Petitioner Speech

 The counsel seeks permission to address the bench as your ladyship

collectively.
 Your ladyship I’m speaker 1 and I will be dealing with the statement of facts
issue 1 and issue 2, I’ll be taking 12 minutes of your time and my co-counsel
will be dealing with issue 3 and prayer and she’ll take 8 minutes of your time.
 The counsel seeks permission to proceed with the arguments.
 Use much-obliged

Statement of Facts (petitioner)

 Ajay Pathak a news anchor who works for News X was arrested for abetment
of suicide of an architect, Mr Anmol Prasad. The trial against him is ongoing;
however, he has been enlarged on bail, by the Hon high court of Rajpradesh.
 Our client Mr Mukund Pal who is a well-known comedian took to Beepit his
opinion regarding following events.
 The beeps which he had posted gained popularity, but after noticing the
backlash generated Beepit deleted his tweets.
 Following this several other social media intermediaries have also suspended
some of his content. Mr Pal derives his major source of income from his
online presence as a social media content creator. The suspension has
resulted in a huge downfall in his followers on his various social media
accounts due to which he now faces financial losses as well as violating his
fundamental right of freedom of speech.
 Hence Mr Mukund has filed a case challenging the constitutional validity of
the Rules 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vii) of the Information Technology Amendment
Rules, 2023.
Issue 1
1. Is the present Writ Petition, filed by Mr. Mukund Pal under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Indico, maintainable?
The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner humbly submits that the Writ petition filed
by Mr. Mukund Pal is maintainable before the Hon’ble SC of Indico under the
original jurisdiction guaranteed u/a 32 (1), (2) & (3) of the Constitution, gives the
right to move the Hon’ble SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the FR conferred by this part is guaranteed, under Part III of the Constitution. Art
32 enables a person to claim and protect their FR against the state. According to
the aforementioned Rules, Mr. Mukand Pal’s online content were suspended by
the intermediaries of the app violating his FR of freedom of free speech and
expression and trade and profession.
 The petitioner contends that there has been a violation of his FR, due to which he
has filed a Writ petition in the Hon’ble SC, and under Art. 32 the SC is obligated
to hear the appeal.
Following the aforementioned facts, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
holds sufficient ground under Art.32, which further provides maintainability
before the Hon’ble SC.
Violation of Article 19
Article 19(1) gives every citizen of India Freedom of speech and expression and
Article 19(6) gives every citizen Freedom to practise any profession, occupation,
trade or business.
After beepit deleted his beeps several other social media intermediaries have also
suspended some of his content. Mr Pal derives his major source of income from his
online presence as a social media content creator. The suspension has resulted in a
huge downfall in his followers on his various social media accounts due to which he
now faces financial losses as well as violating his fundamental right.
It is very clear that both freedom of speech as well as freedom of trade and
profession was violated of Mr Pal by deleting the Beeps he had posted. It is clear
those beeps were to be taken as a joke as MR Mukund is a comedian.
Moreover the removal of his tweets has lead to his massive downfall in followers and
huge financial losses since his major source of income is derived from his online
presence.
In the case of Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram, it was established that everyone has a
fundamental right to express their opinions on any matters of public interest. Open
criticism of government operations and policies is not a reason to censor speech.
Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself.
Hence, this goes to show that FR of Freedom to practise any profession,
occupation, trade or business, and Freedom of speech and expression are
violated.

Doctrine of Locus Standi

Any person complaining of an infraction of any FR guaranteed by the Constitution is
at liberty to move to the SC but the rights that could be invoked under Art. 32 must
ordinarily be the rights of the person who complains of the infraction of such rights
and approaches the court for relief and the proper subject for investigation would
however be as to the nature of the rights that is stated to have been infringed.
Narinderjeet Singh Sahni vs Union of India

Hence it is very clear that there has been violation of FR and the Mr Mukund Pal has
a right approach the high court under Article 32.
 2. Whether Rules 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vii) of the Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment
Rules, 2023 are unconstitutional?
The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner Mr. Mukund Pal respectfully states before
the Hon’ble SC that the Rules 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vii) of the Information Technology
Amendment Rules, 2023 are constitutionally unjustifiable, invalid and arbitrary in
nature. These Rules are against the principles of natural justice and are violative of
the FR guaranteed under Art.14 & Art.19. Part III of the Constitution of Indico lays
down certain provisions to safeguard the FR of the citizens of Indico.
It specifies u/a 13 the provisions that enables the judiciary and the citizens to keep
the legislative authorities within certain limitations. This procedure is referred to as
“judicial review”.
2.1 Improper Due diligence by an intermediary
Part II of the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023, under clause 3 (1)
provides “Due Diligence by an intermediary” (Beepit). These are basically duties of
the social media intermediary which they are obligated to discharge and inform their
users through internal Rules, regulations and other policies, to not “host, display,
upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information” which is
“identified as fake or false or misleading by a fact check unit of the Central
Government” in respect of “any business of” the Union government.
In any situation if the social media intermediary (Beepit) fails to follow the ‘due
diligence’ as mentioned above, they are possibly jeopardizing their immunity from
any civil or criminal liability as an intermediary from a third-party content hosted on
their online platform. This liability arises from the guidelines put forth by the
amendment of 2023. Section 79 of the IT Act reads that intermediaries are immune
from hosting thirdparty data, information, or communication, provided that they
observe ‘due diligence while discharging their duties’ under the Act
Google India Private Limited vs M/S Visaka Industries Limited And ... on 18
November, 2016.
These actions of the Union Government are undoubtedly arbitrary in nature and
against the principles of natural justice whilst violating the FR of the citizens. The fact
check unit enables the Government to censor content which is contrary to the
Government’s version. This is so because Rule 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vii) requires SMI ‘to
cause the user’ to not host certain kinds of information. ‘To cause’ means to produce
a positive effect towards the achievement of a desired result. Otherwise, the content
would just be flagged as incorrect or deceptive in nature. The primary objective of
the Rule 3(b)(v) obligates the social media intermediary (Beepit) to moderate or
disable content which is contrary to the Government’s version of events or in respect
of any business of the Government. 20
By implementing the amendment to rule 3(b)(v), the Central government now
has the authority over the social media intermediaries and can manipulate the
SMI.
Non – Observance of Article 14, Art. 21 & Principle of Natural Justice
Article 14 and the Principle of Natural Justice are interrelated. In essence, Article 14
"The State shall not deny to any person within the territory of India, equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws." If Article 14 is violated due to illegal,
irrational, or arbitrary action, the writ jurisdiction can be invoked by filing a petition in
the SC or High Court u/a 32 of the Constitution of Indico respectively. This Art gives
the right to the citizens of Indico to file a Writ petition in the SC, however, the
Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner contends that Art. 14 is violated when any
arbitrary action is being taken against any person. In contravention of Art.14, there
has been an arbitrary proceeding by the government while enacting the amended IT
Act rules.
Clause (6) of Art. 19 states that the State shall not make any law imposing, in the
interest of the general public. In . Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, it was established
that everyone has a fundamental right to express their opinions on any matters of
public interest. Open criticism of governmental operations and policies is not a
reason to censor speech.
I would like to summarize my argument stating that the HC and SC have

Power to Judicial Review

The HC & SC have significant power over judicial review under Article 13. Judicial
review is concerned with whether the law has been effectively implemented and
adequate procedures have been followed. The Constitution of Indico has granted the
HC & SC the authority to review the legality of executive orders and statutes. The
primary objectives of judicial review are to uphold and implement the FR of the
citizens of the country. Judicial review is justified only if the Government policy is
arbitrary, unfair or violative of FR and the court must be loath to venture into an
evaluation of state policy. The main object of Article 13 is to secure the
paramountcy of the constitution in regard to FR.
Kerala Bar Hotels Association v. State of Kerala, AIR 2016 SC 163.
  The counsel seeks permission to address the bench as your lordship.
 Your lordship I’m speaker 1 and I will be dealing with the statement of facts
issue 1 and issue 2, I’ll be taking 12 minutes of your time and my co-counsel
will be dealing with issue 3 and prayer and she’ll take 8 minutes of your time.
 The counsel seeks permission to proceed with the arguments.
 Use much-obliged

Respondent
1. Is the present WP, filed by Mr. Mukund Pal under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indico,
maintainable?

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent the Union of Indico most humbly submits before the
Hon’ble SC of Indico that the present WP filed u/a 32 of the constitution is not maintainable. Only
when there has been an infringement of FRs, a WP can be filed in the apex Court. There has been no
violation of FRs of the Petitioner in the present case. Moreover, there is an existence of alternative
remedies which the Petitioner could have exhausted before approaching the Hon’ble Court. While it
is the duty of the SC to enforce FRs, it also has a responsibility to make sure that this tool provided by
Art. 32 is not being abused by blocking the Hon’ble SC from hearing cases involving other real abuses
of FRs.

SC and High Court: Concurrent Jurisdiction

As Article 32 is a FR in and of itself and the SC’s jurisdiction u/a 32 is mandatory by nature and not
discretionary. However, the scope of Art. 32 is rather limited compared to Art. 226. If however, there
has indeed been a violation of FRs, approaching the High Court would have been more beneficial for
the Petitioner. However, there hasn’t been any violation because the Rules under the IT act is
completely in accordance with the application FR’s under Part III of the Constitution.

The petitioner argues that a party should have the freedom to approach either the SC or a High
Court. However, it is noted that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the SC has emphasized that when
relief can be sought under Article 226 in a High Court, the party should initially approach the High
Court.

No directions can be given in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction where Statutory remedies are available.

According to this specific fact, the SC is not obligated to hear a WP which already has a remedy
furthermore No directions can be given in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction where Statutory remedies are
available. An alternative remedy is available as a grievance redressal mechanism of intermediary, the
Counsel on behalf of the Respondent contends why hasn’t the Petitioner exhausted that remedy and
instead has directly approached the SC. When the Concurrent Jurisdiction & the Writ Jurisdiction of
the SC clearly states that in presence of an alternative remedy a party should first approach the High
Court and the SC cannot maintain a WP where an alternate remedy is available. This Counsel
representing the Respondent asserts that an alternative remedy has always been available. The
Counsel points out that Section 3(3A) establishes a Grievance Appellate Committee, which includes
members appointed by the Central Government. This committee serves as an alternative avenue for
addressing complaints against intermediaries. Since the Petitioner did not utilize this available
remedy and directly approached the SC, it goes against the principles of Art. 32 and Art. 226.

No violation of Art. 19 i.e., Freedom of speech

The right to free speech and expression is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable
restrictions. As per Article 19(2)

This list of reasonable restrictions under Art. 19 evidently mentions Contempt of Court, however, the
other restrictions on sovereignty and integrity, security of state, public order, decency or morality,
defamation and incitement of an offense are also clearly applicable to the present case as Petitioner
Mr. Mukund Pal has given a statement against the High Court of Rajpradesh which is defamatory,
suffices as contempt of Court, harms the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

Hence it is very clear that there is no violation of FR and there is NO Locus Standi to the Petitioner

If the bench is satisfied with issue 1 may the counsel proceed with issue 2

2. Whether Rules 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vii) of the Information Technology (Intermediary

Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 are unconstitutional?

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent the Union of Indico humbly submits before the Hon’ble SC
that the IT Amendment Rules 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vii) are not invalid, arbitrary in nature, constitutionally
justifiable & are perfectly in accordance with the FRs. The Attorney General of Indico, Shri Adarsh
Singh stated that “these amendments have been made to ensure that the internet is open, safe,
trusted, and accountable for our digital nagriks. The amendments were notified after the IT
Ministry followed an exhaustive public consultation process involving all stakeholders.” With
regard to this statement from the Attorney General himself is apparently suffices as a reliable
source of information. It also justifies that the IT Amendment Rules 2023 are constitutionally
justifiable, valid and are not merely a result of arbitrary actions of the government authorities. As
contended in the above-mentioned facts and statements the It Amendment Rules 2023, do not even
remotely violate the FRs of the Petitioner under Art. 14 & Art. 19, as they are enacted for the security
purposes.

The Counsel respectfully reminds the Hon’ble Court of the facts of the present case and how the
Petitioner Mr. Mukund pal beeped on the social media platform Beepit and disgraced the HC of
Rajpradesh in the most disrespectful and intolerant manner, however, the Learned Counsel
completely ignored this fact and continued criticising the laws of the IT act claiming to be the
‘aggrieved party’ of the case.

As the aforementioned section of the IT act stated it is the duty and obligation of the social media
intermediary to terminate access or remove contents with regard to any non- compliance with the
Rules & regulations by a user. The Counsel contends that these clauses of the IT act which clearly
states that the SMI has the right to remove such contents. Furthermore, these Rules do not give the
government arbitrary powers. Additionally, this clause evidently proves that the government is
simply acting within the limitations of its power are is necessarily preventing any internal or external
distress, disturbance & taking appropriate measures for the national security of the nation.

Your lordship with you permission I would like to bring you attention to the Annexure of the Prop
which states all clauses under Section 3 of the Act, this section gives power to SMI to delete any
post which has been posted by the user so that it can maintain safety, security and Harmony on
the app. This is done so that one does not misuse the app. Hence this act cannot be called
Arbitrary in nature since the act is drafted in sink with the Constitution.

(read out the section) and

Refer to Annexure

After showing the list

This shows that the posts are not deleted in arbitrary manner and are the SMI carry out these due
diligence function and not to create any problems for anyone but to safeguard the wellbeing of the
people.