ALF31

TEAMCODE – LF31
ST
1 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF BHAWANI
PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLES 32 & 139A OF CONSTITUTION OF

BHAWANI
TRANSFER PETITION NO. _____/2020
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. _____/2020
NARI RAKSHA SAMITI ……. PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF BHAWANI ……. RESPONDENT
Clubbed With
BADRINATH BHATIA AND OTHERS ……. PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF BHAWANI ……. RESPONDENT
Clubbed With
THE GUARDIANS OF THE JUVENILES ……. PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF BHAWANI AND OTHERS ……. RESPONDENT
IN THE CASE CONCERNING
THE BRO’S LOCKER ROOM
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1ST NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 9
ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................ 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 13
1. WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

INVESTIGATION TEAM OR A CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION PROBE?
........................................................................................................................................ 13
1.1 Provisions under which the members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” can be held liable
.................................................................................................................................... 13
1.1.1 Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment under Section 354A of
Indian Penal Code .................................................................................................... 13
1.1.2 Voyeurism under Section 354C of Indian Penal Code ...................................... 13
1.1.3 Stalking under Section 354D of Indian Penal Code .......................................... 14
1.1.4 Defamation under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code........................................ 14
1.1.5 Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman under Section
509 of Indian Penal Code.......................................................................................... 15
1.1.6 Punishment for violation of privacy under Section 66E of Information

Technology Act ........................................................................................................ 15
1.1.7 Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually

explicit act, etc. in electronic form under Section 67A of Information Technology Act
................................................................................................................................. 15
1.1.8 Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in

sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form under Section 67B of Information
Technology Act ........................................................................................................ 16
Written Submission for the Petitioners Page 2

1.1.9 Punishment for use of child for pornographic purposes under Section 13 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ..................................................... 16
1.2 Need for CBI Probe ................................................................................................ 17
2. WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND

CYBER STALKING ARE ENOUGH TO ENSURE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF
WOMEN? ....................................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Provisions under which Cyber bullying and Cyber stalking are recognized as
offences in Indian Penal Code ...................................................................................... 17
offences in Information Technology Act ...................................................................... 18
2.3 Need for a new statute ............................................................................................ 18
3. WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS THE POWER TO MAKE GUIDELINES AND

DIRECT LEGISLATURE TO MAKE LAWS? ............................................................... 19
4. WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IS

ILLEGAL UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHAWANI............... 20
4.1 Violation of Fundamental Right to privacy of the guardians and the juveniles ........ 20
4.2 Breach of privacy and non-liability established....................................................... 21
4.3 Inadequate punishment for violation of section 74 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 .... 22
5. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BRO’S LOCKER ROOM IS

JUSTIFIABLE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHAWANI?
........................................................................................................................................ 23
5.1 Freedom of Speech and Expression of the boys ...................................................... 23
5.2 Decriminalization of Information Technology Act, 2000 ........................................ 24
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ 25

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Serial No. Abbreviations Full Form

1. AIR All India Reporter
2. ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
3. & And
4. Anr. Another
5. Art. Article
6. CBI Central bureau of investigation
7. CDA Communication Decency Act
8. .Co Company
9. Cri Criminal
10. CRI. L. J Criminal Law Journal
11. Hon’ble Honourable
12. Ors. Others
13. PCI Press Council of India
14. Retd Retired
15. SIT Special Investigating Team
16. SC Supreme Court
17. SCC Supreme court cases
18. USSC Supreme Court of United States
19. SCW Supreme Court Weekly
20. U.S United States of America
21. U.P Uttar Pradesh
22. vs./ . v. Versus
23. viz, Which is

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Allgeyer v. Louision. 165 US 578 (1897) (United states of America) .................................. 21

Connally v. General Constr. Co MANU/USSC/0140/1926 .................................................. 24
Directorate of Revenue v. Mohd. Nisar Holia (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 415 (India) ..................... 20
Jishu Sengupta & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2017 CRI. L. J. 1531 (India) .... 12
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India AIR 2017 SC 4161 (India) ...................... 20
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan AIR 2005 SC 972 (India) .................................... 19
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 3 SCC 569 (India) ..................................................... 24
Kharak Singh V. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 & Govind v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC
1378 (India) ..................................................................................................................... 21
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 (India) ................................................ 23
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India) .............................................. 21
Nipun Saxena v Union of India AIR Online 2018 SC 826 (India) ........................................ 22
Olmstead v. U.S., 277 US 438, 478(1928) ........................................................................... 21
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568 (India) ................... 20
Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 264 (India) .............................................. 20
Reno v. ACLU 521 U.S. 844 (1997).................................................................................... 24
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broad-casting, Govt of India and others v. Cricket
Association of Bengal and others 1995 AIR SCW 1856 (India) ....................................... 23
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523 (India) ............................................... 24
Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 (India) .................................................. 19
Vishaka and ors. v. State of Rajasthan and ors. AIR 1997 SC 3011(India) ........................... 19
Statutes
Article 21, The Constitution of India ................................................................................... 22

Section 13, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012.................................... 16
Section 23, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ............................. 22
Section 354A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860........................................................................ 12
Section 354C, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ........................................................................ 13
Section 354D, The Indian Penal Code, 1860........................................................................ 13
Section 499, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 .......................................................................... 14
Section 509, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 .......................................................................... 14

Section 66E, The Information Technology Act, 2000 .......................................................... 15

Section 67A, The Information Technology Act, 2000 .......................................................... 15
Section 67B, The Information Technology Act, 2000 .......................................................... 15
Section 74(3), The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 ..................................................................... 22
Lexicons
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, since 1824 ............................................................................ 18

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. BACKGROUND OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM”
Union of Bhawani is a country in South Asia where women have basic human rights as men
and many statutes has been passed by the legislature for safety of women in Bhawani. Despite
many statutes being passed, women in Bhawani are still victims of online stalking and cyber
bullying.
In the backdrop of all these there is this case of “Bro’s Locker-Room” in Indraprastha, the
capital of Bhawani, wherein members of the group of 16-18 year old boys discussed methods
of sexual assault against minor girls and circulated their pictures including nude/morphed
photos without their consent. A series of screenshots which were posted on social media
platforms exposed the group’s chat on photogram.
The screenshots revealed chats between a group of school going students sharing photos of
underage women and teenage girls, followed by lurid discussion on their bodies and
objectification of their classmates and other women, some as young as 14.
2. PETITION FILED BY NARI RAKSHA SAMITI
An NGO named “NARI RAKSHA SAMITI” filed a Writ Petition in the form of a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Indraprastha High Court seeking for immediate arrest of all
the members of the photogram group “Bro’s Locker-Room” and for directions for investigation
into the same through Special Investigation Team or Central Bureau of Investigation.
3. PETITION FILED BY THE GROUP OF ADVOCATES
A group of advocates including Advocate Badrinath Bhatia presented a letter to Chief Justice
of Bhawani to seek court’s direction to appropriate authorities to register FIRs against the
perpetrators in the said matter. This incident showed the ease with which cyber bullying can
be indulged in under the veil of anonymity.
In the view of this horrific incident they requested the matter to be taken up by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to address the various issues arising therefrom which not only includes privacy
and safety of women but also sensitization and counselling of juveniles who are engaged in
such conduct.

They also requested the Hon’ble Supreme Court to frame appropriate guidelines to curb cyber
stalking and bullying and direct the Union Government to come up with an appropriate
legislation for the safety of integrity and dignity of women.
4. PETITION FILED BY THE GUARDIANS OF THE JUVENILES
The Cyber Crime Cell of Indraprastha Police registered a case under the relevant sections of
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Information Technology Act. The police while investigation
arrested 22 members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” along with its admin who were all juveniles
and disclosed the details of the juveniles in conflict with the law to a reputed News Media
named “The Frank Owl”, which disclosed the name of the arrested juveniles in its exclusive
TV report, following which a newspaper named “The Mint” also disclosed their details.
People started protesting in front of the juveniles’ houses and their guardians were attacked.
The guardians of the juveniles filed a Writ Petition against the electronic media houses and
print media agencies before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for violating their Right to Privacy
and dignity and mandatory provisions provided in other laws for not disclosing the identity of
juveniles in conflict with the law.
Through this petition, the petitioners challenged the validity of Section 74(3) of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015 on the ground that the punishment is inadequate because of which media
houses don’t abide by the law provided and arrested persons suffer for this irresponsible act. It
was also stated that the criminalisation of such act is going overboard by forbidding speech
that is within an individual or a group’s realm of privacy and none of the members intended to
make their own conversations (containing sexually explicit content) public.
The petition contended that no legal implications follow if a person publishes sexually explicit
conversations exchanged between two or more persons privately on a public forum.
Information Technology Act’s criminalisation of certain kinds of private communication does
not come under the reasonable restrictions mentioned under Article 19(2).
5. FINAL HEARING
The Hon’ble Supreme Court clubbed the petitions as all the three matters involved similar
issues and the Hon’ble Chief Justice allotted the matter to a Bench for final hearing while
exercising his powers under Constitution of Bhawani.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The first petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Indraprastha under Article 226
of the Constitution of Bhawani. That petition has been transferred to Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Bhawani under Article 139A of the Constitution. The second and the third petitioners have
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of Bhawani Constitution.
Pursuant to the directions of this Court, all the matters have been listed together for final
hearing.

ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND CYBER

STALKING ARE ENOUGH TO ENSURE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF
WOMEN?
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS THE POWER TO MAKE GUIDELINES AND

DIRECT LEGISLATURE TO MAKE LAWS?
ISSUE 4
WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IS

LEGAL UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE BHAWANI CONSTITUTION?
ISSUE 5
WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE “BRO’S-LOCKER-ROOM”

CAN BE JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF BHAWANI CONSTITUTION?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

The Petitioners humbly submit that the case of “Bro’s Locker-Room” requires a Special
Investigation Team or a Central Bureau of Investigation probe as this case among lakhs which
has been brought into public domain. There are many more cases like this which aren’t out in
the public domain. Therefore, the “Bro’s Locker-Room” requires a Special Investigation Team
or a Central Bureau of Investigation probe as it would help us to know reasons for these
offences which in turn would help us to curb these issues in future and it would ensure safety
and protection of women.
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND CYBER

STALKING ARE ENOUGH TO ENSURE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF
WOMEN?
The Petitioners humbly submit that the existing provisions of Indian Penal Code and
Information Technology aren’t enough to ensure safety and protection of women as all the
provisions under the existing statutes do not define cyber stalking and cyber bullying in their
entirety. All these existing statutes concentrate only on punishment of offenders rather than the
protection and safety of women.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS THE POWER TO MAKE GUIDELINES AND

The Petitioners humbly submit that the judiciary has the power to make guidelines and direct
legislature to make laws as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has power to pass any decree that is
necessary to ensure complete justice under Article 142 of The Bhawani Constitution. This
power to direct legislature to make laws and make guidelines would amount to judicial
activism.

ISSUE 4
WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IS

LEGAL UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHAWANI?
The Petitioners humbly submit that the arrest of the juveniles is illegal as their privacy
guaranteed by the article 21 of the Indian constitution is infringed by identity revelation by
media agencies there by making the arrest illegal and it is contented that the Section 74(3) of
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is inadequate, insufficient, inappropriate and does not create the
intended fear on the media houses.
ISSUE 5
WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BRO’S LOCKER ROOM IS

JUSTIFIABLE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
BHAWANI?
The Petitioners humbly submit that the act of the members of the Bro’s locker room is justified
under article 21 of the Indian constitution and it is contented that the sections of 67 and 67(a)
of information technology act of 2000 are not applicable due to their vagueness in subject
matter and to decriminalise the same.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

INVESTIGATION TEAM OR A CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
PROBE?
It is humbly submitted by the petitioners, before this Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the case
of “Bro’s Locker-Room” requires a Special Investigation Team or a Central Bureau of
Investigation Probe.
1.1 Provisions under which the members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” can be held
liable
1.1.1 Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment under Section
354A of Indian Penal Code
This section defines sexual harassment as making sexually coloured remarks

about a woman. 1 This has been reinstated in the case Jishu Sengupta & Others
vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.2
In the present case, members of the Bro’s Locker-Room were discussing about
having physical relationship with their classmates as well as rating them on a
scale of beauty vs. the size of their breasts and how the latter makes up for any
supposed deficiency in the former criteria. 3 This act by the members of the
“Bro’s Locker-Room” amounts to making sexually coloured remarks under
Section 354A(iv).
1.1.2 Voyeurism under Section 354C of Indian Penal Code
This section defines the act of voyeurism as watching, or capturing the image
of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually
have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any
other person at the behest of the perpetrator or such image being disseminated.
“Private act” mentioned in this section refers to any act where the victim’s
1
Section 354A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2
Jishu Sengupta & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2017 CRI. L. J. 1531 (India)
3
Moot Proposition, paragraph 5

genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear or the

victim is using a lavatory or victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public. Dissemination of the images to third persons without
the consent of the victims is also an offence under this section even if the victim
gives consent to capture of such images. 4
In the present case, the “Bro’s Locker-Room” was also allegedly used to share
nude/morphed photographs of women. 5 This act of members of the “Bro’s
Locker- Room” amounts to the offence of voyeurism.
1.1.3 Stalking under Section 354D of Indian Penal Code
This section defines stalking as monitoring the use by a woman of the internet,
email or any other form of electronic communication.6
In the present case, one of the posts stated that “Let’s post nude photos of all
girls who posted stories about us. I have photos of some of them…”7
Photos of the girls who have exposed the chat of the “Bro’s Locker-Room”
could have been obtained only by constantly monitoring the use of internet by
a woman or by hacking which amounts to an offence under Section 354D.
1.1.4 Defamation under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code
This section defines defamation when an individual who believes that his/her
reputation is being harmed by a visible representation published on the internet.
This provision can be invoked for remarks on social media or obscene images
for public consumption.8 Under this provision, defaming a woman online will
land the perpetrator in jail for a period of two years.
In the present case, the members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” have passed lurid
comments about the girls, objectified them and slut-shammed them9 which
amounts to the offence of defamation under Section 499.
4
Section 354C, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
5
6
Section 354D, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
7
8
Section 499, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
9
Moot Proposition, paragraph 4 & 5

1.1.5 Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman under
Section 509 of Indian Penal Code
This section punishes a person who intends to insult the modesty of any woman,
utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending
that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be
seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman shall be
punished simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and also
with fine 10
In the present case, the “Bro’s Locker-Room” was used to share morphed/nude
photographs of minor girls and women,11 which is clearly a case of intrusion to
their privacy.
1.1.6 Punishment for violation of privacy under Section 66E of Information

Technology Act
This section prohibits the sharing of images of a private area of any person
without his or her consent which violates the privacy of that person. The term
private area means naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or
female breast.12
In the present case, the “Bro’s Locker-Room” was used to share nude
photographs of women and girls without their consent. 13
1.1.7 Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually

explicit act, etc. in electronic form under Section 67A of Information
Technology Act
This section punishes a person for transmission of any material in the electronic
form which contains sexually explicit act.14 So the act of the members of “Bro’s
10
11
12
Section 66E, The Information Technology Act, 2000
13
14
Section 67A, The Information Technology Act, 2000

Locker- Room” amounts to an offence under this section as they have shared
morphed photos of girls and have discussed methods of sexual assault against
those girls.15
1.1.8 Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in

sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form under Section 67B of
Information Technology Act
This section punishes any person who publishes or transmits material depicting
children in sexually explicit act or any person who distributes material in any
electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent manner.16
In the present case, the members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” were sharing
morphed photos of minor girls as young as 1417, this amounts to exchanging or
distributing material in any electronic form depicting children in obscene or
indecent or sexually explicit manner under Section 67B of Information
Technology Act.
1.1.9 Punishment for use of child for pornographic purposes under Section 13 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
This section punishes any person who uses a child in internet or through any
other electronic form that is intended for personal use or for distribution for the
purposes of sexual gratification which includes representation of sexual organs
of a child or indecent representation of a child. 18
In the present case, the members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” were sharing
morphed photos of minor girls and discussed methods of sexual assault against
them.19 This would amount to an offence under this section as there is
distribution of obscene representation of minor girls and they have discussed
methods of sexual assault against the minor girls for sexual gratification.
15
16
Section 67B, The Information Technology Act, 2000
17
18
Section 13, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012
19
Moot Proposition, paragraph 4&5

The members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” can, therefore, be convicted and be held
liable under the above-mentioned provisions of law.
1.2 Need for CBI Probe
This case of “Bro’s Locker-Room” is one incident among lakhs which has been brought
into public domain but the menace appears to be deep rooted, huge and serious. Prima
facie, it appears that the boys in the group had complete knowledge and mental capacity
to understand the consequences of their act.
All the sections under which they can be convicted and held liable are not heinous
crimes but they are serious offences which affect the dignity, safety and privacy of
young girls and women. An investigation by a specialised investigative agency like
Central Bureau of Investigation or by a Special Investigation Team would help us to
know the grassroots level reasons and implications of cyber bullying and cyber stalking.
This would help us prevent these kinds of incidents happening in the future.
Hence, in the light of submissions made, it is humbly pleaded before this Hon’ble Supreme
Court, that the case of “Bro’s Locker-Room” requires a Special Investigation Team or a Central
Bureau of Investigation Probe.
2. WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND

CYBER STALKING ARE ENOUGH TO ENSURE SAFETY AND PROTECTION
OF WOMEN?
It is humbly submitted by the petitioners, before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
existing laws regarding cyber bullying and cyber stalking aren’t enough to ensure safety
and protection of women.
offences in Indian Penal Code
Section 354A20 recognizes and punishes sexual harassment as an offence which also
includes cyber stalking and cyber bullying. Section 354C21 is the only section in Indian
Penal Code which wholly recognizes cyber stalking and cyber bullying as offences
20
Section 354A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
21
Section 354C, The Indian Penal Code, 1860

and punishes the offender. Unfortunately, the scope of cyber stalking and cyber
bullying is much higher than what is recognized by Section 354C. Section 354D 22
deals with physical stalking elaborately than cyber stalking. Section 499 23 defines
defamation as damaging reputation of a person which can be considered as cyber
bullying to an extent. Section 509 24 deals with degrading a women’s modesty by using
a word or gesture under which cyber bullying and cyber stalking can be categorized.
offences in Information Technology Act
Section 66E25 of Information Act defines violation of privacy where cyberstalking can
be categorized as it is also a form of violation of privacy of a person. Section 67A26 of
Information Act punishes a person for transmission of sexually explicit or obscene
content through the use of internet which again partially focusses on cyber stalking
and cyber bullying.
2.3 Need for a new statute
There are two major issues with the currently available statutes. Firstly, cyber stalking
and cyber bullying are not clearly defined under these statutes. They need to be
interpreted from a relatively similar section. The problem with this is that they can
interpreted in any way if it is vaguely defined. Cyber bullying is defined as the
electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person (such as a student) often
done anonymously. 27 Cyber stalking is defined as the use of electronic communication
to harass or threaten someone with physical harm. Cyberbullying and cyberstalking are
used for the same kinds of communications, but cyberbullying is the usual term when
minors are involved.28
In the present case, the members of “Bro’s Locker-Room” have threatened to leak nude
photos of girls, they have objectified and discussed sexual assault against minor girls 29
which comes under the definition of cyber bullying and cyber stalking as given by
22
Section 354D, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
23
24
25
Section 66E, The Information Technology Act, 2000
26
Section 67A,The Information Technology Act, 2000
27
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, since 1824
28
Ibid
29

Merriam-Webster Dictionary whereas no Indian statute defines cyber stalking and

cyber bullying as Merriam Webster Dictionary does.
Secondly, statutes under which cyber stalking and cyber bullying are recognized and
interpreted as offences are only punitive not preventive. These statutes only guarantee
punishment for the offenders rather than the protection and safety of women.
In the present case, only after the leakage of screenshots of the “Bro’s Locker-Room”30
the governing bodies became aware of happening of such a serious crime. Had the
screenshots not been leaked, the serious offences of cyber bullying and cyber stalking
would have continued for days. Therefore, existing laws only guarantee the punishment
of offenders not the safety and protection of women.
Court that the existing laws in the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act are not
adequate to ensure safety and protection of women.
3. WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS THE POWER TO MAKE GUIDELINES AND

It is humbly submitted by the petitioners, before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the
judiciary has the power to make guidelines and direct legislature to make laws.
In the case of Vineet Narain v. Union of India31, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the
issuance of guidelines and directions in exercise of the powers under Article 32 read with
Article 142 has become an integral part of our constitutional jurisprudence. It also pointed
out that such an exercise of powers was absolutely necessary to fill the void in area with
legislative vacuum.
This case of Bro’s Locker Room shows the legislative vacuum which needs to be filled in
order to curb cyber bullying and cyber stalking and to guarantee safety and protection of
women.
30
31
Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 (India)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,32 held
that Article 142 is an important constitutional power granted to this Court to protect the
citizens. In a given situation when laws are found to be inadequate for the purpose of grant
of relief, the Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142.
In Vishaka and ors. v. State of Rajasthan and ors.33, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
in the “absence of enacted law to provide for the effective enforcement of the basic human
right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment and abuse, more
particularly against sexual harassment at work places, we lay down the guidelines and
norms specified hereinafter for due observance at all workplaces or other institutions, until
a legislation is enacted for the purpose. This is done in exercise of the power available
under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of the fundamental rights and it is
further emphasized that this would be treated as the law declared by this Court under
Article 141 of the Constitution.”
Cyber stalking and cyber bullying which directly affect the safety and protection of women
are not curbed under an exhaustive and a comprehensive legislation. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court can frame appropriate guidelines to curb cyber stalking and cyber bullying.
Court that the judiciary has the power to make guidelines and direct legislature to make laws.
4. WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IS

ILLEGAL UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHAWANI
4.1 Violation of Fundamental Right to privacy of the guardians and the juveniles
The fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution have ensured one very
important right to the citizens of Bhawani: Right to privacy under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Privacy is a neutral relationship between persons or groups or between
groups and persons. Privacy is a value, a cultural state or condition directed towards
individual on collective self-realization varying from society to society. In the most
popular case of Puttasami34, which exclusively deals with privacy law, the judgement
explained what is privacy.
32
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan AIR 2005 SC 972 (India)
33
Vishaka and ors. v. State of Rajasthan and ors. AIR 1997 SC 3011(India)
34
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India AIR 2017 SC 4161 (India)

In the landmark case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India,35 it was
held that the right to hold a telephonic conversation in the privacy of one’s home or
office without interference can certainly be claimed as right to privacy. As group chats
and discussions would certainly come under the ambit of conversation, the screenshots
of the chat getting leaked is a clear violation of the fundamental right of privacy of the
boys.
An authority cannot be given an untrammelled power to infringe the right to privacy of

any person.36 In the case of Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu37, the Supreme Court held
that the petitioners have a right to publish what they allege to be; but if they go beyond
that and publish his life story, they may be invading his right to privacy.
The personal liberty in Art.21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights
which go to constitute the personal liberty, 38 secrecy39, human dignity, 40, limited and
protected communication, 41. The Supreme Court of India also interpreted the concept
of right to life to mean right to dignified life in Kharak Singh Case.
4.2 Breach of privacy and non-liability established
The right of the freedom of the press is only an extension of the citizen’s right to
freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, all the laws imposing restrictions on this
right of the citizen apply to the press too.
In India, the Press Council of India (PCI) was mandated to build up a code of conduct
for newspapers, news agencies and journalists in accordance with high professional
standards. The ‘Preface to the publication, A Guide to Journalistic Ethics’ was brought
out by PCI in 1995. Most of these principles are not cast-iron statutory rules but broad
general principles which will help the journalist to self-regulate his or her conduct along
the path to professional ethics.
35
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568 (India)
36
Directorate of Revenue v. Mohd. Nisar Holia (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 415 (India)
37
Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 264 (India)
38
Kharak Singh V. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 & Govind v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 1378 (India)
39
Allgeyer v. Louision. 165 US 578 (1897) (United states of America)
40
Olmstead v. U.S., 277 US 438, 478(1928) ; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India)
41
Ibid

It is explicitly clear from the facts of moot proposition 42, that since the media houses
released the details of the accused boys in their exclusive media report, it resulted in
huge public outcry and protests, which ultimately led to the violent assault and attack
on the family members of the arrested boys. This is a clear violation of their freedom
of life and personal liberty and right to live with dignity. 43
4.3 Inadequate punishment for violation of section 74 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
In the instant case, it is pretty clear from the moot proposition44 that the details of the
boys as well as other details were published by the two media channels “The Mint” and
“The Frank Owl”. The boys were only accused and not convicted by any court of law
of the Bro’s Locker Room case. The dereliction of their duties through publication of
the details of the arrested juveniles is a gross violation of provisions in various statutes
such as Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 201545, Section
23(4) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 201246 and the prescribed
guidelines and ethics of journalism. The punishment of the violation of the same under
section 74 (3) of the act is inadequate as it not only involves leakage of privacy of the
said juveniles in conflict with law but also their parents.
In the case of Nipun Saxena v Union of India47 the Supreme Court expressively
prohibited any identity revelation of any victim of rape or sexual offences. The same
applies in present case as another special category is involved viz. juveniles in conflict
with law. The Court also ruled that any police officer should only use pseudo name
when addressing the victims which is applicable to the juveniles in conflict with law as
well. By revealing the names and other details of the juveniles, the media houses have
severely infringed the privacy of the boys as well as the family members.
The punishment under section 74 (3) is clearly inadequate as the disclosure of identity
has also led to infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioners; because of this
very act, they are going to face social ostracization for the rest of their life. However,
the person from the media house who released the details of these boys, would be in
42
Moot proposition, para 11
43
Article 21, The Constitution of India
44
Moot Proposition, para 10
45
Section 74(3), The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
46
Section 23, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
47
Nipun Saxena v Union of India AIR Online 2018 SC 826 (India)

prison only for a period of six months, if convicted, after which he would walk-away
scot-free. Hence, it is contented that the Section 74(3) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is
inadequate, insufficient, inappropriate and does not create the intended fear on the
media houses.
Therefore, it is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the boys be declared
innocent and given a chance to reform and reintegrate into the mainstream society.
5. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BRO’S LOCKER ROOM IS

JUSTIFIABLE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
BHAWANI?
5.1 Freedom of Speech and Expression of the boys
Freedom of speech and expression is an essential aspect of liberty as stated in Maneka

Gandhi v Union of India.48 The constitutional significance of the freedom of speech
consists in the Preamble of Constitution and is transformed as fundamental and human
right in Article 19(1)(a) as “freedom of speech and expression”.
In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broad-casting, Govt of India and
others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and others49, it was held that the freedom of
speech and expression includes the right to acquire information and disseminate it.
Freedom of speech and expression is necessary for self-expression which is an
important means of free conscience and self-fulfilment. The fundamental right can be
limited only by reasonable restrictions under a law made for the purposes mentioned
in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Public order is not the same thing as public
safety and hence no restrictions can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and
expression on the ground that public safety is endangered. Limitations on
fundamental rights are specifically spelt out on Article 19(2) of our constitution.
Hence, no other restrictions can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and
expression on grounds other than those mentioned under Article 19(2). The
fundamental rights of the boys to discuss and chat in the Bro’s Locker Room or
48
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 (India)
49
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broad-casting, Govt of India and others v. Cricket Association of Bengal
and others 1995 AIR SCW 1856 (India)

Bro’s Locker Room 2.0 cannot be taken away under any circumstances, since it is
guaranteed by the Constitution, except under procedure established by law.
5.2 Decriminalization of Information Technology Act, 2000
The act of criminalizing contents in a private group chat under the Information
Technology Act, 2000 infringes the constitutional rights of freedom of right and
expression. The Constitutional right of right to freedom of speech and expression is
closely linked with right to privacy in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India50
the Supreme Court struck down section of 66 since it violates the constitutional right
of freedom of expression. Similarly, the definitions of the provisions of the act of 67
and 67(a) are very vague and are used interchangeably. Such vagueness in any
provision leads to misinterpretation which was discussed in detail in the Shreya Singhal
case.
In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,51 it was noted that if its prohibitory
implementation is not clearly defined, it is one of the core principles of constitutional
jurisprudence that a statute must be void of vagueness. In the case of Connally v.
General Constr. Co.52, it was observed that a statute, which either prohibits or requires
an act to be performed in a language, is so vague that men of common intelligence must
necessarily conjecture or predict its meaning, and confused as to its application,
infringes the first fundamental of the due process of law. This essence of clarity in the
regulation is essential to the due process protections. It requires laws that are
impermissibly vague to be scrapped. Even in the global scenario, the Communication
Decency Act 1996 (CDA) which was brought in the United States of America, was the
first law to address online children’s issue. However, due to the opposition it got from
major people that CDA will have a chilling effect on the internet and free speech, the
Supreme Court, in the case of Reno v. ACLU53 ruled the Act to be unconstitutional.
Therefore, it is humbly contended that since the aforementioned sections are arbitrary and
vague, the boys be declared innocent.
50
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523 (India)
51
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 3 SCC 569 (India)
52
Connally v. General Constr. Co MANU/USSC/0140/1926
53
Reno v. ACLU 521 U.S. 844 (1997)

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that it may be
pleased to:
 Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby directing the
transfer of the FIR registered in the aforementioned matter to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) under the constant monitoring of this Hon’ble Court or to constitute
a Special Investigating Team (SIT) headed by a Retired Judge of this Hon’ble Court to
exhaustively probe into the aforementioned case and to suggest proper mechanism to
curb the menace of obscene chat in social media, voyeurism, stalking, etc.
 Issue guidelines to curb cyber stalking and cyber bullying and to direct the legislature
to frame requisite laws to ensure the safety and protection of women from online
predators
 Declare the arrest of the juveniles in conflict with law is illegal under Article 21 of The
Bhawani Constitution
 Declare that the act of the members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” is justifiable under
Article 19(1)(a)
AND/OR pass any other order or grant any other relief in favour of the Petitioners, which
this Honourable Supreme Court may deem fit to meet the ends of equity, justice and good
conscience.
Sd/-
Counsel for Petitioners

ALF31

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

ALF31

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAMCODE – LF31

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF BHAWANI

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLES 32 & 139A OF CONSTITUTION OF

TRANSFER PETITION NO. _____/2020

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. _____/2020

NARI RAKSHA SAMITI ……. PETITIONER

UNION OF BHAWANI ……. RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. _____/2020

BADRINATH BHATIA AND OTHERS ……. PETITIONER

UNION OF BHAWANI ……. RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. _____/2020

THE GUARDIANS OF THE JUVENILES ……. PETITIONER

UNION OF BHAWANI AND OTHERS ……. RESPONDENT

IN THE CASE CONCERNING

THE BRO’S LOCKER ROOM

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 9

ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................ 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 13

1. WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

1.1.2 Voyeurism under Section 354C of Indian Penal Code ...................................... 13

1.1.3 Stalking under Section 354D of Indian Penal Code .......................................... 14

1.1.4 Defamation under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code........................................ 14

1.1.6 Punishment for violation of privacy under Section 66E of Information

1.1.7 Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually

1.1.8 Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in

Written Submission for the Petitioners Page 2

1.2 Need for CBI Probe ................................................................................................ 17

2. WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND

2.3 Need for a new statute ............................................................................................ 18

3. WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS THE POWER TO MAKE GUIDELINES AND

4. WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IS

4.2 Breach of privacy and non-liability established....................................................... 21

5. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BRO’S LOCKER ROOM IS

5.1 Freedom of Speech and Expression of the boys ...................................................... 23

5.2 Decriminalization of Information Technology Act, 2000 ........................................ 24

Written Submission for the Petitioners Page 3

Serial No. Abbreviations Full Form

Written Submission for the Petitioners Page 4

Allgeyer v. Louision. 165 US 578 (1897) (United states of America) .................................. 21

Article 21, The Constitution of India ................................................................................... 22

Written Submission for the Petitioners Page 5

Section 66E, The Information Technology Act, 2000 .......................................................... 15

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, since 1824 ............................................................................ 18

Written Submission for the Petitioners Page 6

1. BACKGROUND OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM”

2. PETITION FILED BY NARI RAKSHA SAMITI

3. PETITION FILED BY THE GROUP OF ADVOCATES

Written Submission for the Petitioners Page 7

4. PETITION FILED BY THE GUARDIANS OF THE JUVENILES

Written Submission for the Petitioners Page 8

Written Submission for the Petitioners Page 9

WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND CYBER

WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS THE POWER TO MAKE GUIDELINES AND

WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IS

WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE “BRO’S-LOCKER-ROOM”

Written Submission for the Petitioners Page 10

WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND CYBER

WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS THE POWER TO MAKE GUIDELINES AND