations.1 In the Indian Constitution and other international declarations, the
freedom of speech and expression is acknowledged as a fundamental right, regardless of the
medium through which it is expressed. Access to this medium has also been recognised as a
fundamental human right, especially in view of the growing usage of the internet and social
media as a means of exercising this right. In Faheema Shirin R K v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2
the High Court has recognised that mobile phones and access through it are part and parcel of
the day to day life. The court took the view that the right to access the internet has been read
into the fundamental right to life and liberty, under Article 21. The court added that it
constitutes an essential part of the freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, freedom
of speech and expression through the internet is one of the integral parts of Article 19(1)(a). 3
The act of
Petitioner 1 doesn’t come under the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Art. 19(2) of the
COI. If an act is in relation to or affects the following essentials then such an act comes under
the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Art. 19(2):
1 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124, 128
2 Faheema Shirin R K v. State of Kerala & Ors, WP(C).No.19716 OF 2019(L)
3 Anuradha Basin v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308
13
P-35
- Security of the State,

- Friendly relations with foreign states,
- Public order,
- Decency and morality,
- Contempt of Court,
- Defamation,
- Incitement to an offence,
- Sovereignty and integrity of India.
[2] Petitioner 1 merely re-shared the post on his account which was originally
published/posted on the account named “Patroit1” this makes it clear that petitioner 1 was not
the original publisher of the post on the social media account. Petitioner 1 claimed that he
wanted to “show the actions of Fiona Connelly” (refer to para. 16 of the preposition). He
claimed that he was under the impression that Action-Financial Times News was about to
share the same this shows that petitioner 1 didn’t have knowledge that the reshared picture
was fake and he unintentionally reshared a fake picture of Fiona Connelly. Furthermore.
There was an absence of mens rea in his resharing of the post. The intention of petitioner 1
was that people should know about the action of Fiona Connelly as she was a very important
public figure. Hence, his act was not indecent and immoral.
[2] The act of petitioner 1 didn't cause any public disorder. It is a well-established fact that
there is a nature of distrust between both the communities (Zars and Thars) and Titania has
witnessed violent clashes between both communities quite a few times prior to the recent
clashes (refer to para. 1 of the proposition). The resharing of a nude picture of Fiona
Connelly with a caption questioning her doesn’t directly incite hatred in minds of both
communities for each other. In Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court stated that the restrictions must not be far-fetched, hypothetical or problematic or too
remote in the chain of its relation with public order. 4The relation between the resharing post
of petitioner 1 and public disorder is too remote and hence restricting the right of freedom of
speech and expression of petitioner 1 based on the ground of public order would be
4 Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia AIR 1960 SC 633
14
P-35
unreasonable. The act of petitioner 1 doesn’t affect the Sovereignty and integrity of India, the
Security of the State,
15
P-35
friendly relations with foreign states and is not in Contempt of Court so restrictions on right
to freedom of speech and expression based on these grounds are also unreasonable.
[4] Hence, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the prosecution of
Petitioner 1 is legally invalid and is liable to be set aside.
[5] It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the prosecution and conviction
of the Petitioner 1 is invalid under Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). Paragraph
14 of the proposition states that Petitioner 1 was arrested and convicted for distributing a fake
image of Fionna Connelly and breach of privacy. Section 66E of the IT Act dictates the
punishment for violation of privacy. For prosecution under section 66E following elements
are to be established:
i. Capture, publication, or transmission of the image of a private area of any person;

ii. Such capture, publication, or transmission must be done intentionally; and
iii. Without the consent of such person.
[6] In the ongoing matter, Petitioner 1 has not captured, published, or transmitted nude
picture of Fionna Connelly. It is evident from Paragraph 9 of the proposition that Petitioner 1
came across the picture of Fionna Connelly and Jack Smith on T-city. As such, the picture
was already published and posted on public domain (ref. Paragraph 5). Furthermore,
Petitioner 1 merely reshared the concerned picture (ref. Paragraph 6). The picture was neither
transmitted nor published as it was already on the public domain. Resharing a picture
available on pubic domain does not fall within the definition of “transmit,” “publish,” or
“capture” for the purpose of Section 66E (ref. Explanation to Section 66E).
[7] Furthermore, to attract prosecution under Section 66E image of “private area” of the
person is necessary (Ref. Section 66E). In the current matter, the picture in controversy does
not belong to private area of Fionna Connelly. It is evident from paragraph 17 of the
proposition that picture in the controversy has been skilfully doctored and Fionna Connelly’s
face was morphed on the body of another person. Petitioner 1 cannot be prosecuted or
16
P-35
convicted for resharing a morphed picture of two (2) different natural persons that was
already published on T-city and was in public domain. The act of resharing the picture in
controversy does not satisfy the requirements of Section 66E and hence, the prosecution and
conviction of Petitioner is bad in law having been done in violation of statutory provisions.
Hence, it is humbly submitted that the conviction of Petitioner 1 should not be sustained and
is liable to be set aside.
1.3 Whether Titania’s prosecution of Aaron Chacko is valid under Indian Penal Code, 1860?
[8] It is firmly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the prosecution and conviction of
the Petitioner 1 is invalid under Indian Penal Code, 1860. Petition 01 has been prosecuted and
convicted for inciting hateful speech and violence under the IPC, 1860. The aforementioned
offence is stated under S. 153A, and 505 of the IPC, 1860.
[9] Conviction of petitioner 01 under S. 153A of the IPC, 1860 is invalid as it doesn't
fulfil the essential elements of the said section. S. 153A of the IPC states the punishment for
promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. The
following essentials are not fulfilled by petitioner 01 for the commencement of offence under
S. 153A of the IPC, 1860:
i. Promoting or attempting to promote disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred or

ill-will;
ii. Organises any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activities in order to
train for use of force or violence against any of the groups.
[10] The act of petitioner 01 did not attempt to promote disharmony or a feeling of enmity
in both (Zars and Thars) the groups. Petitioner 01 was not the creator or publisher of the
picture of Fiona Connlley and merely re-shared it (refer to para. 09 of the preposition). The
caption also did not mention anything which generally incites, attempts or promote
disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups. Furthermore,
petitioner 01 claimed that he was under impression that the Action-Finance Times news
channel was also going to publish the same and thought the post to be real and not fake (refer
17
P-35
to para. 16 of the preposition). There was a clear absence of mens rea or mala fide intention
in the acts of petitioner 01. In addition, petitioner 01 did not organise any drill, moment or
other similar activity to commence violence against any of the groups. It is evident in para.
01 of the preposition that there was distrust between the two communities prior to the
resharing of the post by petitioner 01. Furthermore, in the past, Fiona Connelly also faced
allegations of impropriety against her, and allegations that she favours her own community
over the Thars. As he was seen with Jack Smith in the picture who was a controversial figure
and known to be been linked to anti-Thar activities in Titania (refer to para. 02 of the
preposition), petitioner 01 was under the impression of the picture being true and lacked any
mala fide intentions to create or promote disharmony between the two communities. In Gopal
Vinayak Godse v. Union of India,5 Special Bench emphasised that in order to bring a case
within the purview of Section 153A, the intention to promote enmity or hatred apart from
what appeared from the writing itself was not a necessary ingredient. In Ramji Lal Modi v.
State of UP6, the Supreme Court stated that mens rea is an essential ingredient of Section
153A of the IPC, 1860. Further, In Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr, 7 it
was held that the prosecution must prima facie establish that the accused had the mens rea to
cause enmity between different classes of people, and there is an absence of mens rea in the
acts of petitioner 01.
[11] Conviction of Petitioner 01 under S. 505 of the IPC, 1860 is invalid as the act of the
petitioner doesn’t fulfil the essential requirements of the said section. S. 505 includes the
statements conducing to public mischief. The following is one of the essential element which
is not fulfilled by the act of petitioner 01:
[12] Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to
incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence
against the State or against any other class or community:
[13] The act of Petitioner 01 was not the publisher as stated in the above para.
Furthermore, the act of petitioner 01 lacked mens rea which is an essential element to prove a
5 Gopal Vinayak Godse v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Bom 56.
6 Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP, 1957 AIR 620.
7 Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr, Appeal (crl.) 491 of 2007.
18
P-35
crime. The act of petitioner 01 falls under the exception mentioned under S. 505 of the IPC,
1860. Following is the exception under S. 505;
i. It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section when the person
making, publishing or circulating any such statement, rumour or report, has
reasonable
grounds for believing that such statement rumour or report is true and makes,
publishes or circulates it.
ii. The act of petitioner 01 was under the impression of the picture being true and not
fake and petitioner 01 did it to show people the action of Fiona Connelly (refer to
para. 16 of the preposition) which shows the lack of mens rea hence, the persecution
and conviction of petitioner 01 based on the aforementioned sections of IPC, 1860 is
invalid and should not be sustained.
of the Petitioner 1 is invalid under section 499 which is defamation under the Indian penal
code 1860. The act of Aaron is not a defamatory act as whatever he did, he did under the
ignorance of fact (ignorance of fact is an excuse “ignorantia facti excusat”) and not by
ignorance of the law as it is well mentioned in paragraph 08 of the preposition that the photo
posted by the
“Patriot 1” had no caption with it and petitioner believed that to be the true photograph of the
respondent and reshared. Paragraph 08 of the preposition states that Aron is a member of
TFT and paragraph 03 of the preposition states that members of TFT are quite passionate
about social media and advocate their views on social media and to the fact paragraph 07 of
the preposition states that Fiona Connelly (respondent) were always has been a controversial
figure in a news due to her ethics have been called into question in the past with allegation of
impropriety against her and allegations that she favours her own community over the Thars it
establishes the fact that when petitioner went through her photo he had a strong point to share
it and wanted the people to know about her but didn’t that the photograph was fake.
[16] Furthermore, the petitioner is not liable for defamation as his act falls under the third
exception of defamation, section 499 of the Indian penal code 1860. The third exception
19
P-35
states- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the
conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his
character appears in the conduct and no further.
[17] Paragraph 04 of the preposition states the term influencer score which allows the user
to obtain influencer points and this feature is a proven hit amongst the youth of titania and to
maximise the influence score portioner 1 wanted to break a story and as it is mentioned in
paragraph 16 of the preposition which quotes “Aaron was under the impression that he had
heard that Action -financial times news was about to break the story, and he also wanted to
post about it beforehand to maximise his influence score” and while surfing through T-city,
petitioner 1 came across the image of Connelly (respondent) and Jack Smith, he believed it to
be true due to missing of any caption to that photograph which then he used in good faith to
let people know and was not aware with the reality of it.
2. Whether Titania’s prosecution of T-city violates the relevant legal provisions?

of T-City is invalid under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). T-City being an
intermediary is protected under section 79 of the IT act, it provides Exemption from liability
of intermediary when, the intermediary does not-
• initiate the transmission,

• select the receiver of the transmission, and
• select or modify the information contained in the transmission; or
• the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act
and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in
this behalf.
[19] Here in the facts outright that T-City neither initiated the transmission nor did they
select the receiver or modify the transmission. The intermediary observed due diligence as
notified under the new intermediary guidelines ‘Information Technology (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021,’ while removing the post (refer para
20
P-35
12). They moreover, fulfil the part II 3(1)(d) that if, any such information is hosted, stored or
published, the intermediary shall remove or disable access to that information, as early as
possible, but in no case later than thirty-six hours from the receipt of the court order or on
being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency. T-City removed the obscene
post of Fiona Connelly within 27 hours from when her office reported about it to the
intermediary (refer para 12). Further in the case of Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. v. State Of
Nct Of Delhi & Anr.8 Delhi High Court held that, intermediaries are exempted from liability
for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:
1. To declare the prosecution and conviction of the petitioners invalid

2. To aside the conviction of the petitioners and free them from all the charges set upon
them,
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY
DEEMED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE
ALL OF WHICH HUMBLY PRAYED,
A-35 COUNSELS FOR THE
APPELLANT.
8 Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. v. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. W.P.(CRL) 1376/2020, CRL.M.As. 12009/2020
21

Petitioner Memorial (P-35)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Petitioner Memorial (P-35)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DNLU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Amity Law School Jaipur

THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

KRISHNA KUMAR ………………………………………………………...RESPONDENT 1

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF TITANIA

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON'BLE JUDGES OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF TITANIA

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124, 128

1. The Constitution of India,1950

DATA BASE REFERED:

1. Austin, G. (1966) The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford:

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

8. Currently, this matter is before the Hon’ble SC for final adjudication.

1.1 Whether Titania’s prosecution of petitioner 1 infringes the fundamental rights as

1. The prosecution and conviction of Petitioner 1 is legally invalid as it is in violation of

1.1 Whether Titania’s prosecution of petitioner 1 infringes the fundamental rights as

- Security of the State,

4 Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia AIR 1960 SC 633

Security of the State,

i. Capture, publication, or transmission of the image of a private area of any person;

i. Promoting or attempting to promote disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred or

6 Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP, 1957 AIR 620.

2. Whether Titania’s prosecution of T-city violates the relevant legal provisions?

2.1 Whether Titania’s prosecution of T-City is valid under section 79 of Information

• initiate the transmission,

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1. To declare the prosecution and conviction of the petitioners invalid

ALL OF WHICH HUMBLY PRAYED,

A-35 COUNSELS FOR THE

You might also like