Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Zindia

1ST IILM LAW SCHOOL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
BEFORE THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZINDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

S.L.P. NO. -------- OF 2022
UNDER THE ARTICLE 136 R/W ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF ZINDIA
Mrs. Rohilla Bhatnagar………………………………... APPLICANT

V.
Zufi front of india & Ors….……….…….…………... RESPONDENT
UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON`BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ZINDIA
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
Page-1
TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. v
STATUS QUO .................................................................................................................. viii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................... ix
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................................... x
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................ xi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1
1) WHETHER HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING MRS. ROHILLA

BHATNAGAR LIABLE FOR SPARKING THE CONTROVERSY AND RESULTANT
VIOLENCE U/S 108, 153 A, 295 A, 298, AND SECTION 505 OF THE ZINDIAN PENAL
CODE? ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 That the Use of religion in electoral politics has been specifically prohibited by
the SC .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 That Mrs. Rohilla Bhatnagar had malafide intentions for using Realcom - an AI-
software based on machine learning technology. .............................................................. 3
1.2.1 Understanding the working of Machine Learning Technology........................ 3
1.2.2 That there is need to understand the chronology of this conspiracy ................ 3
1.2.3 That Central govt. has the power to issue directions to block the access u/s 69A
of Information Technology Act ......................................................................................... 6
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION .............................................................................. 9
2) CAN REALCOM BE MADE LIABLE FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED

OFFENCES UNDER ANY OF THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE REPUBLIC OF
ZINDIA? ................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1 That Realcom is not a person u/s -11 of Zindian penal code ............................... 11
2.2 That Means rea is an essential element to commit a crime .................................. 12

Page- ii
2.3 That Realcom works on the technology of machine learning ............................. 12
2.4 That there is negligence on part of Mrs. Rohilla Bhatnagar and her team ....... 13
2.5 Intermediaries did not observe due diligence under IT rules, 2021 ................... 13
2.6 That Supreme court lay down appropriate guidelines regarding liability under
artificial intelligence by invoking its special power under article 142 of the constitution
of Zindia. ............................................................................................................................. 16
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 20
Page- iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION
NGP National Glory Party
ZSP Zindian Socialist Party
ZFI Zufi Front of India
AI Artificial Intelligence
SLP Special Leave Petition
IT Information Technology
GOVT. Government
REALCOM Real Commenter
HON`BLE Honourable
U/A Under Article
FIR First Information Report
Sec. Section
V. Versus
AIR All India Report
ZPC Zindian Penal Code
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
ORS. Others
NO. Number
R/W Read with
Art. Article
Page- iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.& Ors on 2 January, 2017 2, 3

2. Asstt. Commissioner v. velliappa textiles ltd, 2003 132 TAXMAN 165 SC ............ 1
3. Bodh Raj V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 316 .................................. 6
4. D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 ............................................ 18
5. Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat &
Ors, (1991) 4 SCC 406 ............................................................................................... 17
6. Fowler v. padget, (1798) 7 T.R. 509 .......................................................................... 12
7. Janabai v. additional commissioner, 2018 ................................................................. 2
8. kali charan v. state of UP, 2019 .................................................................................. 6
9. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan AIR 2005 SC 972 ............................... 17
10. Kanti Prasad Jayshanker Yagnik v. Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel, 1969 AIR
851, 1969 SCR (3) 400 .................................................................................................. 2
11. Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh, 1965 AIR 141, 1964 SCR (7) 790 ........................ 1
12. L. K. Pandey v. Union of India & Anr AIR 1986 SC 272....................................... 18
13. Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab (1995) 6 SCC 614................................................ 18
14. Ramamurthy v. State of Karnataka AIR 1997 SC 1739 ........................................ 18
15. Ravi kumar sonu v. state, 2013 ................................................................................... 5
16. S.R Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 ................................................... 3
17. Somasundaram Somu v. The State on 30th June, 2020............................................ 6
18. State of Maharashtra v. syndicate transport (P) Ltd., AIR 1964 Bom 195 .......... 11
19. sulaiman sait v. M.C. Muhammad ............................................................................. 1
20. Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association & Ors. v. Union of India (1993)
4 SCC 441.................................................................................................................... 18
21. V.C. Shukla v.. State, 1980 AIR 962 ........................................................................... 6
Page- v
LEGAL DATABASE
I. www.scconline.com
II. www.manupatra.com
III. www.legalquest.com
IV. www.legalmatch.com
V. www.lawoctopus.com
BOOKS, ARTICLES AND LEGISLATIONS

I. Ratan Lal and Dheeraj Lal (eds.), The Indian Penal Code, (Re print, 30th edition, 2006).
II. K.D Gaur (ed.), Indian Penal Code, (Universal Law Publications Co., New Delhi, Fifth
Edition).
III. Mahesh Prasad Tandon’s (ed.), The Indian Penal Code, (Allahabad Law Agency,
Faridabad, 23rd Edition, 2005)
IV. Surya Narayan Misra (ed.), The Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), (Law
Publications, Allahabad, Nineteenth Edition).
V. D.D Basu Commentary (ed.), The Constitution of India, (Lexis Nexis Butterworth
Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur, 8th ed. 2008).
VI. H.M. Seervai (ed.), Constitutional Law of India, (Universal Law Publishing, New
Delhi, 4th ed. 2010).
VII. Batuk Lal (ed.), The Law of Evidence, (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2018).
STATUTES
I. The Constitution of India, art. 136.
II. The Constitution of India, art. 142.
III. The Indian penal Code,1860 (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 108, 153A, 295A, 298, 505.
IV. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
V. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000).
DICTIONARY CONSULTED
I. Bryan A. Garner, ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’, 9th Ed., 2009, West Group.
II. Greenberg Daniel, ‘Strouds Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases’, 7th Ed. Sweet
and Maxwell Co.
Page- vi
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
CONCERNED PARTIES
1. Doodle- a company holding position in fortune 500 world ranking
2. NGP- the ruling party
3. ZSP- opposition party
4. ZFI- a popular religious front
5. Ms. Rohilla Bhatnagar- head of NGP-IT Cell
6. Real com- AI bot formed by a doodle in collaboration with engineers of the Oxbridge
university.
IN 2019
❖ NGP, the country’s ruling party since 2014, 2019 promulgated the citizenship
amendment act, which amended the Zindian citizenship act to accept the illegal
migrants who belong to the Zindutva religion from neighboring countries. This move
of NGP sparked widespread national and overseas protests between Zindutva and
Zufism. The national capital of Zindia was then engulfed in inter-religion riots.
❖ Doodle - the fastest growing company of Zindia in collaboration with Oxibridge
university engineers created a bot to read and comment on an online news article and
social media post. In the era of digitalization, many govt. and private services are taken
over by artificial intelligence.
❖ Different political parties acknowledging the role of AI and social media established
respective IT cells to take care of the digital sector of campaigning for the assembly
elections scheduled in 5 states of the country. The NGP IT cell which was headed by
Page- vii
Mrs. Rohila Bhatnagar bought the machine learning-based AI software named
“realcom” for their digital campaigning.
❖ Realcom worked seamlessly in the first few weeks of its usage but in upcoming weeks,
there was an abrupt deviation in the response patterns of AI.
ON 7-Feb-2022
❖ Realcom engaged in an argument with one of the supporters of the ZSP regarding the
necessity of constitution compliance. ZSP supporter accused NGP of not abiding by the
spirit of the zindian constitution and further accused NGP of destroying the
constitutional values and realcom responded to this accusation accordingly.
❖ Screenshots of this comment went viral on social media and multiple politicians and
celebrities tweeted the screenshots along with reactions and controversy was
snowballed into a major issue. This led to the eruption of violence in the state, where
elections were scheduled.
❖ During the physical gathering of election campaigning, leaders of NGP, deliberately
enunciated hate speeches to gain advantages over the rift between two communities.
ZSP, the opposition party took advantage of this and got engaged in this divide and rule
policy.
❖ Zufi front of Zindia, a popular religious front, upon the comment getting viral, raised
major objection & filed FIR against Ms. Rohilla Bhatnagar
STATUS QUO
The high court ruled in favor of ZFI and therefore Rohila Bhatnagar preferred an appeal before
the supreme court.
Page- viii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent has approached the Hon’ble Supreme court in response to the petition filed by
the applicant U/A 1361 of the constitution of Zindia.
1
Article 136 - Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
1(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
(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
Page- ix
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
ISSUE NO. 1
WHETHER HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING MRS. ROHILLA
CODE?
ISSUE NO. 2
CAN REALCOM BE MADE LIABLE FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED OFFENCES
UNDER ANY OF THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE REPUBLIC OF ZINDIA?
Page- x
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE NO. 1
WHETHER HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING MRS. ROHILLA
CODE?
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the high court was correct in holding Mrs.
Rohilla Bhatnagar liable for sparking the controversy. In 2017 supreme court banned the use
of religion in political campaigning to seek votes for political gain. So, to circumvent this ban
Mrs. Rohilla Bhatnagar hatched a conspiracy which she executed very cleverly.
ISSUE NO. 2
CAN REALCOM BE MADE LIABLE FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED OFFENCES
UNDER ANY OF THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE REPUBLIC OF ZINDIA?
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that realcom is a bot that reads and comments
on online news articles and social media posts. This AI bot functioned on machine learning or
we can say that realcom learns from the actions of the user and has the capacity to automatically
learn from past data and its own interactions without programming explicitly. Mrs. Rohilla
knew the functioning of realcom and she was also aware of the fact that there is no law to
govern and regulate the AI actions in India therefore, to pass the responsibility of the first
originator to AI-based software the whole conspiracy has been executed.
Page- xi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1) WHETHER HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING MRS. ROHILLA
BHATNAGAR LIABLE FOR SPARKING THE CONTROVERSY AND
RESULTANT VIOLENCE U/S 108, 153 A, 295 A, 298, AND SECTION 505 OF
THE ZINDIAN PENAL CODE?
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the high court was correct in holding
Mrs. Rohilla Bhatnagar liable for sparking the controversy resultant violence u/s 108, 153
a, 295 a, 298, and section 505 of the zindian penal code.
1.1 That the Use of religion in electoral politics has been specifically prohibited by the SC
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that religion has to role to play in politics and
use of religion in politics amounts to corrupt practices.
A. “In order that the democratic process should thrive and succeed, it is of utmost
importance that our elections to Parliament and the different legislative bodies must be
free from the unhealthy influence of appeals to religion, race, caste, community, or
language. If these considerations are allowed any way in election campaigns, they
would vitiate the secular atmosphere of democratic life, and so, Section 123(3) wisely
provides a check on this undesirable development by providing that an appeal to any of
these factors made in furtherance of the candidature of any candidate as therein
prescribed would constitute a corrupt practice and would render the election of the said
candidate void.”2
2
Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh, 1965 AIR 141, 1964 SCR (7) 790, Ebrahim sulaiman sait v. M.C. Muhammad,
Page-1
B. In Kanti Prasad Jayshanker Yagnik v. Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel3 SC held
that “One other ground given by the High Court is that “there can be no doubt that in
this passage (passage 3) Shambhu Maharaj had put forward an appeal to the electors
not to vote for the Congress Party in the name of the religion.” In our opinion, there is
no bar to a candidate or his supporters appealing to the electors not to vote for the
Congress in the name of religion. What Section 123(3) bars is that an appeal by a
candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his
election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion,
i.e., the religion of the candidate.”
C. In a landmark case Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen4 supreme court widened the
scope of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, the Supreme Court
has held that politicians cannot seek votes in the name of religion, caste, race,
community or language, as it would constitute a corrupt practice sufficient to annul the
elections.
D. Justice Thakur, in the judgment, said: “Electoral processes are doubtless secular
activities of the State. Religion can have no place in such activities for religion is a
matter personal to the individual with which neither the State nor any other individual
has anything to do. The relationship between man and God and the means which
humans adopt to connect with the Almighty are matters of individual preferences and
choices. The State is under an obligation to allow complete freedom for practicing,
professing, and propagating religious faith to which a citizen belongs in terms of Article
25 of the Constitution of India but the freedom so guaranteed has nothing to do with
3
Kanti Prasad Jayshanker Yagnik v. Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel, 1969 AIR 851, 1969 SCR (3) 400,
Harmohinder singh pradhan v. Ranjeet singh Talwandi, 2005
4
Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.& Ors on 2 January, 2017, Janabai v. additional
commissioner, 2018
Page- 2
secular activities which the State undertakes. The State can and indeed has in terms of
Section 123(3) forbidden interference of religions and religious beliefs with the secular
activity of elections to legislative bodies.”5
E. The supreme court laid down that introduction of religion into politics is a direct denial
to follow the constitutional mandate as well as a positive violation of a constitutional
obligation, duty, responsibility.6
1.2 That Mrs. Rohilla Bhatnagar had malafide intentions for using Realcom - an AI-
software based on machine learning technology.
1.2.1 Understanding the working of Machine Learning Technology
F. Machine learning is a branch of artificial intelligence (AI) and computer science which
focuses on the use of data and algorithms to imitate the way that humans learn,
gradually improving its accuracy. we can roughly characterize machine-learning
systems as functionally “learning” in the sense that they too can improve their
performance on particular tasks over time. They do this by examining more data and
looking for additional patterns.
1.2.2 That there is need to understand the chronology of this conspiracy
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that Mrs. Rohilla Bhatnagar hatched the
conspiracy which she executed very cleverly.
Acc. To sec. 1077 of ZPC abetment is constituted in the following ways:
5
Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.& Ors on 2 January, 2017
6
S.R Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
7
Indian penal code (Act of 45 of 1860) s. 107.
Page- 3
I. By instigating a person to commit an offense, or,
A person is said to ‘instigate’ another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to
the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express
solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. In the present case there is no abetment
by instigation which is clear from facts of the case.
II. By engaging in the conspiracy to commit an offense:
A. A person is said to abet the commission of an offense by conspiracy, if he enters into
an agreement with one or more persons to do a legal act by illegal means or to do an
illegal act, and some act is done in pursuance thereof.
B. In 2017, the supreme court banned the use of religion in electoral politics and held that
the use of religion is a corrupt practice u/s 1238 of the representation of people Act.
Now, the applicant knew that after the apex court judgment it’s not easy for her to use
religious tactics directly in political campaigning. So, she decided to buy an AI-based
software Realcom based on machine learning and which has the capacity to learn from
the user’s actions and past data.
C. Realcom was planned to operate through multiple social media accounts. Each of these
accounts were planned to display its official affiliation with the NGP-IT cell through
their respective bio. Now, what happens Realcom started analysing the different social
media accounts which shows the affiliation to the NGP-IT cell, it started learning from
8
The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidates or his election
agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or
language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the
national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for
prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.
3(a) The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens
of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other
person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of
that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate
Page- 4
the past comments and social media posts made by the handlers of these social
accounts, and then realcom made such a strong comment following:9
“The constitution has been forced upon us and we do not believe in it. The idea of
secularism was not even the part of the original constitution. The document is a death
certificate for Zindutva and Zufism is going to take over the country. We need to purify this
country by getting rid of this constitution and the millions of Zufis living in the country.”10
D. In consequence of this screenshots of this comment got viral on social media and
multiple politicians and celebrities tweeted the screenshot along with their reactions.
During the physical gatherings for the election campaigning, famous leaders of NGP
further swayed the protests. They deliberately enunciated hate speeches to gain an
advantage over the manifest rift between the two communities.11
E. As pointed out by Fazal Ali, J, in V.C. Shukla v.. State"12 in most cases it will be
difficult to get direct evidence of the agreement, but a conspiracy can be inferred even
from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement
between two or more persons to commit an offence.
F. Similarly in the famous case of Bodh Raj V. State of Jammu & Kashmir13, Court held
that circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis for conviction provided the conditions
as stated below is fully satisfied. Condition are:
1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
9
Moot proposition
10
Moot proposition
11
Moot proposition
12
V.C. Shukla v.. State, 1980 AIR 962
13
Bodh Raj V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 316, kali charan v. state of UP, 2019
Page- 5
2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;
3) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4) That the circumstances should, to a moral certainity, actually exclude every
hypothesis expect the one proposed to be proved
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that Sec. 108 of the ZPC provides that a person abets an
offence who abets either the commission of an offence or the commission of an act which
would be an offence if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with
the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. The first Explanation provides that
abetment of an illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may
not himself be bound to do that act.14
1.2.3 That Central govt. has the power to issue directions to block the access u/s 69A of
Information Technology Act
Acc. To section 69 A of information technology Act- “Where the Central Govt. or any of its
officer specially authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so
to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the
commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-
section (2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Govt. or
intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public
14
Somasundaram Somu v. The State on 30th June, 2020.
Page- 6
any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer
resource.”15
Section 69A of the IT Act allows the govt. to issue reasoned and written orders to
intermediaries or any govt. agency to block access to any information on cyberspace.
However, such blocking can only be ordered if it meets certain criteria which are laid down
in clause (1) of section 69A.
The grounds on which such orders can be issued include:
▪ In the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India.
▪ Defence of India, the security of the state.
▪ Friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the
commission of any cognizable offence.
The section also mandated that the reasons for the blocking must be recorded in writing.
Additionally, the section carries criminal penalties and intermediaries can be punished with an
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and are also liable to fine if do not
comply with the requests.
IT Rules 2009
▪ The detailed procedure for blocking access to any such information has been laid down
in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of
Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
▪ Under the said rules, only ministries and agencies of the Central Govt. or any of the
State or a Union Territory can ask for blocking access to the information.
▪ Individuals can not directly request for blocking of access to any content.
15
Information technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000)
Page- 7
▪ The union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting ordered a ban on 35 YouTube
channels, two websites, two Twitter accounts, two Instagram accounts and one
Facebook account that were operating from Pakistan and spreading “anti-India
disinformation”
▪ The ministry of electronics and IT- which issued the latest ban orders on the grounds
that these apps were transferring sensitive data of Indians to servers in foreign countries
such as China - has also directed top app stores including Google's Playstore to block
these applications.
▪ Meity used it's power under the section 69a of the IT Act, 2000 to enforce the latest
order.
Page- 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
IN
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. _______ OF 20__
AND IN THE MATTER OF
MRS. ROHILLA BHATNAGAR……………..…………………………….APPLICANT
V.
ZUFI FRONT OF INDIA…………………………………………………RESPONDENT-I
REALCOM…………………………………...……. RESPONDENT-II /INTERVENER
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION

To,
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Zindia
And his Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of Zindia
Page- 9
Most Respectfully Showeth:
Statement of Interest
The applicant is filing the present application seeking to intervene in special leave petition
and praying that Realcom should be allowed to make submissions before this Hon’ble Court
in the instant case as per Order XVII, Rule 316 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
16
In cases where intervention is allowed by the court, The intervener or interveners shall be entitled to receive
documents produced and relied upon by the petitioner(s), unless directed otherwise by the court. The intervener(s)
may make oral submission with the leave of the court.
Page- 10
2) CAN REALCOM BE MADE LIABLE FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED
OFFENCES UNDER ANY OF THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE REPUBLIC
OF ZINDIA?
A. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that realcom cannot be made for the
above-mentioned offences under any law applicable to the republic of Zindia. This AI
bot functioned on machine learning. We can say that realcom learns from the user's
actions and has the capacity to automatically learn from past data and its own
interactions without programming explicitly.
2.1 That Realcom is not a person u/s -11 of Zindian penal code
B. Acc. To sec. 11 of Zindian penal code “person”.- the word “person” includes any
company or association, or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
C. Sec. 11 of the code has not defined the term ‘person’ in a narrow and technical sense
but has given a wider meaning to the term to include both a natural person and an
artificial person, such as, company, or an association, or a body of persons or an idol
which is a legal person. Corporations are indictable for offenses of quasi-criminal
nature such as nuisance, trespass, etc. for which fine is either the sole punishment or an
alternative punishment to imprisonment. But a corporation would not be criminally
liable for offenses such as murder, robbery, offenses against the state, public
tranquillity, and the like for which imprisonment or death is the punishment prescribed
by law.17
In the present case Realcom is an artificial intelligence based software not a person and
hence no liability can be attributed to it.
17
State of Maharashtra v. syndicate transport (P) Ltd., AIR 1964 Bom 195, Asstt. Commissioner v. velliappa
textiles ltd, 2003 132 TAXMAN 165 SC
Page- 11
2.2 That Means rea is an essential element to commit a crime
D. In order to impose criminal liability upon a person, two main elements must exist. The
first is the external or factual element; i.e., criminal conduct (actus reus), while the other
is the internal or mental element; i.e., knowledge or general intent vis-à-vis the conduct
element (mens rea). If one of them is missing, no criminal liability can be imposed.
‘Actus non facit nisi mens sit rea’ is a well-known maxim of criminal law. It means ‘the
act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so’. From this maxim
follows another proposition: ‘actus me invito factus non est mens actus’ which means
‘an act done by me against my will is not my act at all. This means an act in order to be
punishable at law must be a willed act or a voluntary act and at the same time must have
been done with criminal intent. The intent and the act both must concur to constitute
the crime.18
2.3 That Realcom works on the technology of machine learning
E. Machine learning is a branch of artificial intelligence (AI) and computer science which
focuses on the use of data and algorithms to imitate the way that humans learn,
gradually improving its accuracy. we can roughly characterize machine-learning
systems as functionally “learning” in the sense that they too can improve their
performance on particular tasks over time. They do this by examining more data and
looking for additional patterns.
F. Real Com is an AI-based software created by doodle with good intentions that works
on machine learning. There is no defect in the manufacturing of software. In the present
case, it is very clear from the facts of the case that this AI bot automatically learns from
past data. Comment passed by it in the instant case is due to the action of Mrs. Rohilla
18
Fowler v. padget, (1798) 7 T.R. 509.
Page- 12
Bhatnagar as in the bio of the social media accounts, it is clearly displayed that they are
officially affiliated with NGP IT Cell. Therefore, real com after reading the comments
and posts of all those who were somehow connected with NGP and shows their
affiliation to it, and then passed the comment.
2.4 That there is negligence on part of Mrs. Rohilla Bhatnagar and her team
G. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble Supreme Court that Real Com worked
seamlessly in the first few weeks. But in the coming weeks, there was an abrupt
deviation in the response pattern of the AI, no action was taken by Mrs. Rohilla to deal
with the same. It is further submitted that she deliberately placed the AI-based software
on social media open air to comment, leading to violence. Also, she never filed a single
complaint when this software started using derogatory and offensive words. As the head
of NGP IT- Cell she was obliged to perform her duty with due and reasonable care.
2.5 Intermediaries did not observe due diligence under IT rules, 2021
H. As per rule 3 (1) Due diligence by an intermediary: An intermediary, including
social media intermediary and significant social media intermediary, shall observe the
following due diligence while discharging its duties, namely:—
(b) the rules and regulations, privacy policy or user agreement of the intermediary shall
inform the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish,
transmit, store, update or share any information that,—
(v) violates any law for the time being in force;
(viii) threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India,
friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or causes incitement to
Page- 13
the commission of any cognizable offence or prevents investigation of any
offence or is insulting other nation;
(c) an intermediary shall periodically inform its users, at least once every year, that in
case of non-compliance with rules and regulations, privacy policy or user agreement
for access or usage of the computer resource of such intermediary, it has the right to
terminate the access or usage rights of the users to the computer resource immediately
or remove non-compliant information or both, as the case may be;
(d) an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or
published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of
competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Govt. or its agency under
clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not host, store or publish any
unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in
relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State;
friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in relation to
contempt of court; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any
information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force:
I. Provided further 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 Govt. or its agency, as the case may be:
As per rule 4 Additional due diligence to be observed by significant social media
intermediary.—
Page- 14
J. In addition to the due diligence observed under rule 3, a significant social media
intermediary shall, within three months from the date of notification of the threshold
under clause (v) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2, observe the following additional due diligence
while discharging its duties, namely:—
K. (a) appoint a Chief Compliance Officer who shall be responsible for ensuring
compliance with the Act and rules made thereunder and shall be liable in any
proceedings relating to any relevant third-party information, data or communication
link made available or hosted by that intermediary where he fails to ensure that such
intermediary observes due diligence while discharging its duties under the Act and rules
made thereunder:
L. As per sub-rule (4) A significant social media intermediary shall endeavour to deploy
technology-based measures, including automated tools or other mechanisms to
proactively identify information that depicts any act or simulation in any form depicting
rape, child sexual abuse or conduct, whether explicit or implicit, or any information
which is exactly identical in content to information that has previously been removed
or access to which has been disabled on the computer resource of such intermediary
under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3, and shall display a notice to any user
attempting to access such information stating that such information has been identified
by the intermediary under the categories referred to in this sub-rule:
M. As per rule 7 Non-observance of Rules.—Where an intermediary fails to observe
these rules, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 79 of the Act shall not be
applicable to such intermediary and the intermediary shall be liable for punishment
under any law for the time being in force including the provisions of the Act and the
Indian Penal Code.
Page- 15
N. As per 16 Blocking of information in case of emergency.— (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in rules 14 and 15, the Authorised Officer, in any case of emergency
nature, for which no delay is acceptable, shall examine the relevant content and consider
whether it is within the grounds referred to in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act
and it is necessary or expedient and justifiable to block such information or part thereof
and submit a specific recommendation in writing to the Secretary, Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting.
2.6 That Supreme court lay down appropriate guidelines regarding liability under
artificial intelligence by invoking its special power under article 142 of the constitution
of Zindia.
It is humbly submitted that in the instant matter hon’ble SC should lay guidelines regarding
criminal as well as civil liability of person in case of use of artificial intelligence.
Art. 14219. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery,
etc.-
(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make
such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending
before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout
the territory of Indica in such manner as maybe prescribed by or under any law made
by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the
President may by order prescribe.
The object of Article 142(1) is that the Supreme Court must not be obliged to depend on the
executive for the enforcement of its decrees and orders. Such dependence would violate the
19
The Constitution of India, A. 142
Page- 16
principles of independence of the judiciary and separation of powers, both of which were held
to constitute the basic structure of the Constitution. The interpretation of complete justice by
the Apex Court has given it a different dimension which was not intended by the founding
fathers.
For a long time now, the Supreme Court has emphasised the Constitutional objectives, and has
acted as if it were moved by the teary-eyed masses of India. It has understood that when some
branch of the govt. fails to discharge its constitutionally mandated function, people are entitled
to move the courts for redress; so moved, the Court has compelled the inactive branch
concerned, to discharge the said function.
Describing the scope of the powers under Article 142, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan20, the Court noted:
“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 of the Constitution. This court reiterated
that directions issued by this court under Article 142 from the law of the land in the absence of
any substantive law covering the field and such directions "fill the vacuum" until the legislature
enacts substantive law. This court has issued guidelines and directions in several cases for
safeguarding, implementing and promoting the fundamental rights, in the absence of legislative
enactments.”
In Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat & Ors.21,
the situation was that, a large number of directions had been issued, as regards the manner in
20
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan AIR 2005 SC 972
21
Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat & Ors, (1991) 4 SCC 406
Page- 17
which the police could lodge a case against a judicial officer. In Supreme Court Advocates-
on-record Association & Ors. v. Union of India,22, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court
laid down the guidelines and norms for the appointment and transfer of Judges creating a
collegium, though the same has not been provided for under the Constitution.
Furthermore, the founding fathers, by the incorporation of Article 141, empowered the
Supreme Court to declare the law of the land. Expounding on Article 141, in Nand Kishore v.
State of Punjab23, the Court held:
“Their Lordships decisions declare the existing law but do not enact any fresh law, is not in
keeping with the plenary function of the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution,
for the Court is not merely the interpreter of the law as existing, but much beyond that. The
Court as a wing of the State is by itself a source of law. The law is what the Court says it is.”
As an example, in the absence of the any legislation enacted by Parliament on the subject of
inter-country adoption, i.e., the adoption of Indian children by foreign nationals, the Supreme
Court issued detailed guidelines in L. K. Pandey v. Union of India & Anr24. Since there has
been no subsequent legislation, these guidelines continue to be the law. Similarly, in the
absence of any relevant legislation, the Supreme Court issued guidelines required to be
followed while making arrests, in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal25; concerned about the
plight of the undertrials, the Supreme Court issued pertinent guidelines in Ramamurthy v. State
of Karnataka26.
22
Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association & Ors. v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441
23
Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab (1995) 6 SCC 614
24
L. K. Pandey v. Union of India & Anr AIR 1986 SC 272
25
D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610
26
Ramamurthy v. State of Karnataka AIR 1997 SC 1739.
Page- 18
There are areas where there is no legislation at all or any specifically applicable laws and the
Supreme Court is more than justified in laying down the guidelines principles to deal with the
cases as part of its function of administration of justice, so as to ensure that in future the same
situation will not go unnoticed under the law.
Page- 19
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble SC, that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. Special leave petition should be dismissed.
2. The order of the high court must be upheld
3. Appropriate guidelines must be laid down regarding criminal as well as civil liability of
persons in case of use of artificial intelligence.
(or)
Any other order as the Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and
good conscience.
All of which is humbly and respectfully submitted.
Counsels for respondent
Page- 20

Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Zindia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Zindia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court of Zindia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1ST IILM LAW SCHOOL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZINDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Mrs. Rohilla Bhatnagar………………………………... APPLICANT

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. v

STATUS QUO .................................................................................................................. viii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................... ix

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................................... x

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................ xi

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1

1) WHETHER HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING MRS. ROHILLA

1.2.1 Understanding the working of Machine Learning Technology........................ 3

APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION .............................................................................. 9

2) CAN REALCOM BE MADE LIABLE FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED

2.2 That Means rea is an essential element to commit a crime .................................. 12

2.3 That Realcom works on the technology of machine learning ............................. 12

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

NGP National Glory Party

ZSP Zindian Socialist Party

ZFI Zufi Front of India

SLP Special Leave Petition

REALCOM Real Commenter

U/A Under Article

FIR First Information Report

AIR All India Report

ZPC Zindian Penal Code

SCC Supreme Court Cases

R/W Read with

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

1. Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.& Ors on 2 January, 2017 2, 3

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

BOOKS, ARTICLES AND LEGISLATIONS

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

1. Doodle- a company holding position in fortune 500 world ranking

2. NGP- the ruling party

3. ZSP- opposition party

4. ZFI- a popular religious front

5. Ms. Rohilla Bhatnagar- head of NGP-IT Cell

❖ Doodle - the fastest growing company of Zindia in collaboration with Oxibridge

over by artificial intelligence.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

Mrs. Rohila Bhatnagar bought the machine learning-based AI software named

“realcom” for their digital campaigning.

there was an abrupt deviation in the response patterns of AI.

constitutional values and realcom responded to this accusation accordingly.

elections were scheduled.

❖ During the physical gathering of election campaigning, leaders of NGP, deliberately

major objection & filed FIR against Ms. Rohilla Bhatnagar

the supreme court.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

the applicant U/A 1361 of the constitution of Zindia.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

WHETHER HIGH COURT WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING MRS. ROHILLA

BHATNAGAR LIABLE FOR SPARKING THE CONTROVERSY AND RESULTANT

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. _____ OF 20