Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Team AL Petitioner 231113 184205
Team AL Petitioner 231113 184205
Team AL Petitioner 231113 184205
POSTGRAM LIMITED
(PETITIONER)
V.
UNION OF INDIA
(RESPONDENT)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART.14. ............. XVII
III. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART.19(1)(A). ... XVII
IV. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART.19(1)(G). ... XVII
C. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES 2021 SUFFERS FROM THE VICE OF VAGUENESS
AND AMBIGUITY. ................................................................................................ 10
III. THE RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 19(1)(A). ....... 12
2. Rule 4(2) suffers from the vice of vagueness and arbitrariness. ............. 15
IV. THE RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 19(1)(G). ....... 19
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1899
SCC 1
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister & Ors., Civil 7
707
SCC 501
SCC 392
130
SCC 106
SCC 556
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 26
1980 SC 1789
SC 2601
415
1989 SC 307
2014
www.epw.in
www.jstor.org
www.lexisnexis.com
www.manupatra.com
www.scconline.com
www.westlawindia.com
TABLE OF ABBREVIATION
ABBREVIATION WORDS
& And
v. Versus
§ Section
¶ Paragraph
Art. Article
Const. Constitution
Govt. Government
Hon’ble Honorable
IT Information Technology
SC Supreme Court
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
INDIA.
It sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case in the
jurisdiction of the Petitioners.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
Postgram is the most popular app among the inhabitants of Shanthisthan, which is a
state in the Indian Union with a population of 5,48,67,345. Postgram is an app that
creates a space for its users to connect by allowing people to create and share photos,
videos and stories with their friends and followers from their daily moments. 80%
of its users are youngsters of 16-30 age group.
THE STUDY
The newspaper Shanisthan Times published a news on 7-7-2022 with the title
“Postgram is the champion of fake news”. The news mentioned a study of two
researchers of University of Shanthisthan who found that false news spreads
significantly faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth, in all categories of
information on Postgram than real news.
The reason behind the same, according to the scholars was the people sharing the
inaccurate news items through Postgram. For the purpose of this study, the
researchers monitored around 14,800 news story cascades that propagated on
Postgram from 2010 to 2018. These cascades were collectively shared over 4,50,000
times by roughly 300,000 people. It was discovered that out of 14,800 cascades,
politics comprised the largest news category with around 8,500, followed by
terrorism, business, and other categories.
The scholars laid emphasis on the fact that it is likely that the same phenomenon
occurs on the other social media platforms, including Facebook which has
1,11,30000 users in the State of Shanthisthan. Following this news, Shanthisthan
Times published another news on 2-9-2022 stating that Postgram had not yet taken
any action to comply with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 issues through the Notification of the
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated 25th February, 2021.
THE PETITION
Later on 17-10-2022, Postgram aggrieved by the formulation of news laws, filed a
petition before h Supreme Court of under Art 32 of the Constitution with a prayer to
issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order, to declare
that (i) Rule 4(2) of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 is violation of Art. 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of
the Constitution, ultra vires the IT ACT, and illegal as to end-to-end encryption
messaging services and; (ii)criminal liability may not be imposed for non-
compliance with the Impugned Rule 4(2) and any attempt to impose criminal
liability for non-compliance with impugned rule 4(2) is unconstitutional, ultra vires
the IT Act, and illegal.
GOVERNMENT’S CONTENTION
In response to the petition, the Union of India has denied all of the arguments and
stated that the Government respects the Right to Privacy and has no intention of
infringing upon it when Postgram is required to disclose the origin of a specific
message. Such a requirement is limited to cases where offences related to the
sovereignty of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states,
or public order, or of incitement to an offence related to any of those, are involved.
No Fundamental Right is absolute under Art. 21, and the proportionality standard
outlined in K.S. Puttaswamy is fully relevant.
The matter has been posted before the Supreme Court of India for hearing.
ISSUES RAISED
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology does not have the
legislative competence to promulgate the Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules 2021. The
impugned rule is ultra-vires to the IT Act from which they derive the rule making
power on two grounds. Firstly, The Impugned Rule fails to conform to the
substantive provisions of the statute. Secondly, the Executive has performed an
essential legislative function which is not permissible.
The impugned Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 is violative of Art. 14 on three grounds.
Firstly, the IT Rules are arbitrary. Secondly, the rule 4(2) does not satisfy twin test
of reasonable classification. Thirdly, the relevant provisions suffer from the vice of
vagueness and ambiguity.
The IT Rules 2021 is violative of Art. 19(1)(a) as Freedom of Speech and Expression
as the impugned rules fail to qualify the test of reasonable restriction provided under
Art. 19(2) of The Constitution on two grounds. Firstly, the rule 4(2) of IT rules 2021
is overbreadth and vague leading to a disproportionate chilling effect on speech.
Secondly, the restrictions are not proportional to the objective it wants to achieve.
Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution provides natural and inalienable right to freedom to
carry any trade, occupation, profession or business to all. However, this freedom is
also not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(6). These
restrictions do not fall under Art. 19(6) due to these two grounds. Firstly, the
restrictions imposed by Rule 4(2) are unreasonable and arbitrary. Secondly, Rule
4(2) is not in the interest of the general public.
The Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 is violative of Art. 21 as it infringes upon the
fundamental right to privacy without satisfying the three-part test set forth by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) legality; (ii) necessity; and (iii) proportionality relying
heavily on K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
¶|1|. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology (hereinafter referred as “MeitY”) has no
Legislative Competency to formulate the Information Technology (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021,1 (hereinafter referred as
“The IT Rules 2021”) because the Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules 2021 is ultra vires to
the parent Act i.e., Information and Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as
“IT Act”).2
¶|2|. The Union of India follows the Doctrine of Separation of Power which is
enshrined and protected under the Basic Structure of Constitution,3 which confers
the power to make laws for the country only upon the union legislation.4
Nevertheless, sometimes the Government can delegate this power to the Executive
to make rules, regulations etc., this is known as ‘Delegated Legislation’.5
¶|3|. However, this power comes with certain restrictions that the Executive cannot
make rules which are beyond the scope of the Parent Act,6 and it will be considered
ultra vires to the Parent Act and will be liable to struck down.7 The argument for the
1
Govt. of India, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, CG-DL-E-26022021-
225497 (2021).
2
The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
3
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
4
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 8th ed. 2017).
5
V.N Shukla, Judicial Control of Delegated Legislation in India, 1(3) Journal of Indian Law
Institute 357 (1959).
6
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1474 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths et al
eds., 9th ed. 2015).
7
Additional District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Administration v. Shri Ram, (2000) SCR 1019.
same is based on two grounds: [A] Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 fails to conform to
the substantive provisions of the statute and; [B] The Executive has performed an
essential legislative function which is not permissible.
¶|4|. It is humbly submitted that MeitY has formulated the IT Rules 20218 in
exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1), clauses (z) and (zg) of sub-
section (2) of § 87 of the IT Act, 2000.9 However, the same has been conferred only
to regulate the intermediaries.10
¶|5|. Furthermore, no provision of the Act was applicable to digital media, as it
was not covered under the definition of the Intermediaries.11 Thus, the scope of the
IT Act, was only limited to Intermediaries, however, the rules have extended the
scope which is beyond the ambit and scope of the IT Act 2000.
¶|6|. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled in a number of judgements that,12
“Rules cannot change the enabling Act’s provisions, principles, or scope.”13 In the
case of General Commanding officer v. Dr. Subhash Chandra,14 a basic criterion
was laid down to determine that the rule cannot go beyond the scope of the parent
statute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that, “it must confirm to the provisions
of parent statute and come within the purview of the general rule-making power of
the authority framing those rules.”15
8
Govt. of India, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, CG-DL-E-26022021-
225497 (February 25, 2021).
9
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 87(1), 87(2)(z), (zg), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999
(India).
10
Freedom Foundation, Submission of comments on the consultation paper on ‘Need for a new
legal framework governing Telecommunication in India, IFF/2022/089 (2022).
11
id.
12
Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd, (1997) SCR 164.
13
State of Karnataka v. Ganesh Kamath, (1983) SCR 665; Kerela State Electricity Board v. Indian
Aluminium Company, (1976) SCR 552.
14
General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Subhash Chandra Yadav, (1988) 2 SCC 351, ¶ 14.
15
id.
¶|7|. The objective of the IT Act is to give legal recognition to transactions that
involve the exchange of electronic data.16 Any of the objectives do not apply to the
regulation of digital media.17 The parent Act does not explicitly state that it provides
the government with the authority to create regulations to oversee the use of digital
media or establish standards for digital media ethics.18
¶|8|. Furthermore, for the very same reason they must be held void because the
said action is beyond the scope beyond the scope and purview of the ministry’s
authority and jurisdiction which is a blatant violation of embargo placed over
delegated legislations.
¶|9|. It is humbly submitted that an Act of user privacy invasion is not permissible
delegation for the fact that it is a crucial legislative function. The Parliament has not
offered any guidance on traceability and automated filtering in the context of Rule
4(2),19 and Rule 4(4),20 making the contested legislation a matter of excessive
delegation.
¶|10|. Furthermore, in the case of Vasantlal Maganbhai v. State of Bombay,21 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “the essential legislative function is the
determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a rule of conduct,”
which entails that the executive cannot be given authority to formulate on lines of
16
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 2, cl. t, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
17
APAR GUPTA, COMMENTARY ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT (LexisNexis, 2nd Ed. 2011).
18
In Re the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 and Ors. v. The Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, 1951 AIR 332.
19
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4, cl. 2.
20
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4, cl. 4.
21
Vasantlal Maganbhai v. State of Bombay, (1961) SCR 341.
Rules 4(2),22 and 4(4).23 Only the procedural elements of the said rules can be
ascertained by the executive over the subjects listed in Rules 4(2) and 4(4).
¶|11|. It is humbly submitted that under the IT Rules 2021 the intermediaries have
been divided into two classes (i) Social media intermediary (hereinafter referred as
“SMI”) and (ii) Significant Social Media Intermediary (hereinafter referred as
“SSMIs”).24 The SSMIs have the task of observing due diligence and breaking the
end-to-end encryption to identify the first originator of the message as the
circumstances might require. The same does not finds its mention in the Parent Act.
¶|12|. The same is based on the premise that the said action would go beyond the
the § 69 of the IT Act 2000.28 Rules notified under § 69 are known as the Information
Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption
22
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4, cl. 2.
23
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021,
Rule 4, cl. 4.
24
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 2 cl. 1(v), 1(w).
25
M.P. JAIN & S.N. JAIN, PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Lexis Nexies, 7th ed. 2013).
26
Tabrez Ahmed, Information Technology Laws: Mapping the Evolution and Impact of Social
Media Regulation in India, 4 DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 286 (2021).
27
Maharshi Thakkar, The Concept of Originator in Terms of Information Technology Rules 2021
and Its Implications on the Freedom of Trade, 4 Issue 3 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 6113 (2021).
28
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 69, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
Harsora,32 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “the preamble of the legislation,
which defines the intended goal and purpose of the Act, could be used to interpret
the legislation’s object.” The preamble of the IT Act states:
“An Act to facilitate electronic filing of documents with government agencies, to
provide legal recognition for transactions made through electronic data
interchange and other forms of electronic communication, also known as ‘electronic
commerce,’ which involve using alternatives to paper-based methods of
communication and information storage, and to further amend the Indian Penal
Code, the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, the Banker’s Books Evidence.”33
¶|17|. In the preamble itself it is nowhere mentioned that it covers content
regulation of Digital media platforms or OTT platforms thus, the Respondents do
have authority to formulate Rule 4(2) which sets some guidelines for the SSMIs to
follow.
¶|18|. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is humbly submitted that the
29
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 87(2)(y), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
30
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 6.
31
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4.
32
Hiralal P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165.
33
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 87(2)(y), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India),
Preamble.
¶|19|. It is submitted that the IT Rules are violative of Art. 14. The premise of the
present issue is in three-fold: [A] Rule 4(2) is arbitrary in nature; [B] Rule 4(2) does
not satisfy twin test of reasonable classification and [C] Rule 4(2) suffers from the
vice of vagueness and ambiguity.
¶|20|. It is humbly submitted that, Art. 14 guarantees fair treatment against arbitrary
actions of the state.34 The law must not be arbitrary since arbitrariness and equality
are sworn enemies where equality belongs to Rule of Law and arbitrariness belongs
to whims and fancies of the absolute autocracy.35 If a particular Act is arbitrary, it
violates Art. 14 of the Constitution as inequality is always implicit in arbitrariness.36
¶|21|. In the case of Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors.,37 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court emphasized that, “the test of arbitrariness and the pitfalls to be avoided in all
State actions to prevent that vice, and emphasized in this context that the lack of
arbitrary authority is the primary component of the rule of law, upon which our
whole constitutional system is built.” Discretion must be kept within very narrow
parameters when given to executive authorities in a society that maintains the rule
of law.38
¶|22|. In the present case, Impugned Rule 4(2) allows for the issuance of orders to
34
AP Seeds Merchants Association v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 71; Samrathmal Keshrimal
Agarwal Bus Operator v. Regional Transport Authority, Indore & Anr., (1972) 4 SCC 738.
35
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1974) 4 SCC 3.
36
Chiranjit Lal Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1951 SC 41.
37
Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors, (1981) 2 SCC 362: (1967) 2 SCR 703.
38
Dwarkadas Marfatia v. Bombay Port, (1989) 2 SCR 751.
identify the first originator of information without judicial oversight. Thereby, there
is no ‘guarantee against arbitrary State action’ and gives absolute arbitrary power to
the state to act upon its whims and fancies to issue such order against any individual
which might include press media persons, opposite party leaders, army personnel’s
and investigative agencies etc.
¶|23|. Such backdoor interference on the part of the state will have a tyrannical
impact on the roots of the democracy and will disrupt the balance between the state’s
power & fundamental rights granted to the citizens under the Constitution.
¶|24|. Furthermore, it provides no legal grounds for intelligence agencies or
¶|26|. Art. 14 of the Constitution guarantees the right to quality before the law and
the equal protection of law to every person.41 It forbids class legislation but it does
not forbid reasonable classification of person, objects and transaction by the
legislature for achieving specific ends.42 “The guarantee of ‘equal protection of
39
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 14, cl. 2.
40
VIKRAM RAGHAVAN, COMMUNICATIONS LAW IN INDIA (LEGAL ASPECTS OF TELECOM,
BROADCASTING, AND CABLE SERVICES) 133 (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2007).
41
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1474 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths et
al eds., 9th ed. 2015).
42
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, (1950) SCR 869.
laws’ requires that, there must equality of treatment of persons who are similarly
situated, without discrimination inter se”.43 It is a corollary that that persons situated
differently cannot be treated alike.44
¶|27|. A classification to be reasonable must pass the twin test laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar,45 that includes: [1] the Classification must have an Intelligible Differentia
upon which the things or persons are grouped together and others are left out of the
group46 and; [2] the Differentia must have a rational relation with the objective
sought to be achieved.47
1. There is no intelligible differentia.
due to which different treatment is operated amongst two or more classes. 52 The
reasonableness of this differentiation or formation of categories depends on the
objective for which that particular classification is made.53 While adjudicating the
43
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 8th ed. 2017).
44
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 SCC 217.
45
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284.
46
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
47
State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011) 8 SCC 737.
48
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
49
RAMANATHA AIYER, ADVANCED LAW LEXICON 2391 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa eds.,
3rd ed., 2005).
50
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318.
51
Roop Chand Adalkha v. Delhi Devlopment Authority, AIR 1989 SC 307.
52
State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 114.
53
Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369.
reasonableness of the classification, the court must look into the nature of the
classification, prevailing circumstances, purpose, its extent, involvement public
interest and the dire need of the restriction.54
¶|30|. In the present case, IT Rules, a classification is made between an SMI and an
SSMI. The classification is made on the basis of number of registered users and the
same is decided by the Government of India.55 This classification lacks intelligible
differentia as there is no set guiding formula or principle to calculate the threshold
limit of the users.
¶|31|. It is based on the whims and fancies of the government and can be changed
time and again without any due justification or considerations. Furthermore, these
users are most likely to switch to SMI following the implementation of the
regulation, and the propagation of bogus news will continue, hence, nullifying the
whole premise of rule 4(2).
¶|32|. The differentiation must be reasonable i.e., there must be a rational basis with
respect to the object which the authorities have in mind.56 For the justification of the
classification the circumstances must be of the nature that this classification sub-
serves the object sought to be achieved.57 Additionally, the classification shall be
based on the qualities and characteristics of the objective.58
¶|33|. In the present case, no rational nexus is established from this classification to
54
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1950) SCR 759.
55
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 2 cl. 1(v), 1(w).
56
K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, (2001) 2 SCC 259.
57
Akshay N. Patel v. RBI, (2022) 3 SCC 694.
58
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902.
59
Netai Baig v. State of WB, AIR 2005 SC 1775.
Furthermore, additional due diligence has been grafted for an SSMI,60 to put larger
accountability on it when its platform/services are used for transmission of any
content/data that is ultra vires to security of the state, public order or its sovereignty.
However, only registered user also carry tendency to create havoc or disorder in the
society.
¶|34|. The Rule’s purpose in this instance is unclear, but it will limit peoples’ right
classification neither it has given a justification for an SSMI to bear any extra burden
on itself in comparison to an SMI which is clearly, on the face of it, discriminatory
in nature. An SMI holds equal importance as SSMI and is equally capable of
spreading fake news, therefore, the classification between the two is unreasonable
and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
C. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES 2021 SUFFERS FROM THE VICE OF VAGUENESS AND
AMBIGUITY.
¶|36|. In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,61 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that, the fundamental tenet of legal jurisprudence is that if a law’s prohibitions
are not specified, it is invalid due to vagueness. Multiple key values are violated by
vague legislation.62 It is demanded or stressed that laws should provide a fair
opportunity for a person of average intellect to know what is banned so that he can
behave properly.63 By not giving the innocent a fair notice, vague laws may trap
them.64
60
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4.
61
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
62
Shrinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah, AIR 1993 SC 929.
63
R.L. Bansal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 978.
64
Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board, (2011) 15 SCR 1057.
¶|37|. Similarly, in the case of Hiralal Ratanlal v. State of U.P.,65 The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that, laws must be explicit and clear. A law is void if it is
irrational, ambiguous, or fails to sufficiently inform a victim of the crime of what is
prohibited.66 Consequently, it is against Art. 14.67
¶|38|. In the present case, second proviso to Rule 4(2) states that an order cannot be
passed if there are ‘other less intrusive means’ effective in identifying the originator
of the information.68 In this regard, the government has not defined the meaning of
‘other less intrusive means’. The phrase is vague in nature and is left at the discretion
of the government to interpret the same as per their whims and fancies.
¶|39|. In addition to this, the said rule is so vaguely worded that it is difficult to
gather precisely what the social media intermediary will have to do in order to
identify the first originator of information. In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of
India,69 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “what may be offensive to one may
not be offensive to another and what may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one
may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.”
¶|40|. In the present case, proviso 1 of Rule 4(2) of IT Rules,70 2021 says, an order
65
Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 216.
66
Civil Service Unions v. Minister, (1983) 3 All ER 935.
67
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386.
68
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4 cl. 2 Proviso.
69
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
70
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4 cl. 2 Proviso.
“child sexual material” are relatively broad in operation and can give rise to many
demands. Moreover, Applications like Postgram which are end to end encrypted,
how their messages or voice calls will be intercepted or disclosed, nothing in this
regard is specified, will it be at expense of the privacy of individual. Hence, they are
left in ambiguity and therefore, the said rule is unreasonable and violative of Art.
14.
¶|42|. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that IT
Court observed that all democratic organizations were built on the principle of free
speech. Additionally, it was determined that very strict restrictions control the
legality of legislative abridgment of the right to free expression.76
¶|44|. Ordinarily, any abridgement of free speech by means of censorship must be
compatible with one or more of the grounds provided for under Art. 19(2).77
Similarly, in the case of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India,78 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that limitations on the exercise of the Art. 19(1)(a)
right which do not fall within Art. 19(2) cannot be upheld.
71
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl.1(a).
72
M.V. PYLEE, FREE SPEECH AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN INDIA (Pacific Affairs, 11th ed.
1962).
73
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl.2.
74
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1950) SCR 759.
75
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594.
76
id.
77
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 SCR 605.
78
Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 133.
¶|45|. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned rules fail to qualify the test of
reasonable restriction provided under Art. 19(2) of The Constitution on two grounds:
[A] The rule 4(2) of IT rules 2021 is overbreadth and vague leading to a
disproportionate chilling effect on speech and; [B] The restrictions are not
proportional to the objective sought to be achieved.
¶|46|. It is humbly submitted that Rule 4 (2) violates Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
account both the immediate and inevitable effects of the restriction imposed.81
Therefore, the legislation’s restriction must take the strictest shape conceivable. The
issue of the chilling effect is caused by: [1] Rule 4(2) is Overbreadth in Nature and;
[2] Rule 4(2) suffers from the vice of vagueness and arbitrariness.
1. Rule 4(2) is Overbreadth in Nature.
¶|48|. A restriction on speech is “overbroad” when it restricts both the speech that
the government can legally restrict but also goes on to restrict speech other speech
that is constitutionally protected.82 The provision has the potential of criminalizing
lawful speech, and will lead to self-censorship.83
¶|49|. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that breaking the E2EE would create a fear
79
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
80
Cushing v. Dupuy [1880] 5 A.C. 409.
81
Marbury v. Madison, [1803] 5 US 1(SC).
82
City of Houston v. Hill, [1987] 482 U.S. 451.
83
New York Times Company v. United States, 403 US 713 (1971).
religious groups, activists, academicians, and artists and they would not be freely
able to express themselves on such platforms.
¶|50|. In the Shreya Singhal Case,84 the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished
between discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that the first two formed the
heart of constitutionally protected speech while inciteful speech may be legally
restricted.85 Simply put, restrictions on speech that restrict inciteful speech are broad
enough to go on to restrict discussion and advocacy are unconstitutional.
¶|51|. For Instance, the law of defamation includes a criterion known as actual
84
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
85
id.
86
New York Times Co v. Sullivan, [1964] 376 U.S. 254.
87
St. Amant v.Thompson,[1968] 390 U.S. 727.
88
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi, REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.
58 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) No.225 of 2018.
89
Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
90
id.
first originator are overboard and imprecise and they intimidate speakers. Creators
of content, journalists, publishers, media organizations, and regular people are
inclined to err on the side of caution and refrain from speaking altogether rather than
take the chance that their communication would be seen as a crime.
¶|55|. Therefore, the rule of actual malice should be incorporated on these platforms
and E2EE should only be broken for such individuals instead of a blanket rule on all
the users which would lead to restriction on their fundamental right to freely express
their opinion and eventually lead to shaking the foundations of democracy.
2. Rule 4(2) suffers from the vice of vagueness and arbitrariness.
the law must provide a man of reasonable intellect with the opportunity to
understand what is banned and what is not; and second, the law must provide precise
norms to prevent arbitrariness and discrimination.92 The concept for vagueness can
be used to invalidate a legislation when both of these components are missing.93
¶|57|. Furthermore, In the present case, second proviso to Rule 4(2) states that an
order cannot be passed if there are ‘other less intrusive means’ effective in
identifying the originator of the information.94 The phrase is vague in nature and is
left at the discretion of the government to interpret the same as per their whims and
fancies.
¶|58|. In addition to this, the said rule is so vaguely worded that it is difficult to
gather precisely what the social media intermediary will have to do in order to
identify the first originator of information. Moreover, Applications like Postgram
91
S.J. Sorabjee, Freedom of the Press, Its Contents and Facets, 13, IIC Quarterly 173, 173-184
(1986).
92
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
93
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
94
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4 cl. 2 Proviso.
which are E2EE, how their messages or voice calls will be intercepted or disclosed,
nothing in this regard is specified, will it be at expense of the privacy of individuals.
¶|59|. Hence, they are left in ambiguity and therefore, the said rule is said to be
vague as the terms have not been defined, therefore the interpretation of such terms
is left in the hands of the executive which can be widely misused. Thus, it is causing
a chilling effect on free speech as the impugned rules are overbreadth and vague in
nature resulting in the violation of Art. 19(1)(a).
¶|60|. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Fake news can
95
CITS, The Danger of fake news in inflaming or supressing Social Conflict,
https://www.cits.ucsb.edu/fake-news/danger-social.
96
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
97
REPORT OF THE SECOND PRESS COMMISSION, Vol I, 34-35.
98
Bennett Coleman & Company v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788.
99
Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305.
100
Indian Express Newspapers Private Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.
101
Tereminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1 (1982).
102
Whitney v. California, 247 US 214 (1927).
the constitution.103 At its most blatant, fake news could include satire, parody, and
reports critical of the government.104 More importantly, a ban on fake news would
expose media outlets and journalists to accountability because even one factually
incorrect statement might result in suppression or other negative consequences. 105
¶|63|. In the Alvarez Case,106 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a law that
penalized people for making fraudulent claims about receiving military honors. The
court stated in its decision to overturn the statute that it was suspicious of the
government’s assertion of broad censorial power to regulate falsehoods, noting that
the very existence of such a power would stifle free speech.107
¶|64|. Consequently, the government does regulate lies in some circumstances, most
notably in those involving perjury, consumer protection, and defamation. Since the
prohibitions on speech are only applicable in situations where they are particularly
likely to cause harm and are only actionable when they do cause harm to identified
individuals, this is acceptable.
¶|65|. It is submitted that in a similar vein, India already has a plethora of antiquated
laws that can be applied to censor and criminalize speech that incites violence and
is capable of doing so.108 Regulating fake news raises the prospect of a government
truth, which any democracy should be wary of as it lacks this direct link to genuine
threats.
¶|66|. Furthermore, the protection of the data of Indian individuals will be
103
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
104
Subramanium Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221.
105
Keshab Sarkar v. The State of Tripura, (2018) 3 SCC 780.
106
United States v. Alvarez, [2007] 567 US 709 (SC).
107
id.
108
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2018 AIR SC 1676.
109
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4 cl. 4.
of artificial intelligence tools. As has been observed over time, artificial intelligence
is not perfect because it depends on technology to address human-related issues.
¶|67|. The notion that such technology is biased is untrue as well because humans
who must develop these technologies in order for them to function are biased
individuals themselves, and such biases in coding further to a lack of accountability
and transparency. It can be concluded that these rules empower Artificial
intelligence to regulate the fundamental right of free speech and expression, which
is very dangerous.
¶|68|. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of
India,110 declared the freedom to access the internet to be a fundamental right. The
adoption of these regulations, which impose various limitations on the online
material, can also be seen as a breach of the right to access the full internet, the scope
and character of which are still developing.111 Furthermore, in the case of Faheema
Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala,112 the Kerala High Court was the first to declare this
right to be a basic right under Art. 19 of the Constitution.
¶|69|. Therefore, it may well be within the State’s authority to impose limitations on
a citizen’s ability to conduct business in the interest of the public at large, but it is
not within the State’s purview to accomplish this goal by directly and immediately
restricting any other freedom of that citizen guaranteed by the Constitution and
which is not amenable to abridgment on the same grounds as are specified in clause
(6) of Art. 19.113 Therefore, the freedom of expression cannot be restricted in order
to impose limitations on a citizen’s commercial activities.114
¶|70|. In light of all the aforesaid submissions, it is henceforth submitted that the
4(2) of the IT Rules 2021 infringes upon the right to free speech and expression and
that the restrictions imposed do not fall under the various exceptions given under
110
Anuradha Bhasin. v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
111
id.
112
Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 2976.
113
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl.6.
114
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964).
Art. 19(2).
¶|71|. Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution provides natural and inalienable right to
be reasonable and should not be arbitrary or excessive in nature. The court must
consider the nature of the right infringed, the circumstances of the case, purpose,
extent and the urgency of the restriction, while adjudging the test of reasonableness.
The premise of the submission is two-fold: [A] Rule 4(2) is unreasonable and
arbitrary and; [B] Rule 4(2) is not in the interest of the general public.
¶|73|. The right to freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed under the Art. 19
(1)(g) is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions. 117 For any
restriction to qualify as a reasonable restriction they need to qualify the test of
proportionality.118 In the case of Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya
Pradesh,119 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the restriction imposed under Art.
19(6) should be balanced with freedom under Art. 19(1)(g), and such restrictions
should be analyzed through the doctrine of proportionality.
¶|74|. It laid down a four-fold test of proportionality: first, the limitation imposed
should be designated for proper purpose; second, the measures taken to give effect
to such restriction are rationally connected to fulfillment of the purpose; third, the
115
INDIA CONST. Art. 19(1)(g).
116
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
117
Chintaman Rao v. State of MP, (1950) SCR 759.
118
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481.
119
Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 2601.
measure taken was necessary and there is no other alternative to achieve the same
purpose with lesser degree of restriction; and fourth, balance should be maintained
between purpose to be achieved and restriction on constitutional rights.
¶|75|. In the present case the four-fold test has not been fulfilled as according to the
First test it is being done for a proper purpose in this case the purpose they want to
achieve by implementing Rule 4(2), of the IT Rules 2021 is to break the E2EE that
is provided on the platform of Postgram limited for the purpose of tracking and
stopping the spread of fake news but to achieve such purpose they are undermining
the right of privacy and free speech of all the individuals.120
¶|76|. It considers every citizen as a possible criminal and gathers identification
information without having justified belief and judicial finding. 121 Therefore,
violating their freedom on no proper, rationale and reasonable grounds.
¶|77|. The second test talks about the measures taken to give effect to such
restrictions are rationally connected to the fulfillment of achieving the same purpose,
in the present case the measures taken are extreme as it is compromising the right of
free speech and privacy of all the users just to curb the spread of fake news.
¶|78|. The third test talks about the measure taken as necessary and there is no other
alternative to achieve the same purpose with lesser degree of restriction; in the
present case there exists a clear alternative, which imposes a lesser restriction over
the citizens.
¶|79|. The adoption of less intrusive procedures, as opposed to the required
120
Simerpreet Kaur, Unpacking IT Rules: Threat to Digital Rights, 2 DME Journal of Law 27
(2021).
121
Shipra Tiwari, Information Technology Rules 2021: Are We Heading towards a Draconian
Rule?, 8 RGNUL Fin. & Mercantile L. Rev. 247 (2021).
122
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4 cl. 2.
sender when discussing the “least restrictive option.”123 Less restricted methods are
available, and the Central Government itself has suggested them.124
¶|80|. Consequently, the fourth test states that balance should be maintained
¶|82|. The term ‘In the interest of General Public’ under Art. 19(6) refers to the
general welfare of the people that guarantees protection.128 These rights are not
absolute and can reasonably be restricted to create a balance between individual’s
right to claim fundamental rights and societal limitation upon that fundamental
right.129
¶|83|. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed
123
Tabrez Ahmed, Information Technology Laws: Mapping the Evolution and Impact of Social
Media Regulation in India, 4 DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 286 (2021).
124
Maharshi Thakkar, The Concept of Originator in Terms of Information Technology Rules 2021
and Its Implications on the Freedom of Trade, 4 Issue 3 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 6113 (2021).
125
Rahul Kumar, New IT Rules, 2021 in India Privacy vs Public Safety, 5 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. &
Human. 460 (2022).
126
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2015) 10 SCC 92.
127
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
128
BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 791 (9th ed. 2009).
129
Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usman, AIR 1986 SC 1205.
Usman,130 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the phrase “in the interest of
the general public” has a broad meaning that encompasses public order, public
health, public security, morals, communal welfare, and the things that are stated in
parts IV and IV-A of the Constitution.
¶|84|. Notably, in the present case, breaking the E2EE would lead to loss in the
4(2) of the IT Rules 2021 infringes upon the right to free trade and occupation and
that the restrictions imposed do not fall under the various exceptions given under
Art. 19(6).
130
id.
131
Aman Abhishek, The State Deputizing Citizens to Discipline Digital News Media: The Case of
the IT Rules 2021 in India, Digital
Journalism, DOI: https://doi.org/10.080/21670811.2022.213413.
132
Ashit Kumar, Reading Regulation as a Prohibition: A Critical Review of the New IT Rules
2021 in Relation to Social Media Networks and Messaging Applications, 7 Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev.
450 (2021).
133
Rahul Kumar, New IT Rules, 2021 in India Privacy vs Public Safety, 5 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. &
Human. 460 (2022).
134
Anandini Saha, Construction of Hierarchies: A Critical Analysis of the Information Technology
Rules, 2021, 5 Indian Politics & Law Review 282 (2021).
¶|87|. In the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India,135 the nine-judge bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “the Right to Privacy is a constitutionally
protected right in India. The Court reasoned that privacy is an incident of
fundamental freedom or liberty guaranteed under Art. 21.” Further, in the case of
Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India,136 it was held that, “right to privacy also requires
the state to not make any private information public about an individual which would
violate his privacy.”
¶|88|. In the present case Under Rule 4(2), the state can issue order for identification
of first originator of information. This requirement forces Intermediaries to break
end-to-end encryption on its messaging service and the privacy principles
underlying it.137 Thus, infringing the fundamental right to privacy and free speech
of millions of citizens using that intermediary to communicate privately and
securely.138 This promotes the arbitrary action of the government. It is violative of
the law laid down in the supra judgement and goes against the principles of
proportionality, necessity and minimization.139
¶|89|. Moreover, in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.,140
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, to justify an intrusion into the fundamental
right of privacy, the following four requirements must be satisfied: “(i) Legality,
which postulates the existence of valid law; (ii) Necessity, defined in terms of a
legitimate State aim; and (iii) Proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus
between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them.
135
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
136
Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 1.
137
Aditi Singh and Ujjwal Agarwal, Privacy, National Security, and Government Interest: The
many facets of End-to-End Encryption in India, 8 CMET 46 (2021).
138
WhatsApp, About end-to end encryption, FAQ WHATSAPP,
https://faq.whatsapp.com/820124435853543/.
139
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
140
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
¶|90|. A combined reading of § 79(2), read with § 89(2) (zg),141 of the IT Act
2000,142 makes it crystal clear that the power of the MeitY is limited to prescribing
guidelines for observation of due diligence by the Intermediaries while discharging
its duties under the IT Act.
¶|91|. Furthermore, the messaging services must technically change their platform
that are consistent with the Parent Act and within the confines of the legislative
policy enunciated by the central government.144 Nothing in § 79 of the IT Act of
2000 shows that the legislature wanted to give MeitY the authority to compel service
provider alterations to their technical design or to jeopardise user privacy.145
¶|93|. As per third proviso to Rule 4(2) of IT Rules, 2021, an order to identify the
141
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 79(2), 87(2)(zg), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999
(India).
142
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 79, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
143
Urs Gasser, Don’t Panic. Making Progress on the “Going Dark”, The Berkman Klein Center
for Internet & Society at Harvard University, (1 February 2016)
https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2016/Cybersecurity/Dont_Panic.
144
Darshan Lal Mehra and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1992 AIR SC 1848.
145
Abhishek Bhardwaj, New IT Rules, 2021 in India Privacy v. Public Safety, 4 INT. J.L. MGMT.
& HUMAN. 4640 (2021).
¶|95|. Having autonomy and control over our lives, which are essential elements of
¶|96|. In the case of Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corp. Ltd. v. P.P. Suresh,147
privacy of all logged-in users at risk.148 The result will be the public revelation of
people’s personal information which will lead to mass surveillance. When mass
surveillance in the shadows fairly infringes on people’s privacy, the minimization
principle is broken.149 The rule gives the federal and state governments the authority
to intercept messages in the event of a crisis or in the interest of public safety without
specifically defining the guidelines that must be followed.
¶|98|. Additionally, it was stated in the 2015 Report by UN Special Rapporteur
David Kaye that “encryption breaking technologies meant to give access to law
enforcement authorities might also be utilized by criminals.”150 Therefore, the state’s
action does not ensure a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted
to achieve them, leading to an imbalance between the two. Hence, the rule is
146
Rajiv Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 7978/2020.
147
Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corp. Ltd. v. P.P. Suresh, (2019) 9 SCC 710.
148
WhatsApp, About end-to end encryption, FAQ WHATSAPP,
https://faq.whatsapp.com/820124435853543/.
149
Andy Greenberg, Hacker Lexicon: What is End-to-End Encryption?, Wired, (25 November
2014) http://www.wired.com/2014/11/hacker-lexicon-end-to-end-encryption/.
150
David Kaye, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to
Freedom of Opinion and Expression, A/HRC/29/32 (2015).
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly prays before this
Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare that:
1. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology does not have legislative
competency to formulate the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines
and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
2. The Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 is violative of Art. 14.
3. The Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 is violative of Art. 19(1)(a).
4. The Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 is violative of Art. 19(1)(g).
5. The Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 is violative of Art. 21.
and/or
Pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the interest of
justice, equity, fairness and good conscience.
For this act of kindness of your lordship, the Petitioner shall duty bound forever
pray.
Place: S/d-
Date: COUNSELS for PETITIONER