Team Code

RUMANT SHARMA

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BROOMLAND

IN THE MATTER OF

LADY UNNAMED & NEUTRAL SINDHIA …PETITIONER

VERSUS

FUNBOOK PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS …RESPONDENT

Court Manners and Practical Skills (LCH-515)

9th Semester

B.A.L.L.B. (Hons.)

CHANDIGARHUNIVERSITY, GHARUAN, MOHALI

(PUNJAB)

2023

a
 Table of Contents

Serial No. Content Page No.

1 List of Abbreviations i

2 List of Authorities ii

3 Statement of Jurisdiction iii

4 Statement of facts iv-vi

5 Statement of Issue vii

6 Summary of Arguments viii

7 Argument Advance 1-8

8 Prayer 9

b
 List of Abbrevations

AIR : All India Report

Anr. : Another

Govt. : Government

HC : High Court

Hon’ble : Honorable

i.e. : That is

IPC : Indian Penal Code

M.P. : Madhya Pradesh

Ltd. : Limited

Ors. : Others

SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

v. : Versus

i
 List of Authorities

A. Books
1. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, 56th Edition,
Allahabad).
2. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 412(7th ed., 2014)

3. M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw-Hill Education, Uttar Pradesh, 6th edn.,

2021)
4. Vakul Sharma and Seema Sharma, Information Technology-Law and Practice
(Lexis Nexis, 8th edn., 2023)
B. Case Laws

1. Madhya Pradesh v. Income Tax Officer, (1965) 57 ITR 637 SC

2. Shreya Singhal v. Union Of India AIR 2015 SC 1523
3. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India - AIR 2020
4. Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882.

C. Committee Reports
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights “Ratification and accession by
General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)’’ (16 December 1966)

D. Statutes
1. The Constitution of India
2. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021
3. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000).
4. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Act 45 of 1860)

ii
 Statement of Jurisdiction

The Hon'ble High Court has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

Article 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court
shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions,
quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions,
orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may
also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power,
notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority
or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by
way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or
in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1),
without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all
documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an
application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and
furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose
favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party,
the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period
of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the
date on which the copy of such application is so furnished,
whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last
day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards
on which the 1High Court is open; and if the application is not
so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that
period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day,
stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall
not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme
court by clause (2) of Article 32.

1
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 412(7th ed., 2014)

iii
 Statement of Facts

1. The country of Republic of Sindhia, the laws of which are similar to India, is a land of
diversities. The major population of Sindhia follows Sindhuism (i.e. approx. 84% of
total population). On the other hand, Jeruslam is the second largest minority religion
(i.e. approx. 12% of total population). According to the constitution, Sindhia is a
secular and democratic nation but due to cultural differences there have been several
conflicts which have led to massive riots and mass-violence in the past. Most of the
time Jeruslam followers are condemned to be as anti-nationals by the Sindhus.
2. There has been a digital revolution underway in Sindhia due to its substantial progress
in the fields of technology, connectivity and collaboration tools across the globe. The
present government has started initiatives such as ‘Digital Sindhia’ which led to
uninterrupted services and internet facility to its citizens. This global connectivity has
resulted in misuse of social media by politically motivated and rightwing groups to
spread hate speech and blasphemous contents to instigate riots and violence in the
country between the Sindhus and the Jeruslam.
3. Broomland is in the territory of Sindhia, which has laws similar to Delhi, India. On
December 08, 2018, a migrant worker named Frazil of Jeruslam was killed by a meat
cleaver and his body was found burned at crime scene. The Accused had videotaped
the entire attack and uploaded it on Funbook, a social media platform owned by
Funbook Private Limited. The video contained sermons against the Jeruslams and
slogans such as “Go to Jerustan” and “Jhanda Ucha Rahe” (flag should fly high). The
video went viral on ChatOn, messaging application owned by Funbook, before it
could be taken down.
4. No action was taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs despite of numerous petitions
and complaints to stop the spread of hate videos on Funbook. The government of
Sindhia blamed the end-to-end encryption technology used by ChatOn as the reason
for being unable to trace the origin of the dissemination (“Video 1”). Hence no action
could be taken against the perpetrator. Further, the government accused Funbook for
refusing to give data regarding the spreading of video 1 through ChatOn and
Funbook. Funbook contended that privacy of their users was of utmost importance to
them and decrypting the materials shared on its platform would breach the trust of
their users’ privacy.

iv
5. Funbook has revised its user policy after receiving repeated complaints from its users.
According to the new revised policy, if 50 or more users complain about the content
of any post uploaded or shared on such social media, the same will be immediately
removed. Additionally a new feature was introduced which would blur the graphic
content/video and an express consent from the user is taken before such video is
played.
6. Soon after the video of Frazil’s brutal murder video went viral a procession was taken
out by Akhil Bhartiya Sindhu Sanstha (ABSS) in Jeruslam majority localities
shouting anti Jeruslam slogan. This incident incited brutal rape of Sindhu women by a
group of men wearing religious Jeruslam lockets and they were shouting “Sindhia
belongs to Jerustan”, this entire incident was recoded and later posted on Funbook and
ChatOn (“Video 2”). This video caused massive riots and violence in the State of
Broomland which was caused by communal fight between Sindhus and Jeruslams.
7. Lady unnamed whose rape video has become viral pleaded Funbook and ChatOn to
remove and prevent further circulation but Funbook in the response provided
documentary evidence that complied with all legal request under the information
technology act 2000 and have processed her complaints. They also clarified that they
do not initiate any transmission through their platform nor do they select the recipient
of such transmission or modify any information contained in the transmission. Later,
she urged the government of Sindhia to intervene.
8. Neutral Sindhia, a public non-governmental organization, requested Funbook to
remove Video 1 and Video 2 [both collectively referred as Videos]. They also made a
written request to the Grievance Officer of Funbook stating that the said videos
should be urgently taken down and any block any future posts pertaining to the same.
Also, that the user account posting the same should be deactivated. According to them
this type of content is hate speech, blasphemous and has violated the fundamental
right to privacy of the Lady Unnamed.
9. Both the Lady Unnamed (“Petitioner 1”) and Neutral Sindhia (“Petitioner 2”) [Both
collectively referred as the Petitioners] also approached Department of Information
Technology, State of Broomland (“DIT”) requesting them to issue a direction to take
down the Videos and also to blacklist Funbook and ChatOn the territory of Sindhia.
DIT issued a show cause notice to the Funbook demanding a detailed report of the

v
 incidents. However, DIT refused the blacklist request on the ground of lack of
information. DIT also contended that any form of regulation without reasonable
justification would tantamount to violation of freedom of speech of the citizens of
Sindhia while the riots had already spread. This approach to the situation led to filling
of petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Broomland against Funbook Private Limited
(“Respondent 1”) and DIT (“Respondent 2”). Both collectively referred as the
Respondents.
10. It has been alleged in the petition that “Respondent 1” had played a pivotal role in
spreading the riots all across Broomland by denying the repeated requests to take
down the Videos. They also played a part in making the related content to appear
again and again on their platform. In the meanwhile, “Respondent 2” has failed to
take necessary action against the Funbook which led to violation of right to privacy of
lady unnamed and mass riots in the State of Broomland

vi
 Statement of Issues

Issue 1: Whether the writ petition filed by unnamed lady & neutral Sindhia in the
Hon'ble high court of Broomland is maintainable?

Issue 2: Whether decrypting the materials on platform such as Funbook and Chaton

would amount to breach the trust of its user?

Issue 3: Whether the regulation of the contents of Funbook and Chaton would

Tantamount to violation of freedom of speech of the citizen of Sindhia?

vii
Summary of Arguments

Issue 1: Whether The Writ Petition Filed By Unnamed Lady & Neutral Sindhia In The
Hon'ble High Court Of Roomland Is Maintainable?

The writ petition brought before the Honorable High Court of Broomland lacks validity.
Initially, the availability of a more effective alternative remedy within the realm of private
law renders the petitioner ineligible for pursuing the writ. Additionally, the absence of any
infringement upon a fundamental right renders the writ petition unsustainable, as it cannot be
issued in such circumstances.

Unveiling the information on platforms like Funbook and Chaton would constitute a betrayal
of the user's trust.

Regulating the content on Funbook and Chaton does not contravene the freedom of speech
enjoyed by the citizens of Sindhia.

Issue 2:Whether decrypting the materials on platform such as funbook and chaton would
amount to breach the trust of its user?

That as per the given facts of the case decrypting the materials on platform such as funbook
and chaton would not amount to breach the trust of its user

Issue 3: Whether the regulation of the contents of funbook and chaton would tantamount to

violation of freedom of speech of the citizen of sindhia?

That as per the given facts the regulation of the contents of funbook and chaton would not
tantamount to violation of freedom of speech of the citizen of sindhi

viii
 Argument Advance

1. Whether the Writ Petition filed by unnamed lady & neutral Sindhia in the Hon'ble
high court of Broomland is maintainable?

The writ petition brought forth by the Petitioner is considered maintainable for the following
reasons:

1.1The presence of an effective alternative remedy would prevent the acceptance of the writ
petition.

IAL Presence of an effective alternative remedy:

It is asserted before this Hon'ble court that a High Court typically refrains from issuing a writ
2
when there exists an alternative and efficacious remedy. According to Article 226, the High
Court refrains from deciding disputes for which a remedy is available under general law. This
principle has been articulated by the Supreme Court, stating:

"It is well established that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a
litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of
the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. The existence of an adequate legal remedy is a
factor to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs..."

Furthermore, it is contended that when a statute creates a right or liability and prescribes the
remedy or procedure for enforcing it, the specific statutory remedy should be pursued rather
than the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the case of Madhya
Pradesh v. Income Tax Officer, the Supreme Court held that when an adequate alternative
remedy exists, the court may dismiss the writ petition without further consideration. In the
present case, the petitioners failed to follow the proper course of action provided by
alternative remedies before filing the writ petition.

1.2 Additionally, no fundamental rights were violated:

The respondent submits that the writ filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because there
is no violation of any fundamental right in the actions taken by respondents 1 & 2.
Respondent 1 cannot breach the privacy policy of its users by decrypting materials shared on
its platform, as the unique selling proposition (USP) of Funbook and ChatOn is protected by
2
Madhya Pradesh v. Income Tax Officer, (1965) 57 ITR 637 SC
end-to-end encryption technology, ensuring the privacy of user content. This policy prohibits
Funbook Private Limited from decrypting materials, as it would infringe on the fundamental
rights enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution 3, specifically the freedom of
speech and expression of users.

However, ChatOn and Funbook have taken action and revised their user policy for user
convenience. According to the revised policy, if 50 or more users complain about the content
of any post on such social media, it will be immediately removed. However, no such user
complaints have come to the notice of respondent 1. Therefore, the video was not removed,
and there is no violation of fundamental rights. In this case, it is submitted that there is no
direct and definite connection between the cause of action and the locus standi, and hence the
writ petition on this matter is not maintainable.

2. Whether decrypting the materials on platform such as funbook and chaton would
amount to breach the trust of its user?

3
The Constitution of India,1949

2
End-to-End Encryption: Funbook and ChatOn claim to use end-to-end encryption
technology, which ensures that only the intended recipients can read the messages. This
encryption is designed to protect user privacy and prevent unauthorized access, including by
the platform itself.

Government's Accusation: The government of Sindhia has accused Funbook of refusing to

give data regarding the spreading of a hate video due to end-to-end encryption. Funbook, in
turn, argues that decrypting the materials would breach the trust of their users' privacy.

Privacy Concerns: Funbook emphasizes the importance of user privacy and contends that
decrypting materials shared on its platform would violate this privacy. This stance aligns with
the broader debate on balancing the right to privacy with the need for security and regulation.

Legal Implications: The government's demand for data and the refusal by Funbook raises
legal questions. The right to privacy is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute and can be
subject to reasonable restrictions. The Information Technology Act 2000 in India, for
example, includes provisions for lawful interception and monitoring of information.

User Policy Changes: Funbook has revised its user policy, introducing measures to address
content concerns. These include the removal of content if 50 or more users complain and the
introduction of a feature to blur graphic content with user consent.

In analyzing whether decrypting materials would breach user trust:

Legal Perspective: The legal framework governing online platforms and user privacy may
differ across jurisdictions. It depends on the specific laws in Sindhia and Broomland. The
Information Technology Act and its equivalent in Sindhia may provide insights into the
legality of such requests.

Ethical Considerations: Decrypting user content could be seen as a violation of privacy

principles, and ethical concerns arise regarding the protection of users' confidential
communications.

National Security vs. Privacy: Governments often argue for the need to balance national
security concerns with individual privacy rights. The extent to which this balance is
justifiable depends on the specific circumstances and legal provisions.

3
In summary, whether decrypting materials on platforms like Funbook and ChatOn would
amount to a breach of user trust is a complex question that involves legal, ethical, and
contextual considerations. The resolution would depend on the prevailing laws, the platform's
terms of service, and the specific circumstances surrounding the demand for decryption in
Sindhia.

2.1 Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 states that- Exemption from

liability of intermediary in certain cases

Section 79. states that- Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases.–

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to
the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third
party

information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if–

(a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system

over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or

hosted; or

(b) the intermediary does not– (i) initiate the transmission, (ii) select the receiver of the

transmission, and (iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;

(c) 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.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if–

(a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or
promise

or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act;

4
(b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or
its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a
computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act,
the

intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource

without vitiating the evidence in any manner.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this section, the expression “third party information”
means

any information dealt with by an intermediary in his capacity as an intermediary

2.2 Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, 2015

4
In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the Honourable Supreme court declared Section 79 as

constitutionally valid but subject to Section 79(3)(b) being read down to mean that an

intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the

appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are going to
be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to such material.

The platforms are following the legal framework and that increased liability could stifle

innovation and the growth of online platforms.

3. Whether the regulation of the contents of Funbook and Chaton would tantamount to
violation of freedom of speech of the citizen of Sindhia?
4
Shreya Singhal v. Union Of India AIR 2015 SC 1523

5
Constitutional Framework:

Sindhia is described as a secular and democratic nation according to its constitution.

There have been conflicts and cultural differences leading to riots and violence in the past.

Digital Revolution and Misuse of Social Media:

Digital Sindhia initiatives have led to global connectivity, but there is misuse of social media
to spread hate speech and incite violence.

Incident in Broomland:

A brutal murder video (Video 1) was uploaded on Funbook, causing riots.

Subsequently, another video (Video 2) led to communal violence between Sindhus and
Jeruslams.

Funbook's Response and Revised Policies:

Funbook's initial response involved citing end-to-end encryption as a barrier to tracing the
origin of Video 1.

The company refused to provide data, citing user privacy concerns.

Funbook revised its user policy after repeated complaints, introducing mechanisms to address
graphic content and requiring user consent.

Petitions and Government Responses:

Petitioners (Lady Unnamed and Neutral Sindhia) approached Funbook, ChatOn, and the
Department of Information Technology (DIT) seeking action against the videos.

DIT issued a show cause notice but refused to blacklist Funbook and ChatOn, emphasizing
freedom of speech.

Allegations in the High Court Petition:

The petition alleges that Funbook played a role in spreading riots by not taking down the
videos.

6
DIT's failure to act is also highlighted as contributing to the violation of privacy and mass
riots.

Legal Analysis:

Freedom of Speech:

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute and can be subject to
reasonable restrictions.

Restrictions may be imposed in the interests of public order, decency, morality, sovereignty,
and security.

Role of Funbook and ChatOn:

Platforms like Funbook and ChatOn may be considered intermediaries, and they are expected
to comply with relevant laws.

The revised policies suggest an effort to address content concerns.

Government's Role:

The government has a duty to maintain public order and protect citizens from violence.

Balancing freedom of speech with the need to prevent harm is crucial.

Conclusion:

Regulating the contents of Funbook and ChatOn to prevent the spread of hate speech and
violence may be justifiable in the interest of public order and the protection of citizens. The
key is to strike a balance between preserving freedom of speech and preventing harm to
individuals and society. The court would likely consider whether the regulations are
reasonable and necessary to address the specific challenges posed by the misuse of digital
platforms in Sindhia.

3.1 Whether regulations to hinder hate speech are a violation of Freedom of Speech under

Sindhian Constitution

Regulating the content on platforms like Funbook and ChatOn to address hate speech,

7
violence-inciting content, or privacy violations doesn't necessarily equate to a direct violation
of the freedom of speech of citizens in Sindhia. Freedom of speech, while a fundamental
right, is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions under the Indian
Constitution.

Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution outlines reasonable restrictions that can be imposed
on

the freedom of speech and expression, which includes restrictions for the interests of
sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states,
public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offense.

Regulating certain content on social media platforms can be seen as a measure to maintain
public order and prevent incitement of violence or hatred among different communities. It
aims to strike a balance between the right to express oneself and the broader interest of
societal harmony, security, and public order.

3.2 Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of Sindhia (2020)5

According to the principles laid down in the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India
(2020).

This judgment highlighted the need for proportionality and least restrictive measures when

regulating freedom of speech on the internet. The argument might stress that any form of

regulation must be carefully balanced to avoid overreach and ensure citizens' right to freedom
of speech is not unreasonably curtailed.

However, the regulation must be proportionate and must not unduly restrict the right to
freedom

of speech and expression. Any regulation should be guided by legal principles and necessity,

aiming to prevent harm without disproportionately infringing upon the right to freedom of

speech of citizens. This is in line with the principles established by various Indian judicial

precedents that emphasize the importance of balancing fundamental rights with reasonable

5
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India AIR 2020

8
restrictions in the interest of the larger public good.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, AUTHORITIES CITED AND

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, IT IS PRAYED THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
GRACIOUSLY PLEASED:

1. Dismiss the instant Writ Petition.

2. Hold that there were no violations of Fundamental Rights of any persons by the actions of
the Respondent 1 and 2

3. And pass any other order in favor of the Respondent which this Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE DEFENDANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVER PRAY

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

9
10