MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

MOOT COURT – 03

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF YOPRADESH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
W.P.(C) No. ____/2023

IN THE MATTER OF
IQBAL KAZMI ....
(PETITIONER)
VERSUS

UNION OF YOPRADESH AND THE MITTAL GROUP …

(RESPONDENT)

WITH
SLP (CRI.) No._____/2023
(Arising from the final order dated xx.xx.2022 passed by the High Court of
Riverdale in Cr. Appl.xxx)
DEVI PRASAD ....
(PETITIONER)
VERSUS

THE STATE OF RIVERDALE …

(RESPONDENT)

1
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
YOPRADESH

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of authorities ……………………………………………………………………….3

Index of Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………….4

Statement of Jurisdiction……………………………………………………………………

Statement of

Facts……………………………………………………………………………...6

Issues Presented………………………………………………………………………………7

Arguments Advanced ………………………………………………………………………..8

3
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC................................10

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.............................................................................8

PUCL v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301.............................................................................................9

Sukhdev v. Bhagatram AIR 1975 SC 1331............................................................................................11

Tehseen Poonawala v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501.....................................................................10

Vinit Kumar v. CBI 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155..............................................................................14

Statutes

Yopradesh Information and Technology Act 2000..................................................................................8

Yopradesh Telegraph Act,1885................................................................................................................7

4
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

& And

AIR All India Reporter

ANR Another

Hon’ble Honourable

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union Of Indiana

v. Versus

Supp. Supplementary

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports

5
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana has been approached to hear the present matter under

Article 32 of the Indiana Constitution.

“Article 32 - Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the

enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,

including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant

and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the

rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1)

and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local

6
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court

under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise

provided for by this Constitution.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Yopradesh, a federal republic, upholds democratic principles and fundamental rights,

including the right to privacy. However, allegations of privacy breaches and surveillance have
arisen due to the government's adoption of advanced technology in governance. Prime
Minister Samrat Moni's government has aimed to digitize government processes and partner
with tech giants like Google and IBM, but concerns over privacy violations and accusations
of suppressing dissent persist, with critics claiming the government diverts attention by
labelling dissent as threats to national security.

The use of the Citadel spyware, allegedly by the Yopradeshian government, to target
journalists, activists, and government officials, has sparked controversy. A Right to
Information (RTI) application filed by journalist Iqbal Kazmi to inquire about the
government's involvement in the spyware was met with a denial from the Ministry of Home
Affairs.

Activist Devi Prasad faced arrest and subsequent conviction on charges of sedition and
instigating communal violence, with his supporters criticizing the use of surveillance-
obtained evidence in his case.

7
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

A global report in August 2022 revealed that Citadel had been used to spy on numerous
individuals, including prominent journalists and activists in Yopradesh, leading to public
outrage.

In response to these developments, journalist Iqbal Kazmi filed a writ petition before the
Supreme Court of Yopradesh challenging the constitutionality of surveillance activities
conducted under existing laws. The petition argued that these laws lacked judicial oversight
and were overly broad. Mittal Group was also made a party to the case, accused of being
complicit in violating citizens' privacy.

Mittal Group defended itself, stating that it could neither confirm nor deny providing the
Citadel spyware to the Yopradesh government. It emphasized that it merely licensed the
software to government agencies.

Meanwhile, Devi Prasad filed a criminal appeal against his conviction, alleging that the
evidence obtained through surveillance was unconstitutional. The High Court of Riverdale
upheld the conviction, leading to a Special Leave Petition filed by Devi Prasad before the
Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided to hear both petitions together, considering their shared factual
context. The State of Riverdale argued that even if evidence was collected illegally, it should
be admissible if relevant to criminal prosecutions, citing the importance of "public safety."

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CARRIED OUT BY THE

GOVERNMENT OF YOPRADESH UNDER SECTION 5(2) OF THE YOPRADESH TELEGRAPH

ACT, 1885, THE TELEGRAPH RULES AND SECTION 69 OF THE YOPRADESH INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE PETITIONER CAN PROCEED AGAINST THE MITTAL GROUP FOR

THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE YOPRADESH

CONSTITUTION

8
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE EVIDENCE GATHERED AGAINST DEVI PRASAD THROUGH

SURVEILLANCE IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CARRIED OUT BY THE

GOVERNMENT OF YOPRADESH UNDER SECTION 5(2) OF THE YOPRADESH TELEGRAPH ACT,

1885, THE TELEGRAPH RULES AND SECTION 69 OF THE YOPRADESH INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

The Petitioners argue that the use of military-grade Citadel software for targeted surveillance
violates fundamental rights, including privacy and freedom of speech, as outlined in the
Yopradesh Constitution. This surveillance, conducted without meeting legal criteria, is
considered illegal and constitutes a criminal offense. It also infringes on the right to privacy,
including communication and informational privacy. The state's surveillance lacks a
legitimate objective and proportionality, harming democracy. Additionally, surveillance
activities under specific laws are deemed unconstitutional as they violate freedom of
expression and threaten press freedom. In summary, the Petitioners assert that the
surveillance against Devi Prasad is unconstitutional based on legal authorities and statutes.

9
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE PETITIONER CAN PROCEED AGAINST THE MITTAL GROUP FOR

THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE YOPRADESH

CONSTITUTION

The petitioner argues that the Mittal Group may be considered part of the "State" despite the
general rule that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution only applies to the government. This is
because Article 12's definition of "State" can include private entities with government
control. The criteria for determining "instrumentality of the State" involve assessing financial
and administrative control, engagement in a public function, and operating for the public's
welfare.

The petitioner suggests that the Mittal Group's involvement in government surveillance, as
evidenced by their policy document and ambiguous stance on supplying the Citadel software,
makes them akin to a government entity. Therefore, they should be held accountable for
violating citizens' right to privacy.

Two constitutional interpretation approaches, structuralism and functionalism, are considered.

Structuralism focuses on the government's structure and relationships with individuals, while
functionalism examines how constitutional norms apply in specific cases.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE EVIDENCE GATHERED AGAINST DEVI PRASAD THROUGH

SURVEILLANCE IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW?

The petitioner argues that evidence gathered through surveillance against Devi Prasad should
not be admissible in court. They cite legal provisions, including Section 5 of the Yopradesh
Telegraph Act and Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules, which grant government wiretapping
authority but raise questions about admissibility concerning national security.

In the K.S. Puttaswamy case, it was established that evidence from surveillance must meet
certain criteria, including legality, necessity for a legitimate state aim, and proportionality.

The PUCL case clarified the conditions for wiretapping under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph
Act, requiring 'public emergency' or 'public safety.' However, in the present case, the use of
Citadel software did not relate to public safety or national security.

In the Vinit Kumar v. CBI case, the court applied the Puttaswamy test and found the
interception orders failed the test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The court

10
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

emphasized that violating fundamental rights for criminal law goals would be arbitrary and
contrary to the Puttaswamy case's directions.

Overall, the petitioner argues that the evidence against Devi Prasad should be considered
inadmissible based on legal provisions and precedents.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CARRIED OUT BY THE

GOVERNMENT OF YOPRADESH UNDER SECTION 5(2) OF THE YOPRADESH TELEGRAPH ACT,

1885, THE TELEGRAPH RULES AND SECTION 69 OF THE YOPRADESH INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

The Petitioners contend that the utilization of military-grade Citadel software for targeted
surveillance constitutes an infringement upon fundamental rights, encompassing the right to
privacy as enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21, as well as the right to freedom of speech
and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Yopradesh Constitution.

Engaging in the monitoring of journalists, healthcare professionals, legal practitioners, civil

society advocates, government officials, opposition figures, and constitutional authorities not
only contravenes existing legislation, namely the Yopradesh Telegraph Act of 1885 and
Section 69 of the Yopradesh Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2001, but also
represents a blatant effort to infiltrate, attack, and undermine independent institutions that
serve as vital safeguards within a democratic framework.

11
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

The constitutional violation can be further explained in the following manner:-

- Violation of the legal provisions

The act of surveillance against Devi Prasad is also in violation of the provisions of law under
which they are committed. As per Section 5(2) of the Yopradesh Telegraph Act states: “(2)
On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the
Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorised in this
behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may 1, if satisfied that it is
necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing
incitement to the commission of an offence.

None of the above necessary conditions for resorting to interception have been met in the
present case. The targets of interception here are reputed journalists, doctors, lawyers, civil
society activists, government ministers and opposition politicians. There is evidently no
threat posed by them to the sovereignty or integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly
relations with foreign states, public order or incitement to an offence. Neither is there any
public emergency or issue of public safety involved. None of the mandatory conditions that
need to exist prior to authorisation of interception/surveillance are present here. The
surveillance is thus obviously illegal.

In PUCL v. Union of India Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no jurisdiction to
exercise powers under Section 5(2) of the Yopradesh Telegraph Act if a public emergency
has not occurred or the interests of public safety do not demand it. The existence of a public
emergency or public safety considerations do not depend on the assessment of the
government alone, and must be reasonably inferable.

The hack occasioned by the Citadel spyware constitutes a criminal offence punishable under
interalia Section 66 (computer related offences), 66B (punishment for dishonestly
receiving stolen computer resource or communication device), 66E (punishment for
violation of privacy) and 66F (punishment for cyberterrorism) of the IT Act,2 punishable
with imprisonment and/or fine.

The attack prima facie constitutes an act of cyber-terrorism that has several grave political
and security ramifications, especially considering that the devices of government ministers,
1
Section 5(2),Yopradesh Telegraph Act,1885.
2
Yopradesh Information and Technology Act 2000.

12
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

senior political figures and constitutional functionaries which may contain sensitive
information have been targeted

- Violation of Right to Privacy

Such targeted surveillance violates the right to privacy, which is the constitutional core of
human dignity and is protected under Article 21, 19, 14, 25, 28, the Preamble and Part III of
the Constitution according to the landmark judgment of a nine-judge bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India3 (2017) 10 SCC 1

Communicational, intellectual and informational privacy form essential components of an

individual’s right to privacy. Hacking/interception, such as in the present case, critically
endangers the meaningful exercise of the right to privacy in these contexts.

Right to privacy extends to the use and control over one’s mobile phone, including but not
limited to both oral conversations and messages, and any interception by means of
tapping/hacking is a breach of privacy and an infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution.

In PUCL v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held
that;-

“But the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one's home or office
without interference can certainly be claimed as “right to privacy”. Conversations on the
telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character. Telephone-tapping would,
thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure
established by law.”

“…When a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising his right to freedom of speech

and expression. Telephone-tapping unless it comes within the grounds of restrictions under
Article 19(2) would infract Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution”4

It is a settled law by precedent that for violating the Right to Privacy the following
conditions must be satisfied:-

a. A legitimate State aim;

b. A rational nexus between the aim and the infringement of the right (the rationality
prong);

3
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
4
PUCL v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301.

13
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

c. The infringement must be the least restrictive measure available (i.e., alternatives
must be unquestionably foreclosed) (the necessity prong); and
d. There must be a balance between the extent of the restrictions and the benefit the
State hopes to achieve (proportionality stricto sensu).

In the current case, none of the four components of the proportionality test have been
satisfied. There is no discernible valid objective on the part of the State in engaging in mass
surveillance, which includes monitoring journalists, doctors, lawyers, civil society
advocates, government officials, and opposition politicians. Given the absence of such an
objective, there is no logical connection between this surveillance and the infringement on
privacy facilitated by the software.

Utilizing a sophisticated software from the Mittal Group for snooping cannot be regarded
as the least intrusive measure available. Furthermore, not only does such mass surveillance
fail to yield any legitimate benefits, but it actively harms a democratic society.

- Violation of Right to freedom of speech and expression

Further, the surveillance activities that are carried out by the Government of Yopradesh
under Section 5(2) of the Yopradesh Telegraph Act, 1885, The Telegraph Rules and Section
69 of the Yopradesh Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2001 are not
constitutional because of them being in violation of Article 19 (1)(a).

In Tehseen Poonawala v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501,

It was held that “It must be emphatically stated that a dynamic contemporary constitutional
democracy imbibes the essential feature of accommodating pluralism in thought and
approach so as to preserve cohesiveness and unity. Intolerance arising out of a dogmatic
mindset sows the seeds of upheaval and has a chilling effect on freedom of thought and
expression5.”

The targeted surveillance and harvesting of personal data of several prominent journalists
represents an attack on the press, which is the fourth pillar of democracy and plays a vital role
as an accountability mechanism in a democratic set-up. The hacks/surveillance occasioned by
Pegasus pose a real risk of compromising the ability of the press to function freely. It is a
settled position of law that the right to free speech and expression includes freedom of the
press within its ambit, and any interference with the same is contrary to the constitutional
5
Tehseen Poonawala v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501.

14
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

mandate. This Hon’ble Court has held in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v.
Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC that “… It is, therefore, the primary duty of all the national
courts to uphold the said freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which
interfere with it, contrary to the constitutional mandate.6”

Thus, the Petitioners most humbly contend on the basis of authorities and legal statutes cited
that said acts of surveillance against Devi Prasad are unconstitutional.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE PETITIONER CAN PROCEED AGAINST THE MITTAL GROUP FOR

THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE YOPRADESH

CONSTITUTION

It is the contention of the petitioner that the Mittal Group can be implicated in the present
case. It is a well settled law that Article 217 can be enforced only against “State” and not
private actors.

The word “State” has had various connotations owing to the many judicial interpretations
through various judgements. One of the connotations of the word “State” as enshrined under
Article 12 of Indian constitution, applies to the entities acting in control or through the
Government. Therefore, private body can also be termed as State if there is instrumentality.

Article 12 of the constitution8 does not provide a specific definition for the term
'instrumentality or agency,' leaving it open to continuous interpretation by the courts. There
are specific criteria that must be met to qualify as an instrument of the state. Additionally, the
use of the term 'includes' implies that the definition is not limited in scope. This means that
instrumentalities or agencies may not necessarily be part of a government department but can
still be considered a state entity when fundamental rights are violated. For example, this
extends to government companies and public undertakings

Determination of Instrumentality of State

“"The reason for adopting such a broad view of Article 12 is that the Constitution should,
whenever possible- “be so construed as to apply to arbitrary application of power against
individuals by Centre of power. The emerging principle appears to be that public

6
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC.
7
Article 21, Yopradesh Constitution, 1950.
8
Article 12, Yopradesh Constitution, 1950.

15
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

cooperation being a creation of the State is subject to the Constitutional limitations of the
State itself.”9

This the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour in Sukhdev v. Bhagatram. The judgement gave
further determining factors-

 Determine if the state exercises financial and administrative authority over a vital
public function.

 Assess whether the entity, instrumentality, or agency is engaged in a critical public

function.

 Evaluate whether the agency or entity is conducting business for the welfare of the
public or not.

As evident from the clause 4 “POLICY DOCUMENT”10 of the Mittal Group; the company
was aware of severe consequences of the Citadel software. Further, they have neither
accepted nor denied supplying the software, which further hints at their involvement.

The petitioner therefore asserts that that Mittal Group, through its active involvement in the
government's surveillance activities, is effectively fulfilling a role akin to that of a
government entity. As a result, it is held accountable for infringing upon the fundamental
right to privacy of citizens. The argument is that Mittal Group assesses the information used
by client governments to request surveillance, thus participating in the decision-making
process regarding individuals subjected to surveillance

Structuralsim & Functionalism

Structuralism, as a method of constitutional interpretation, attempts to derive constitutional

rules from the relationships and interactions between various constitutional ‘structures or
institutions.

The main focus of structuralism in the present scenario with respect to individual rights is on
the structure of the government and its relationship with the individuals who are governed by
this government. Mere regulatory control, over the body, would not suffice of being an
instrument under Article 12. To qualify for this domination, one must construe all three
fronts: financially and functionally.

9
Sukhdev v. Bhagatram AIR 1975 SC 1331.
10
Annexure A, Moot Problem, pg no.6.

16
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Functionalism, on the other hand, works on inductive method, developing the constitution
and the policies related to it through “case by case application of the independent normative
values that the law ought to promote.”

In this case, the function that was performed by the Mittal Group, came from the order of the
Government of India. Moreover, since the software is developed by the Mittal Group, they
must be answerable to the various security concerns arising out of the same.

On basis of aforementioned arguments, legal precedents and authorities citied the petitioner
submit that it will be a gross violation of the judicial process, if Mittal Group is not held
accountable for their actions in this case.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE EVIDENCE GATHERED AGAINST DEVI PRASAD THROUGH

SURVEILLANCE IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW?

The petitioner contends that evidence gathered against Devi Prasad through surveillance is
inadmissible under the law and cannot be produced in any Court of law.

Section 5 of the Yopradesh Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules,
1951 grant the government the authority to conduct wiretapping, sparking debates on the
admissibility of evidence obtained through such means. Both Section 5 and Rule 419-A
empower any government to wiretap telephones in situations deemed necessary for public
emergency or safety.

It is important to note that these provisions incorporate procedural safeguards. Nonetheless,

the inherent tension between admissibility concerns and the imperatives of national security
and public safety, as outlined in Section 5 and Rule 419-A, remains unresolved.

"In the K.S. Puttaswamy case, which acknowledged the right to privacy as per Article 21, it is
essential that any evidence acquired through surveillance not only adheres to the criteria of
the 'procedure established by law,' such as Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules, 1951, or
Section 5 of the Yopradesh Telegraph Act, 1885 but also passes the 'due process'
assessment as outlined in the Puttaswamy case. This assessment entails that any violation of
an individual's privacy by the State must meet three specific criteria:
1. The existence of law or legality of the measure undertaken;
2. The necessity of the measure undertaken in relation to legitimate State aim; and
3. Proportionality ensuring a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted
to achieve them.

17
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

In the PUCL case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that two specific statutory prerequisites
must be met: the existence of a 'public emergency' or the 'interest of public safety.' As
these terms were not explicitly defined in the IT Act, the Supreme Court provided
interpretations for them.
It explained 'public emergency' as 'the sudden occurrence of a condition or situation affecting
the general public that demands immediate action,' and 'interest of public safety' as 'the state
or condition of ensuring the safety and well-being of the general public, free from harm or
danger.
In the present case the usage of Citadel software to collect the evidence against Mr. Devi
Prasad does not constitute an issue for “public safety” neither was it a matter of “national
security”.
Dealing with this issue of admissibility of illegally obtained evidence for the first-time post
Puttaswamy case, the Vinit Kumar v. CBI11, departed from the established practice of
ignoring concerns of privacy in relation to evidence, and instead adopted the three-pronged
test of Puttaswamy case.
The judgment did not clearly distinguish its analysis for each of these prongs, instead, basing
the bulk of its analysis on the first prong of legality. Accordingly, the Court observed that
based on the materials-on-record, there were no circumstances or situations of “public safety”
or
“public emergency” in the matter at hand.
In the absence of any such material, the Court in one sweep struck down the orders, holding
that the interception orders have failed the test of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Importantly, the Court also observed that sanctioning a violation of fundamental rights on the
notion that in criminal law, the ends justify the means, would amount to manifest arbitrariness
and contempt of the Supreme Court's directions in Puttaswamy case.
To sum up, the Vinit Kumar judgement established three guidelines-
1. Section 5(2) of the Yopradesh Telegraph Act permits interception only in cases of
'public emergency' or 'public safety.'
2. If interception is conducted in violation of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, it is
obligatory to delete the intercepted messages.
3. Any evidence obtained in contravention of Section 5(2) and the associated rules is not
admissible in court."

11
Vinit Kumar v. CBI 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155.

18
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

The fundamental aspect of this issue is that the evidence against Devi Prasad is illegally
obtained and is self-incriminating. In the present case, the facet of national security is
exploited to infiltrate and violate the privacy of Mr. Devi Prasad.
The aforementioned judicial as observed in cases after the Puttuswamy judgement, points that
violation of privacy supersedes the admissibility of evidence in this case. There was no urgent
threat to the Nation by the acts of Devi Prasad. Therefore, the evidence that has been obtained
against Devi Prasad cannot be admitted in the Court of law.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IT IS PRAYED, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CASE, ISSUES RAISED,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, AND AUTHORITIES CITED THAT THIS HON’BLE

COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

1. Declare surveillance activities that are carried out by the Government of Yopradesh

under Section 5(2) of the Yopradesh Telegraph Act, 1885, The Telegraph Rules and

Section 69 of the Yopradesh Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2001 are

unconstitutional

2. Allow the claim of petitioners to proceed against the Mittal Group

3. Declare, the evidence gathered against Devi Prasad to be inadmissible.

And/or

Pass any other Order, Direction, Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of Justice,

Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.

For this Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

19
 MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Counsel for the Petitioner

20