Ramaiah Institute of Legal Studies 1 National Moot Court Competition, 2023

TEAM CODE: NM16
RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
BEFORE THE HON’BLE BENCH OF SUPREME COURT JUDGE, AMESTRIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
(PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT)
NAOMI NAKAMORA VS. UNION OF AMESTRIS
APPEAL NO.______/ 2023

PETITION FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 13(1),19(1)A, 14, 21
THE CONSTITUION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGE.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

RILS , 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
INDEX
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………….………………….…..…04
INDEX OF AUTHORTIES……………………………………………………05 to 06
a) TABLE OF CASES……...………………….…………………………… 05
b) BOOKS…………………...…………………………………………………….06
c) STATUTES…………...………………….………………………………..…06
d) DATABASE….………………………………...……………………………….....06
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………….07
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………..08 to 9
ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………….……………………………….11 to 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………...13 to25
ISSUES: 1.0 WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED ON THE APP IS VIOLATION OF
NAOMI’S RIGHT TO LIVEHOOD?................................................13 to 17
1.1 IN THE VIEW OF LIFE OF NAOMI?

1.2 WHAT WOULD BE THE REACTION OF AMESTRIANS FOR
BANNING THE APP?
1.3 PERUSAL OF ARTICLE 21 IN AMESTRIS?
1.4 DOES BANNING THE APP VIOLATES NAOMIS LIVELIHOOD?
ISSUES: 2.0 WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF INFORMATION TECHONOLOGY

(INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021
ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?.................................................................17 to 21
2.1 DOES RULE 3 TO 7 OF IT RULES, 2021 APPLIES TO THE APP?
2.2 THE CLAIMING OF THESE POWER IS VOILATE ARTICLE 14,19
AND 21 OF AMESTRIS CONSTITUTION?
2.3 THE FILTERATION AND WOMENES DEROGATORY:
2.4 WHETHER THE RULES,2021 IS CONSIDERED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 2

ISSUES: 3.0 WHETHER THE HIGH COURT OF KIRITO WAS RIGHT IN DECIDING
THAT “ANY LAW THAT CATERS TO THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND
CHILDREN IS A GOOD LAW?”........................................................21to 26
3.1WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS FILED BY NAOMI IS VALID?
3.2 DOES THE APP HAD DEPRIVED HER RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21?
3.3 WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAVE RIGHT TO DECIDE?
3.4 IF THE BANNING THE APP IS THS ONLY THE WAY TO PROTECT
THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN?
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………27

LIST OF ABBRIVATION
SEC. Section/Sections
A.I.R. All India Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
IT Information Technology
HC High Court
Govt. Government
Hon‘ble Honourable
App Application
Art Article
OTT Over the top
Ors. Others

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
~TABLE OF CASES~
1. Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India 1982 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1)
456
2. R.P. Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd.,1989 AIR 190
3. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers 1989 AIR
190
4. Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, Civil appeal nos. 354-357, 362-364.
5. Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
6. Olga tellis v. Bombay municipal corporation 1986 AIR 180
7. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India; (AIR 1973 SC 106)
8. Narendra KumarChandla v. State of Haryana, 1995 AIR 519,
9. Lovell v. City Of Griffin (1937) 303 U.S. 404
10. Romesh Thappar v. State Of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 124),
11. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978) AIR 597
12. EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) AIR 555
13. State of Punjab v. Shri Amar Singh, General (1998) 119 PLR 498
14. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu And Ors. (1992)SCR (1) 686
15. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) WRIT petition (civil) No,1031 of 2019
16. UOI v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) WP (civil) no. 294 2001
17. Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State Of Kerala (2019 WP(C NO.) 19716\2019
18. Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bombay, 1954
19. Olga Tellis & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
20. Jaswantsingh Mathurasingh & Anr. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors
21. Kesavananda Bharati ... v. State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
22. The State Of Gujarat And Another v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., ... on 26 March, 1974
23. Praveen Arimbrathodiyil V. Union of India (WP(C) 9647/2021)
24. WhatsApp v. Union of India (2021)

~STATUTES ~
1) Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)

Rules, 2021Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.
2) Constitution of Amestris , 1949.
3) Information Technology Act, 2000.
~BOOKS~
1) M P Jain Indian Constitutional Law edition 2018.

2) Constitutional law of India Dr. J.N. Pandey Edition: 2020
3) Constitution of India 2021 Author: VN Shukla
4) Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021.( Bare acts )
~DATABASE~
1) Indiankanoon.org
2) lexforti.com
3) casemine.com
4) livelaw.in
5) ipleaders.in

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Amestris has the jurisdiction in this matter under Art.136 of
the Constitution of Amestris which reads as follows:
ARTICLE -136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions, and arguments in the present case.

STATEMENT OF FACT
AMESTRIS AND KIRITO:
Amestris is a democratic republic and is one of the oldest civilizations in the world with a
kaleidoscopic variety and rich cultural heritage. Kirito is a State in the Amestris Union. Social
media is very commonly used and has a high influence on all citizens of Amestris and also a
source of income. Kirito has seen the rise of many social media influencers, especially since
the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
INCREASE IN SOCIAL MEDIA:
Over the last five years many social media influencers have come up in Amestris and Kirito has
seen the rise of most of these influencers. Many young adults and teenagers have started making
posts and videos which are also serving as a source of income for them. Due to this, the quality
of life of many citizens in Kirito has increased greatly and has also led to a boost in the economy
of Amestris.
ENTERING OF VETUBE IN AMESTRIS:
VeTube App is a leading social media platform with its headquarters in Numbani, Wakanda
that allows netizens to make vlogs and other videos and post them which is then available to
watch, all around the globe. VeTube entered the Amestris market in the year 2018 and was
welcomed with open arms in the country. The app became a huge hit and was very popular
among Amestrians. Vlogging is the most common use of VeTube.
VETUBE and NAOMI:
Naomi, a 20-year-old woman, was an active user and vlogs on the VeTube app every day. She
repurposed waste into art through various creative methods in her videos and motivated netizens
to "reuse and recycle." Due to the popularity of her videos, she started a new, separate channel,
"Recycle With Naomi. She used to make around Rs. 70,000 to 1,00,000 every month from her
VeTube revenue. This was also the main source of income for her family.

IT RULES, 2021:
On 25-02-2021, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting along with the Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology of the Government of Amestris published the
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021,
a secondary or subordinate legislation that suppressed Amestris Intermediary Guidelines Rules
2011. On account of the new Rules, social media and OTT platforms were given time to make
the necessary implementations.
BANNING OF VETUBE
Amestris Times, a famous news channel in Kirito had an exclusive news report that stated that
the VeTube App had not implemented the new Information Technology Rules, 2021, failed to
appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, resident in Amestris and had violated under Rules,
2021.VeTube App was thus banned in Amestris and none of the Amestrial citizens were able
to open or even access the app.
WRIT IN KIRITO HIGH COURT:
Devastated by this, Naomi filed a writ at the Kirito High Court challenging the ban imposed on
the VeTube ap by the Government of Amestris. She also contended that Rules 3 to 7 of the IT
Rules, 2021 gave intermediaries "sweeping powers”. She claimed that these powers were clear
violation of users' rights including the rights under Article 14, 19 and 21.
JUDGEMENT OF KIRITO HIGH COURT:
The Government of Amestris was of the opinion that the IT Rules did not violate any rights of
individuals and were merely setting down guidelines for the regulation of OTT and Social
media platforms and give special emphasis on th protection of women and children from sexual
offences on social media.The Government of Amestris also stated that VeTube had no filtering
of content.The Hon'ble High Court of Kirito decided on the matter and gave the judgement
stating that the Government did not violate any rights of the citizens by imposing a ban on the
VeTub app and was merely trying to protect the citizens of Amestris from unwanted and
sensitive content. The court also stated that the new IT Rules, 2021 was indeed a revolutionary
step in the field of digital media law and stated that any action or law that caters to the protection
of women and children is a "good law. Naomi filed writ petition in the high court of Kirito.

ISSUES RAISED
~ISSUES 1.0~
WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED ON THE APP IS VIOLATION OF NAOMI’S

RIGHT TO LIVEHOOD?
~ISSUES 2.0~
WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF INFORMATION TECHONOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY

GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021 ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
~ISSUES 3.0~
WHETHER THE HIGH COURT OF KIRITO WAS RIGHT IN DECIDING THAT “ANY
LAW THAT CATERS TO THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDERN IS A GOOD
LAW?”

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1.0 WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED ON THE APP IS VIOLATION OF

NAOMI’S RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD?
• Naomi filed a writ at the Kirito High Court challenging the ban imposed on the VeTube
app by the Government of Amestris. She contended that the regulations brought forth by
the IT Rules, 2021 were unconstitutional in nature and that the ban imposed on the app had
deprived her of her right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of Amestris.
• Fundamental rights were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people
against the encroachment of power delegated by them to their government.
ISSUE 2.0 WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF INFORMATION TECHONOLOGY

(INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES,
2021 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
• Article 14 is considered to be the protector against any form of arbitrariness and

unfettered discretion. This violates the principle of natural justice as well which goes
hand in hand with the fact that in the instance where any proceedings are found to
violate being fair, just, and reasonable, such proceedings offend Article 14 and Article
21. EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974).In other words, Article 14 targets
arbitrariness as it is believed that any action in order to be defined as arbitrary must
involve the negation of equality, and therefore equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.
• As held by the Court in the case, reasonability, and fairness, being a basic requirement
of Article 14, is the antithesis of the arbitrariness exercised by the Government in the
passage and criteria of these rules. These rules thus fail the test of reasonability. State
of Punjab v. Shri Amar Singh, General (1998).

ISSUE 3.0 WHETHER THE HIGH COURT OF KIRITO WAS RIGHT IN DECIDING
THAT “ANY LAW THAT CATERS TO THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND
CHILDERN IS A GOOD LAW?”
• Naomi also contended that Rules 3 to 7 of the IT Rules, 2021 gave intermediaries
“sweeping powers” including the power to remove any content on the basis of any
complaints received, which is clearly an example of arbitrary use of power. She claimed
that these powers were a clear violation of users’ rights including the rights under Article
14, 19 and 21.
• The doctrine of Waiver of rights is based on the premise that a person is his best judge and
that he has the liberty to waive the enjoyment of such rights as are conferred on him by the
State. However, the person must have the knowledge of his rights and that the waiver
should be voluntary

ADVANCE ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1.0 WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED ON THE APP IS VIOLATION OF

NAOMI’S RIGHT TO LIVEHOOD?
It is humbly submitted before the honorable bench is that restrictions imposed on the App
is a violation of Naomis right to livelihood under Article 21 which is the heart of the
Constitution. It is the most organic and progressive provision in our living Constitution. Article
21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his ‘life or ‘personal liberty’ by the ‘State’
as defined in Article 12.
1.1 IN THE VIEW OF NAOMIS LIFE:
VeTube app is a leading social media platform which enters in the market of Amestris in the
year 2018. Vlogging is the most common use of VeTube. Naomi is a 20 year old woman is the
active user of VeTube. Vlogging content of her was re-use and recycle. Due to the popularity
of her videos, she used to make revenues which was the main source of her family's income. In
such situation Amestris government published the Information Technology(intermediary
guidelines and digital media ethics code) rules 2021. According to such rules the government
banned the VeTube app.
1.2WHAT WOULD BE THE REACTION OF AMESTRIANS FOR BANNING THE

APP?
Banning of VeTube lead to a big hue and cry in the society as many individuals were actively
involved in the app and had revenue streams from it. The app was cut off fully and was even
unable to access the payment wallet in the app. Naomi is one among the people who was deeply
hurt and scared about what the future held for herself and her family as her VeTube revenue
was her family's main source of income1. Held that non-payment of minimum wages to the
workers employed in various Asiad Projects in Delhi was a denial to them of their right to live
with basic human dignity and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
1
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India 1982 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456

The over-the-top platform (OTT) which it refers to a method of transferring content through a
high-speed internet connection, whether it is in the form of video, music, or other types of
content.
Right to Know or Right to Be Informed, holding that the right to life has reached new
dimensions and urgency the Supreme Court in observed that if democracy had to function
effectively, people must have the right to know and to obtain the conduct of affairs of the State2.
Reiterating the above observations made in the instant case, the Apex Court in ruled that the
citizens who had been made responsible to protect the environment had a right to know the
government proposal3.
In the Supreme Court said that there was a strong link between Art.21 and Right to know,
particularly where secret government decisions may affect health, life, and livelihood4.
1.3 PERUSAL OF ARTICLE 21 IN AMESTRIS :
Devastated by this, on the 30th of November 2021, Naomi filed a Writ at the Kirito High Court
challenging the ban imposed on the VeTube app by the Government of Amestris. She
contended that the regulations brought forth by the IT Rules, 2021 were unconstitutional in
nature and that the ban imposed on the app had deprived her of her right to livelihood under
Article 21 of the Constitution of Amestris.
The SC has also ruled that freedom of speech under article 19(1)(a) is an inalienable right
adjunct to the right to life (Article 21). These two rights are not separate but related.
Fundamental rights were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people
against the encroachment of power delegated by them to their government. The right to live
includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare
necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities
for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing
and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities the basic
2
R.P. Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd.,
3
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers
4
Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti,

necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare
minimum expression of human self5.”
A Petition has been filed in the High Court of Kerala by a FOSS( developer and volunteer
of FSCI, Praveen A with the assistance of SFLC.in. The Petition challenges Part II of the
Rules, 2021 including the Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2021. One of the grounds of the Petition
is that it violates the right to encryption of citizens as a subset of the right to privacy
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The challenge in the High Court of
Kerala highlights that the traceability provision puts unreasonable restrictions on the
ability of intermediaries, thereby, violating the right to freedom to trade and profession
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The case has been admitted and notice
has been issued to the respondents 6.
If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the
easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of
livelihood to the point of abrogation.
Art 21 right to life includes right to livelihood that ‘right to livelihood’ is borne out of the ‘right
to life’, as no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of Livelihood7.The
court held that the test in determining the question whether a legislation or executive action
infringes the fundamental right is to examine its "effect" and not its object or subject matter. If
the direct effect of the impugned law is to abridge a fundamental right , its object or subject
matter will be irrelevant8.
1.4 IF BANNING THE APP VIOLATES NAOMIS LIVELIHOOD:-
The bans imposed by the Government are in exercise of powers under Section 69 A of the
Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act) read with the Information Technology (Procedure
and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 (Blocking Rules).
Section 69-A of the IT Act empowers the Government to issue directions for blocking from the
user, content/ information through any computer resource. A blocking order can be issued on
5
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
6
Praveen Arimbrathodiyil vs. Union of India (WP(C) 9647/2021)
7
Olga tellis vs Bombay municipal corporation
8
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India; (AIR 1973 SC 106)

grounds similar to the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression enumerated under
Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950. It is fascinating that privacy or data protection
concerns, which is the major trigger point for the ban, is not an express ground for issuance of
a blocking order under Section 69-A of the IT Act. So, could the Government even invoke
powers under Section 69-A of the IT Act for protecting privacy and data of the netizens?
Likewise only the Naomi has expressed her idea of Repurposed waste into art through various
creative methods in her videos and motivated netizens to reuse and recycle. Hence her thought
of expression is in the good sense. That is what the right of Naomi has been infringed.
The term ‘livelihood’ means a mode of securing the necessities of life. A person work is the
main source of his livelihood. Under Article 21 Right to livelihood is an integral part of the
Right to life. If one’s Right to livelihood would be deprived, then it means that we are taking
that person’s Right to life. In the supreme court held that the Article 21 protected the Right to
livelihood as an integral facet of Right to life9.
The necessities of life must treat and handle with the revenue based that wise the Naomi has
used this app as basic investment to handle her life as day by day, not only Naomi has affected
in the issues of banning 49 million of the peoples in Amestris. Social media is very commonly
used and has a high influence on all citizens of Amestris and for many people, it is also a source
of income. Kirito has seen the rise of many social media influencers, especially since the onset
of the Covid-19 pandemic. Around 90% of its users are youngers falling within the 16-30 age
group. VeTube has become a platform for many young adults to showcase their talents and
even make a living out of it.
In while quoting U.S. SUPREME COURTS view in, The apex court held that the freedom of
speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), means right to speak and to express
one’s opinions by word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or in any other manner10. It is to
express one’s convictions and opinions or ideas freely, through any communicational medium
or visible representation, such as gestures, signs, and the like. This freedom is essential for the
proper functioning of the democratic process11.
9
Narendra KumarChandla v. State of Haryana
10
Lovell v. City Of Griffin (1937) 303 U.S. 404
11
Romesh Thappar v. State Of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 124),

However, the law of rules has been enforced that the app has been banned by the Government
of Amestris on the basic of the action taken by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting along
with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology of the Government of Amestris
published the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules, 2021, a secondary or subordinate legislation that suppressed Amestris’
Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011. The 2021 Rules have stemmed from Section 87 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and is a combination of the draft Intermediaries Rules, 2018
and the OTT Regulation and Code of Ethics for Digital Media.
It was specifically stated that they failed to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, resident in
Amestris and had violated almost all the provisions of the IT Rules, 2021. The app of VeTube
have no register office with the jurisdiction of the Amestris and they even not to have any claim
amount which have been earned by the people of Amestris and Naomi. Then app have no any
of the care and doesn’t imply any of the way to the user. And here the Naomi and netizens of
the Amestris basic structure of the fundamental right have been infringed, the government
should ensure the right of netizens and with act as good conscience, provide justice and make
the app management to clear statement to the people. Banning is not the way to proves to avoid
sensitive content, even the government can take valid action toward the rules which applies to
the app and make the justice to the Naomi.
`Qui Facit Per Alium, Facit Per Se`
Hence, it is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the action taken government to ban
the app is ultra vires of constitution under article 21, 19(1)(a), the basic structure of the Naomi
and netizens of Amestris have been infringed, the counsel humble request the bench to adopt the
problem of citizens to provide equal right and the manner which treat by the VeTube app, the 49
million of peoples from Amestris have been affected here.

ISSUE 2.0 WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES,
2021 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It is humbly submitted before the honorable bench that the rule 3 to 7 of Information
Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 considered
as unconstitutional
The constitution of India is considered to be the supreme law of the land and all actions of
individuals and organizations are required to be in tune with the same. Being a law that
supersedes all other laws and takes the apex stance, it is reasonably assumed that all legislation
passed by the legislature (and in this case the executive) must be in line with the provisions of
the Constitution. However, there appears to be a significant departure from the same regarding
many points of the IT Rules, 2021. As a rule, any law that is in contravention of the
Constitutional provisions is liable to be struck down by the judiciary. However, due to political
influence and corruption, striking down/amending the IT Rules, 2021 by any authority other
than the ones who promulgated it themselves (i.e., the legislature), would lead to chaos within
the wings of governance of country.
On 25-02-2021, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting along with the Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology of the Government of Amestris published the
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021,
a secondary or subordinate legislation that suppressed Amestris’ Intermediary Guidelines Rules
2011. The 2021 Rules have stemmed from Section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
and is a combination of the draft Intermediaries Rules, 2018 and the OTT Regulation and Code
of Ethics for Digital Media. On account of the new Rules, social media and OTT platforms were
given time up to 25th May, 2021 to make the necessary implementations.
Here the VeTube app has not completed with the time have been given by the government on
implement of rules,2021. This implementation causes more loss to the netizens of Amestris.

2.1 VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14:
However, on November 12, 2021, the Government of Amestris noticed that VeTube had not taken
any steps to comply with the new IT Rules, 2021 as directed by them and decided to completely
terminate the use of the app within the territory of Amestris. s
The Rule of law upholds the supremacy of the Constitution and deems anything arbitrary or
unconstitutional in nature as automatically a violation of Article 14. The vague and ambiguous
nature of these rules is indicative of the unconstitutionality of the same. Violation of the rule of
law, in turn, violates the principle of natural justice. ‘Natural Justice’. The right to a fair hearing
or ‘Audi alteram partem’ is considered to be a procedural and institutional facet of Article 14.
The oversight mechanism (level III) under Section 13, chapter IV of the IT Rules empowers the
Secretary of the Ministry to issue directions ‘for blocking of online content to persons, publishers,
or intermediaries in control of hosting such information, without giving them an opportunity of
hearing’. The conditions for the same are once again not specified and just termed as an
‘emergency’ instead. This not only violates the right of the publisher and persons of the said
content to know why their content has been taken down but also does not give them a fair hearing
that violates their right to be heard. This compromises both the equality of the concerned persons
as well as their equal protection of the law. The judgment in the case clearly reiterates and upholds
this right which is in tune with the rule of law and principle of natural justice.12
Article 14 is considered to be the protector against any form of arbitrariness and unfettered
discretion. This violates the principle of natural justice as well which goes hand in hand with the
fact that in the instance where any proceedings are found to violate being fair, just, and reasonable,
such proceedings offend Article 14 and Article 21. In other words, Article 14 targets arbitrariness
as it is believed that any action in order to be defined as arbitrary must involve the negation of
equality, and therefore equality is antithetic to arbitrariness13.
As held by the Court in the case, reasonability, and fairness, being a basic requirement of Article
14, is the antithesis of the arbitrariness exercised by the Government in the passage and criteria of
12
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978)
13
EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974).

these rules. These rules thus fail the test of reasonability14. There have been no clear limits that
have been stated by these rules as to just how far the rules empower intermediaries to ‘regulate’
digital media. This particular ambiguity of the rules is of paramount concern as users of these
intermediary platforms are left feeling insecure and unsafe about personal and private data which
is put out on these intermediary platforms.
2.2 DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN VARIOUS MEDIA HOUSES:
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021 rules do not apply to print and electronic media and thus promote hostile discrimination
between various media houses. However, digital media publications by television channels are
covered under these rules. This encourages discrimination as the bigger, established media houses
who run print media in addition to digital media continue to be able to circulate their content
through print and simultaneously be exempted from the rules. Conversely, the smaller, low-budget
independent media houses who rely solely on the internet to disseminate their information are
deprived of this privilege, thus heightening the inequality between the two. This will lead to the
downfall of the latter who play an integral part in circulating unbiased, legitimate content. The
definition of a ‘publisher of news media and current affairs content’ as under Section 2(1)(t) of the
Act does not extend to replica e-papers of newspapers which is another ground for discrimination.
WhatsApp Inc. and Facebook have filed two separate petitions in the High Court of Delhi
challenging the Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2021. The petitions state that the provision breaks end -
to-end encryption and undermines the fundamental right to privacy. It is violative of the law
laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) and goes against the principles of
proportionality, necessity and minimisation 15.
2.3 VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 :-The press release of the Meity regarding these rules
prohibits intermediaries from hosting ‘unlawful information’. The specifics of this are not
mentioned and this could be used to the Government’s convenience to term any form of opposition
14
State of Punjab v. Shri Amar Singh, General (1998)
15
WhatsApp vs. Union of India (2021)

and criticism towards it as ‘anti-national’ in nature, which could be transmitted to the masses
through the intermediary platforms. This will inevitably lead to autocracy and is completely against
the principle of democracy guaranteed by the preamble of our Constitution which upholds the
same. As stated by K.M Munshi in the Constitutional Debate of 1st December 1948, ‘The essence
of democracy is criticism of the government’. The need for the vibrancy of democracy to be
retained was further emphasized in the case as democracy, which is put into effect by Article
19(1)(a) forms an integral part of the basic structure doctrine16.
In the judgments of and , the Supreme Court formally recognized the people’s right to information
and the right to be informed as a fundamental right. The users of social media intermediaries are
denied their right to information in the event of an ‘emergency’17,18.The Anuradha Bhasin
judgment led the Supreme Court to declare the right to access the internet as a fundamental right.
The passage of these rules which puts various restrictions on the content available on the internet
can also be understood to be a violation of the right to access the internet in its entirety, the scope,
and nature of which is still evolving. The Kerala High Court was the first to declare this right as a
fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution19.
the Government of Amestris has amendment on the IT Rules 2021, stating certain rules and
condition which have not followed by the app of VeTube it completely owned and regulated by
the Wakanda at Numbai. The government should ensure with citizen right to be protected and
safeguard the netzine. Not only by way banning we can do with certain principals but can move
with filtration and official regulation taken toward the people of Amestris.
`Ab inito & Actus curiae neminem gravabit`
16
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu And Ors. (1992)
17
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
18
UOI v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
19
Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State Of Kerala (2019

Hence, it is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the counsel has requestion to adopt
the situation toward the people’s basic structure of life. The rules has made for the foreign counters
application or the sensitive hackers, but it simple affect the right and equality of the Naomi, it also
been considered as unconstitutional and justice for the right which have been infringed, stated that
many of the young peoples life and ideology have been destroyed here the society has been
changed as netzines life, more motive to the next generation, if banned many of them loss hope
and creatures.
ISSUE 3.0 WHETHER THE HIGH COURT OF KIRITO WAS RIGHT IN DECIDING THAT
“ANY LAW THAT CATERS TO THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDERN IS A
GOOD LAW?”
It is humbly submitted before the honorable bench is that the decision which have been made by
the high court of Kirito protect the women and children’s , making a good law in the good
conscience may be considered but here same as the women and many of unseen Naomi have affect
in the issues. So that the decision can be changeable and give some of extension to the application
the headquarters of Wakanda at Numbai. It even has no any of the registration within the
jurisdiction of the Amestris. Can be considered that and to provide the direct contact with and give
up some more regulation on it.
The protection is not only basic way to stop the sensitive or sexual natural or unwanted contents
that always give some other application space. It should be considered with certain filtration and
make it clear with the netzines of the Amestris.
3.1 WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY NAOMI IS VALID?
Naomi was deeply hurt and scared about what the future held for herself and her family as her
VeTube app revenue was her family’s main source of income. Devastated by this, on the 30th of
November 2021, Naomi filed a writ at the Kirito High Court challenging the ban imposed on the
VeTube app by the Government of Amestris. She contended that the regulations brought forth by

the IT Rules, 2021 were unconstitutional in nature and that the ban imposed on the app had
deprived of her right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of Amestris.
Article 21 formally provides that a person’s life and personal liberty can be deprived so long as
there is merely a “procedure established by law” (that is, a validly enacted law), the doctrine of
procedural due process mandates that this procedural law must be “fair, just and reasonable”
3.2 IF THE APP HAD DEPRIVED HER RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21?
Naomi also contended that Rules 3 to 7 of the IT Rules, 2021 gave intermediaries “sweeping
powers” including the power to remove any content on the basis of any complaints received, which
is clearly an example of arbitrary use of power. She claimed that these powers were a clear
violation of users’ rights including the rights under Article 14, 19 and 21.
The doctrine of Waiver of rights is based on the premise that a person is his best judge and that he
has the liberty to waive the enjoyment of such rights as are conferred on him by the State 20.
However, the person must have the knowledge of his rights and that the waiver should be voluntary
It was observed that the fundamental rights are based on such principles which are embodied in
the preamble of the Indian Constitution. Fundamental rights are a matter of public policy and the
same cannot be waived. The doctrine of waiver has no application on matters that are a part of
constitutional policy21,
The leading case till date on the Doctrine of Waiver is Basheshar Nath v. CIT where the majority
expressed its view against the waiver of fundamental rights. It was upheld that it was not open to
citizens to waive any of the fundamental rights. Any person aggrieved by the consequence of the
exercise of any discriminatory power, could be heard to complain against it. The doctrine of
Waiver does not apply to Indian Constitution, as Justice Bhagwati stated that Ours is a nascent
democracy and situated as we are, socially, economically, educationally and politically, it is the
sacred duty of the Supreme Court to safeguard the fundamental rights which have been for the first
time enacted in Part III of our Constitution22.
20
Doctrine of waiver at this juncture
21
Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bombay, 1954:
22
Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi & Rajasthan & Another, 1959:

3.3 WETHER THE HIGH COURT HAVE RIGHT TO DECIDE?
In this case, it was further held that there can be no estoppel against the Constitution. The Preamble
of the Constitution states India to be a democratic republic and no citizen could barter away with
fundamental rights23.
The court held that everyone has the right to waive off legal right or privilege that is conferred
upon him. For instance, in the case of a tenant-owner dispute, if a notice is issued and no
representation is made either by the owner, tenant or sub-tenant, it would be a waiver of
opportunity and that person cannot be allowed to turn around at a later stage24.
Article 13(2) in The Constitution Of India 1949, State shall not make any law which takes away
or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall,
to the extent of the contravention, be void.
The Federal structure is not an essential part of our Constitution. The power of amendment is in
point of quality an adjunct of sovereignty. If so, it does not admit of any limitations. In brief 6
Judges held that in view of Article 13(2) Fundamental Rights could not be abridged or taken away.
Five Judges held that Article 13(2) was inapplicable to Acts amending the Constitution25.PART
III-Interpretation of Article 368
Therefore, when article 13(2) uses the expression 'void', it can only mean, void as against persons
whose fundamental rights are taken away or abridged by a law. The law might be 'still-born' so far
as the persons, entities or denominations whose fundamental rights are taken away or abridged,
but there is no reason why the law should be void or 'still-born' as against those who have no
fundamental rights26.
Article 15(3):This article has no effect on the state's ability to enact specific legislation for women
and children. The state has the authority to provide particular accommodations for women and
children under this article.
23
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation
24
Jaswantsingh Mathurasingh & Anr. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors:
25
Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
26
The State Of Gujarat And Another vs Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., ... on 26 March, 1974

3.4 IF THE BANNING OF THE APP IS THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE WOMEN
AND CHILDREN?
The court ruled in the case Yusuf Abdul Aziz v/s State of Bombay 3 that only men can commit
adultery and be punished for it under Section 497 of the IPC. The court also decided that a woman
cannot be penalised for aiding and abetting, as this would violate Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution.
A prohibition on the use of apps also impinges upon the right to information, an important facet of
the right to free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the right to information,
is further derogated in the absence of production of reasoned orders by the government in support
of the ban.
IT Amendment Rules, 2022, without a legislative basis, seeks to subject content on social media
platforms to the direct scrutiny of the Government by permitting users to appeal decisions of the
platforms to the GAC. But in any scenario, if the GAC is constituted, the IT Rules, 2021 must
provide the complainants/ content creators a right of hearing before the GAC and state the
procedure that the GAC will be obliged to follow. It must also state the minimum qualifications
and functions of the Committee members.
The precedents on the subject matter make it clear that situations raising national security concerns
require a delicate balancing of the fundamental rights, with adequate consideration to the peculiar
prevalent circumstances and the factors necessitating the implementation of such drastic steps. In
the present context, whether the nation-wide app ban imposed via an executive order was necessary
to protect the security of the state, public order and privacy of the netizens, remains the prime issue
for determination by the court. Whether the ban on the apps would pass the muster of judicial
scrutiny will depend on the material that the government discloses before the court, which still is
unavailable for public scrutiny.
The fact that the ban is a ‘digital strike’, imposed as a geopolitical strategy in the wake of border
disputes between India and China, will be an additional extra-legal factor that the writ courts shall
be confronted with while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.
`Actus legis nemini facit injuriam`

Hence, it is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that high court made a decision on
enforcing certain rules but it violate the right and basic structure of the citizen. The protecting the
women the law can be amendable but the infringe of the fundamental right what could the rights
have been given by the parliaments.

PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the 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 adjudge and declare:
i The restriction has been made the Government imposes the rules, 2021 on the app is
a violation of Naomi’s right to livelihood under the article 21,19(1) of the constitution of
Amestris.
ii Rules 3 to 7 of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are violate the article 14, 19(1)(a), 21 it considered as
unconstitutional.
iii The High Court of Kirito was deciding that "any law that caters to the protection of
women and children is a good law but is violating basic right and structure of the
constitution.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.
PLACE: Amestris
DATE: 3rd March, 2023. Sd/-_________________ Sd/-
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

Ramaiah Institute of Legal Studies 1 National Moot Court Competition, 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ramaiah Institute of Legal Studies 1 National Moot Court Competition, 2023

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

Ramaiah Institute of Legal Studies 1 National Moot Court Competition, 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: NM16

RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

BEFORE THE HON’BLE BENCH OF SUPREME COURT JUDGE, AMESTRIS

IN THE MATTER OF:

NAOMI NAKAMORA VS. UNION OF AMESTRIS

APPEAL NO.______/ 2023

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGE.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1.1 IN THE VIEW OF LIFE OF NAOMI?

ISSUES: 2.0 WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF INFORMATION TECHONOLOGY

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 2

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 3

A.I.R. All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

OTT Over the top

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 4

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 5

1) Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)

2) Constitution of Amestris , 1949.

3) Information Technology Act, 2000.

1) M P Jain Indian Constitutional Law edition 2018.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 6

ARTICLE -136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 7

AMESTRIS AND KIRITO:

INCREASE IN SOCIAL MEDIA:

ENTERING OF VETUBE IN AMESTRIS:

VETUBE and NAOMI:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 8

WRIT IN KIRITO HIGH COURT:

JUDGEMENT OF KIRITO HIGH COURT:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 9

WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED ON THE APP IS VIOLATION OF NAOMI’S

WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF INFORMATION TECHONOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 10

ISSUE 1.0 WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED ON THE APP IS VIOLATION OF

ISSUE 2.0 WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF INFORMATION TECHONOLOGY

• Article 14 is considered to be the protector against any form of arbitrariness and

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 11

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 12

ISSUE 1.0 WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED ON THE APP IS VIOLATION OF

1.1 IN THE VIEW OF NAOMIS LIFE:

1.2WHAT WOULD BE THE REACTION OF AMESTRIANS FOR BANNING THE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 13

1.3 PERUSAL OF ARTICLE 21 IN AMESTRIS :

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 14

1.4 IF BANNING THE APP VIOLATES NAOMIS LIVELIHOOD:-

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 15

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 16

`Qui Facit Per Alium, Facit Per Se`

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 17

ISSUE 2.0 WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 18

2.1 VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 19

2.2 DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN VARIOUS MEDIA HOUSES:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 20