FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

13R

FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

Before

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

WRIT PETITION NO. ___01___/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

CBS [PETITIONER]

Versus

THE STATE OF INDIANA [RESPONDENT]

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

i
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ii

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

3. LIST OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................... v

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................vii

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

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

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

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

I. {A} That the Petitioner has committed an offence under Section 306 of The Indiana

Penal Code ............................................................................................................................. 1

A. That the “White Whale” game had been devised in a way so as to abet the player to

commit suicide. .................................................................................................................. 1

B. That the instigation had the element of mens rea. ......................................................... 2

C. That the suicides resulted as a direct consequence of the provocation of the game. .... 3

I. {B} That the Petitioner has committed an offence under section 120B of The Indiana

Penal Code. ............................................................................................................................ 4

A. That there exists an agreement between the CBS company and the administrators

to commit the offence of abetment of suicide. ................................................................... 4

II. That the State of Dignity has not violated the rights of the petitioner under Art. 14, 19

(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana. .......................................... 5

ii
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

A. It is not in violation of Art, 14 read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana ................ 5

B. It is not in violation of Art. 19(1)(a) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana. ...... 6

C. It is not in violation of Art. 19(1)(g) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana....... 7

III. That the imposition of ban on the application “White Whale” u/s 69A of Information

Technology Act is constitutionally valid. .............................................................................. 7

A. The ban is not arbitrary and discriminatory under article 14. ....................................... 8

B. It is within reasonable restrictions under article 19....................................................... 9

C. It is necessary or expedient to do so for preventing incitement to cognizable offence

u/s 69A of IT Act, 2002. .................................................................................................. 11

9. PRAYER .....................................................................................................................xii

iii
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

& And

COI Constitution of Indiana

¶ Paragraph

§ Section

Anr. Another

A.I.R All India Reporter

Art. Article

ed. Edition

I.P.C Indiana Penal Code

I.T Information Technology

i.e., That is

Rep. Report

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

iv
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

I. Cases

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88. ........................................................ 18

2. Akshay N. Patel v. RBI, (2022) 3 SCC 694................................................................. 21

3. Association of Hospitals v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2011 SCC

OnLine APTEL 159. .................................................................................................... 22

4. Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59. ................................................... 21

5. Christian Medical College Vellore Assn. v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 705... 20, 21

6. Commr. of Police v. Syed Hussain, (2006) 3 SCC 173 ............................................... 21

7. Epari Chinna Krishna Moorthy v. State of Orissa, (1964) 7 SCR 185. ....................... 22

8. Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2017 SC 74 ................................................ 15

9. Harikrishnan v. State of Kerala, SCC OnLine Ker 1767 ............................................. 14

10. Hussain Umar v. Dalip Sinhji, AIR 1970 SC 45. ........................................................ 16

11. Jagdishraj Khatta v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 2872. ........................ 15

12. K.S. Narayan v. S. Gopinathan, 1982 CrLJ 1611 (Mad). ............................................ 16

13. M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt., (1998) 8 SCC 227. ......................................... 22

14. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621 ....................... 19

15. Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2013) 14 SCC 241. .... 22

16. Pramod Shriram Telgote v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1456. ..... 14

17. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper (Banks Nationalisation) v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248.

...................................................................................................................................... 21

18. Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1998. .. 15

19. State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli, (2012) 6 SCC 312. ..................................................... 20

20. State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Maruti Bombale, CA no. 966/2003. ............................ 13

v
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

21. Y.P. Singh (Dr.) v. State of U.P., 1982 SCC OnLine All 330 ..................................... 19

II. Statutes

22. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 120B, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,1860 (India)............... 11

23. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 306, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,1860 (India). ................ 11

24. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 309, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,1860 (India). ................ 21

25. The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 69A (1), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000

(India). .......................................................................................................................... 18

III. Rules

26. Information Technology (Blocking Rules), 2009, Rule 9(2). ...................................... 18

IV. Constitutional Provisions

27. INDIA CONST. art. 14..................................................................................................... 17

28. INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. 1(a). ....................................................................................... 17

29. INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. 1(g). ....................................................................................... 17

30. INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. 2. ............................................................................................ 18

31. INDIA CONST. art. 19..................................................................................................... 19

32. INDIA CONST. art. 32....................................................................................................... 9

V. Articles

33. Judicial Accountability: Watching the Watchmen, (2011) 5 SCC J-1 ........................ 17

vi
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

CBS, a company, engaged in designing online games created a game entitled ‘White Whale’

which is played on mobile phones. The game attracts the users especially children and

youngsters. It became a big hit and popular among the people throughout the world including

‘Indiana’- The State of Dignity. Once the game gets downloaded the terms and conditions must

be followed by the users. Personal details of the users will have to be provided. The game

consists of total 50 levels. Level of difficulty increases by passing each level. In the beginning,

some simple tasks are assigned to be performed by the player which shall be verified by the

administrator. In order to verify such performance, the player has to leave some mark and

upload the video of the same.

DIFFICULTY LEVELS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

The game consists of 50 levels. As the game becomes more and more challenging, the player

gets addicted to it and as a result in the last level the administrator demands the player to

commit suicide after drawing an image of “White Whale” on his hand. The game became so

popular among the youth that even it penetrated into the schools wherein a few school going

children around the age 10-12 were found committing suicide after drawing a logo of “White

Whale” on their hands. The ‘State of Dignity’ considered it as a threat to the life of children

and abusive of life and thereby issued a notice to the company CBS for withdrawing its game

from online portal to which the company responded that they will not withdraw the game as

such it falls within the scope of fundamental freedoms enshrined into the Constitution of

Indiana. The corporation responded to the complaint by stating that the goal of the game is to

empower the player's capacity for judgement. The response reads, "There is no aiding of suicide

as such, as the given demand at the last level was intended to be a test of personal ability and

vii
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

observance, as well as the ability to make an informed decision regarding suicide when

triggered or not that is to be the player's call.”

CLAIMS

The reply consists of a statement that ‘there is no abetment to suicide as such as the given

demand at the last level was supposed to be test of individualistic competence. Also, in the

State of Dignity, numerous people killed themselves for a variety of causes, including hanging

from a tree or ceiling fan, poisoning themselves, or even frequently burning brides by

themselves and the State did nothing to prevent them. The Petitioner also claims that the State

of Dignity has violated its Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights.

viii
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel on behalf of the Respondent has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

Indiana in response to the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

Indiana, under Article 321 of the Indiana’s constitution in the matter of CBS v. The State of

Indiana.

1
INDIA CONST. art. 32.

ix
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.

Whether the petitioner has committed any offence under sec. 306 and 120B of

IPC?

II.

Whether the state of Dignity has violated the rights of petitioner enshrined under

Art. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana?

III.

Whether imposing ban on the application “White Whale” u/s 69A of Information

Technology Act is constitutionally valid?

x
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. That the CBS company and administrators of the White Whale game have

committed offence under Sec. 306 and Sec. 120B2 of the IPC.

The Respondents humbly submit that the CBS company, along with the administrators of the

game, are liable to be punished under Sec. 3063 of the Indiana Penal Code as they have

instigated the players to commit suicide actively and directly with intention to make them

commit suicide. The suicides happened as a direct consequence of the instigation. It is humbly

submitted that there existed an agreement between the company and the administrators of the

game to commit an offence of abetment of suicide of the players. This agreement led to the

criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of abetment of suicide.

II. It is humbly submitted that the State of Dignity has not violated the rights of

the petitioner under Art. 14, 19 (1)(a) and 19(1)(g) read with Art. 21 of

Constitution of Indiana.

The Respondents humbly submit that State of Dignity has not violated any of the afore-

mentioned rights as the acts done by it to prevent the CBS company from incitement to offence

fall within the reasonable restrictions enshrined in the Constitution of Indiana.

III. That the imposition of ban on the application “White Whale” u/s 69A of

Information Technology Act is constitutionally valid.

The ban imposed on the application “White Whale” u/s 69A of Information Technology Act is

constitutionally valid as it has passed the conditions mentioned u/s 69A as well the restrictions

imposed are within reasonable restrictions to their freedom of speech and the same is not

arbitrary and discriminatory to the petitioner.

2
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 120B, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,1860 (India).
3
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 306, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,1860 (India).

xi
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. {A} That the Petitioner has committed an offence under Section 306 of The Indiana

Penal Code

1. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has committed the offence of Abetment of

suicide under Sec. 306 of the Indiana Penal Code as [A] the “White Whale” game had

been devised in a way so as to abet the player to commit suicide, [B] the instigation had

the element of mens rea and [C] the suicides resulted as a direct consequence of the

provocation by the game.

A. That the “White Whale” game had been devised in a way so as to abet the player to commit

suicide.

2. Section 107 of the Indiana Penal Code states that abetment comprises of instigation to

commit an offence or conspiring to commit an offence or aiding in the commission of

an offence.4 The word ‘instigation’ literally means to goad or urge forward or to

provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. Abetment involves a mental process of

instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing.5

3. Furthermore, a person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or

stimulates him to the act by any means, language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the

form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. 6 In order to

constitute ‘abetment by instigation’, there must be a direct incitement to do the culpable

act. The incitement must be to do some drastic or unadvisable act.7

4
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 107, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,1860 (India).
5
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1736 (LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur
2011).
6
Id.
7
State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Maruti Bombale, CA no. 966/2003.

1
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

4. The “White Whale’ game makes the player addicted by the means of fifty levels of the

game with each consecutive one being more difficult than the previous one.8 The game

states the tasks that need to be performed at each level. The video evidence of the task

has to be adduced before the administrator who verifies it and keeps the player actively

engaged in the game.9

5. It is further submitted that the deliberate design of the game, intending to trap the

players by making them addicted to the game and conditioning their minds in a such a

way so as to make them perform the tasks of one level after the other, involves the

mental process of instigating and intentionally aiding the player.

6. Moreover, at the culmination of the game on level fifty, the player is demanded to

commit suicide by the administrator.10 Here the instigation is direct, active and express

as the administrator explicitly incites the player to take their lives by committing

suicide.

7. In the present case, the instigation has been express, active and direct and involves the

mental process of addicting the player to the game so as to trap them and make them

commit suicide in the last level after drawing an image of “White Whale” on his hand.11

B. That the instigation had the element of mens rea.

8. It is well settled that in order to amount to abetment, there must be mens rea connoting

to the intention of the offence that is intended to be committed.12 Mens rea is to commit

the offence of abetment of suicide is a sine qua non to convict a person under section

306 of the Indiana Penal Code.13

8
Moot Problem, ¶ 2.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Harikrishnan v. State of Kerala, SCC OnLine Ker 1767.
13
Pramod Shriram Telgote v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1456.

2
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

9. Furthermore, the conduct of the accused which drove the players to commit suicide is

imperative in establishing mens rea behind abetment.14 There has to be clear mens rea

to commit the offence and there ought to be a direct or active act leading deceased to

commit suicide being left with no option.15

10. The special format of the game designed to make the players addicted and the constant

surveillance of the administrators through the verification of each task and the final

consecutive demand to commit suicide after ensuring that the player has become

addicted and can possibly commit suicide clearly directs evidence towards the presence

of mens rea to commit offence under sec. 306.

11. It is further submitted that the game created a pressure upon the player as it operated

under the pretext of “emboldening the users for decision taking ability”16 but ultimately

trapped vulnerable minds of many players whose ‘decision taking ability’ might not be

as expected which ultimately led them to commit suicide. Such vulnerable players are

very prone to committing suicide when instigated in such a deliberate manner.

C. That the suicides resulted as a direct consequence of the provocation of the game.

12. To prove the guilt of the accused, the fact of the suicide being proximate to the

instigation has to be proved.17 The suicide must be a direct consequence of instigation

which can be any provocation, encouragement or incitement.

13. The fact of school going children aged between 10-12 years committing suicide after

embossing a logo of “White Whale” in their hands is irrefutable evidence of the suicides

being linked to the game.18

14
Jagdishraj Khatta v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 2872.
15
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2017 SC 74.
16
Moot Problem, ¶ 3.
17
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1998.
18
Supra note 13.

3
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

14. Moreover, the CBS company admits that there has been provocation to commit suicide

when it states ‘one must be decisive whether to commit suicide when once provoked

or not’.19 Such a provocation after the mental process of addiction to the deliberately

planned game directly led the children and players to commit suicide.

15. Therefore, in the present case, the Petitioner has committed an offence under section

306 of the Indiana Penal Code.

I. {B} That the Petitioner has committed an offence under section 120B of The Indiana

Penal Code.

16. It is humbly submitted that the CBS company has conspired with the administrators as

[A] there exists an agreement between the CBS company and the administrators to

commit the offence of abetment of suicide.

A. That there exists an agreement between the CBS company and the

administrators to commit the offence of abetment of suicide.

17. The most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between

two or more people to commit an offence.20 The illegal act may or may not be done in

the pursuance of the agreement but the very agreement is an offence and is punishable.21

Another ingredient is the need of two or more persons as an agreement cannot be made

by a person with himself.22

18. It is further submitted that the agreement can be determined through the actions and

conduct of the members of the conspiracy. If the conduct of the conspirators exhibit

criminality, it can be deduced as evidence against them when charged with criminal

conspiracy under sec. 120B of the Indiana Penal Code.23

19
Id.
20
RATANLAL, supra note 2, at 606 & 607.
21
K.S. Narayan v. S. Gopinathan, 1982 CrLJ 1611 (Mad).
22
RATANLAL, supra note 2, at 608.
23
Hussain Umar v. Dalip Sinhji, AIR 1970 SC 45.

4
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

19. In the present case, the conduct of the administrators in providing constant surveillance

to the players and verifying their tasks through video clips and the eventual demand

made to the players to commit suicide24 reflect to a common nefarious design to commit

the offence of abetment under sec. 306 of Indiana Penal Code.

20. Furthermore, the format of the game so as to make the players addicted to it and then

trap them in the game with the assistance of administrators with the final level crafted

to directly and expressly provoke the players to commit suicide25 also reflects to the

agreement between the CBS company and the administrators. It portrays their common

design and common intention.

21. Therefore, the CBS company conspired with the administrators to commit the offence

of criminal conspiracy under sec. 120B of the Indiana Penal Code.

II. That the State of Dignity has not violated the rights of the petitioner under Art.

14, 19 (1)(a) and 19(1)(g) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana.

22. It is humbly submitted that the state of Dignity has not violated the rights of the

petitioner under Art. 14,26 19 (1)(a)27 and 19(1)(g) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of

Indiana28 as, [A] It is not in violation of Art, 14 read with Art. 21 of Constitution of

Indiana, [B] It is not in violation of Art. 19(1)(a) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of

Indiana, [C] It is not in violation of Art. 19(1)(g)29 read with Art. 21 of Constitution of

Indiana.

A. It is not in violation of Art, 14 read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana

23. Art. 14 gives equality before law and equal protection of law and same should not

deprive one’s personal liberty except procedures established by law. Three conditions

24
Moot Problem, ¶ 2.
25
Moot Problem, ¶ 3.
26
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
27
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a).
28
Judicial Accountability: Watching the Watchmen, (2011) 5 SCC J-1.
29
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(g).

5
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

must be satisfied for depriving (1) there must be a law; (2) it should lay down a

procedure; and (3) the executive should follow this procedure while depriving a person

of his life or personal liberty30.

24. Furthermore, for satisfying condition (1), IT Act, 2000 deals with this situation for

blocking information for public which can lead to incitement to commit any cognizable

offence. For (2), it is well established that IT Act, 2000 is substantial and procedural

law. Moreover, IT (Blocking) Rules, 2009 deal with procedure under which a ban can

be exercised. For (3), Following such rule government had issued notice to them under

rule 8(1) of the said act.

25. Information may be blocked u/s 69A (1)31 when it is necessary and expedient for

preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence. Furthermore, an

opportunity to hearing also may not be given under Rule 9 (2) of IT Rules, 200932 in

case of emergency.

26. In the present case, even school going children aged between 10-12 years of age were

found committing suicide and the public at large had open access to this game which

made it a direct threat to their lives and hence a situation of emergency can be construed

to have been arose and hence the refusal to hear is good in the eyes of law.

B. It is not in violation of Art. 19(1)(a) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana.

27. Art. 19(1)(a) talks about Freedom of speech and expression. This right is not absolute

and is subject to restrictions under Art. 19(2).33 No person shall be deprived of his

personal liberty except according to the procedures established by law. India might not

30
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88.
31
The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 69A(1), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
32
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public)
Rules, 2009, Rule 9(2).
33
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 2.

6
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

have adopted the American concept of the “due process of law”, nevertheless, the

procedure established by law should be fair and just, reasonable, and not be arbitrary34.

28. Restrictions imposed by Art. 19(2) are upheld by courts as in this situation the

restriction is justified as the game leads to incitement to commit an offence u/s 306 and

120B of IPC. So, it is not in violation of Art. 19(1)(a) read with Art. 21 of Constitution

of Indiana.

C. It is not in violation of Art. 19(1)(g) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana.

29. Art. 19(1)(g) provides for the fundamental right of the citizens to practice any

profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The restrictions envisaged

in Clause (6) of Article 1935 besides being reasonable should also be in the interest of

general public36. The prevention of suicides is in interest of general public.

30. The rights under Article 19(1)(a) to (g) in a way represent the claims of the individual.

But the claims of the individual have been made subject to the claims of the society or

State or other individuals. So, the limitations imposed under Article 19(2) to (6) protect

the claims of the society or State or other individuals37.

31. The right to life under Art. 2138 of huge users is more important than the petitioner’s

right under Art. 19(1)(g), so it will be just to save the life of users and it is not in

violation of Art. 19(1)(g) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana.

III. That the imposition of ban on the application “White Whale” u/s 69A of

Information Technology Act is constitutionally valid.

32. It is humbly submitted that the ban is constitutional as, [A] ban is not arbitrary and

discriminatory under article 14 of Indian constitution, [B] it is within reasonable

34
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
35
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 6.
36
Y.P. Singh (Dr.) v. State of U.P., 1982 SCC OnLine All 330.
37
Id.
38
INDIA CONST. art. 19.

7
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

restrictions under article 19 of Indian constitution and [C] it is necessary or expedient

to do so for preventing incitement to cognizable offence u/s 69A of Information

Technology Act, 2000.

A. The ban is not arbitrary and discriminatory under article 14.

33. Principles of reasonableness and rationality are essential elements of non-arbitrariness

and must characterise every State action39. An act which is discriminatory is liable to

be labelled as arbitrary under article 1440. Reasonableness has to be determined having

regard to the nature of right alleged to be infringed, purpose of the restriction, extent of

restriction and other relevant factors41.

34. Moreover, the restriction can be justified in this situation. The game is competitive and

addictive. The developers state that they aimed target users above 18 but did nothing in

pursuance of that target and hence it failed as now the game is being played by children

as well and they have been found committing suicides42. So, it is grave situation for

‘The State of Dignity’. The fact that the object of the game is to embolden the user for

decision taking ability does not seem to be feasible as users have become addictive and

competitive43 for completing the levels as soon as possible and for that purpose, they

have been found to be committing suicide in the manner prescribed by the ‘White

Whale’ game44.

35. Also, the game doesn’t provide for any checks and balances measure in order to rectify

the users in order to make them competent persons45, it raises a negative presumption

to their objective.

39
(1979) 3 SCC 489.
40
State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli, (2012) 6 SCC 312.
41
Christian Medical College Vellore Assn. v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 705.
42
Moot Problem, ¶ 3.
43
Moot Problem, ¶ 2.
44
Moot Problem, ¶ 2.
45
Moot Problem, ¶ 3.

8
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

36. Furthermore, in their reply the petitioner has said, “one must be decisive whether to

commit suicide when once provoked or not that is to be call of the player”46. So, in the

cases of suicide it is quite apparent they are being provoked by the game per se. Also

explicitly asked them to commit suicide knowing that game has become competitive

and addictive, so there is an incentive created by game for them to commit suicide and

be the one to complete all the levels47.

37. This situation is totally different from that of person committing suicide for various

reasons either by hanging to a tree or ceiling fan or poisoning oneself or even many of

the times brides are burnt by themselves48.

38. As, government has not explicitly asked them to commit suicide and also the

government had left no incentive for committing suicide as attempt to commit suicide

is an offence u/s 309 of IPC.49 The incentive to commit suicide is apparent is in the case

of petitioner, so there exists an intelligible differentia50 to ban this application.

B. It is within reasonable restrictions under article 19.

39. It is well settled that the rights under Articles 19(1)(a) &(g) are not absolute in terms

but are subject to reasonable restrictions under clauses 19(2) & 19(6). The exercise that

is required to be undertaken is the balancing of fundamental right to carry on occupation

on the one hand and the restrictions imposed on the other hand51. This is what is known

as 'Doctrine of Proportionality'52.

40. There are three important components of a proportionality test. First is that the measures

adopted must be rationally connected to the objective53. Second, the means should

46
Moot Problem, ¶ 3.
47
Moot Problem, ¶ 1.
48
Moot Problem, ¶ 4.
49
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 309, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,1860 (India).
50
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper (Banks Nationalisation) v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248.
51
Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59.
52
Commr. of Police v. Syed Hussain, (2006) 3 SCC 173.
53
Akshay N. Patel v. RBI, (2022) 3 SCC 694.

9
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question54. Third, there must be a

proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting

the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of

“sufficient importance”55. The freedom to practice any profession or any trade, business

or occupation over the medium of the internet is protected by Article 19(1)(a) and

Article 19(1)(g), but with specified restrictions56.

41. Moreover, ban can be reasonable if there is some intelligible differentia or

distinguishing features between two groups57. In this case the petitioner trying to

inculcate decision making and their competency by giving them unlawful task has no

reasonable means to grow these skills in users at this early stage while being in

addiction and competition to finish the levels. It has already led to an alarming situation

where children are committing suicide58. So, such kind of fraudulent emboldening at

the stake of nation’s building block, i.e., children and youth is not justified. So, in this

case banning was totally justified as the treatment by petitioner has no rational

connection with the object59.

42. Hence, all the three conditions of the “Doctrine of Proportionality” are fulfilled. 1st- by

banning the application so that the children are not instigated by them to commit

suicide. 2nd- the action has been taken without impairing the rights or freedom, as the

right under Articles 19(1)(a) &(g) are not absolute they should be read along with the

reasonable restrictions under clauses (2) & (6)60. 3rd- The user’s life was saved by

imposing restrictions and the objective to save the life is of sufficient importance as

54
Christian Medical College Vellore Assn. v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 705.
55
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2013) 14 SCC 241.
56
AIR 2020 SC 1308 [1]s
57
Association of Hospitals v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2011 SCC OnLine APTEL
159.
58
Moot Problem, ¶ 3
59
Epari Chinna Krishna Moorthy v. State of Orissa, (1964) 7 SCR 185.
60
M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt., (1998) 8 SCC 227.

10
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

compared to the object of game to embolden decision making and competence in their

life with huge happening risks.

C. It is necessary or expedient to do so for preventing incitement to cognizable offence u/s

69A of IT Act, 2002.

43. As already established in Issue- I that the petitioner has committed offences under

sections 120B and 306 of IPC. The section 306 is a cognizable one and in 120B the

object of conspiracy is serious and heinous, so such an act is cognizable one. As the

game was being played at many places, the crime was also being committed. The huge

numbers of users reflect upon the conspiracy of a very large dimension which must fall

under serious and heinous category of crimes and if let unattended, will threaten life of

general public and children at large.

44. Furthermore, they have large base of users which is why it has become so urgent to

take measures against this application as the sufferers are belong to the adolescent stage,

they are vulnerable to such measures while in rage of certain moments or for achieving

the last level in order to become champion, they are not mature enough to know the

consequences of the action done by them. This is the growing stage of their lives in

which they should be accompanied by their teachers, guardians and parents in decision

making and competency61, who can rectify it and maintain check and balances

efficiently.

45. In this case there is no chance to rectify and make them the desired one by petitioner,

as if the user commits suicide at last then everything goes in vain. If they will survive,

they might at later stage be emboldened with such skills, here, there exists no

opportunity to rectify. The philosophy seems to be that ‘be a competent one or else die.’

So, the ban is justified under this ground.

61
Moot Problem, ¶ 3.

11
Memorial for Respondents
 FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that:

i. CBS is guilty of abetment of suicide and conspiring with the administrators under

section 306 and section 120B of the Indiana Penal Code respectively.

ii. There has been no violation of the rights of petitioner enshrined under Art. 14, 19(1)(a)

and 19(1)(g) read with Art. 21 of Constitution of Indiana by the State of Dignity.

iii. The imposition of ban on the application “White Whale” u/s 69A of Information

Technology Act is constitutionally valid.

And issue any other, writ or direction in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

This, the Counsel for the Respondent shall duty bound, forever pray.

Counsel for Respondents.

xii
Memorial for Respondnets