Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Best Team Memorial Petitioners Slcu National Moot 13 2023
Best Team Memorial Petitioners Slcu National Moot 13 2023
School of Law
Christ (Deemed to be University)
Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Union of Kennedy
In the Matters of
Writ Petition No : 172 of 2022
Socialistic Liberal Party … Petitioner;
Versus
Union of Kennedy … Respondent.
With
Civil Appeal No : 153 of 2022
Bluetick … Appellant;
Versus
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal …
Respondent.
And
Writ Petition No : 102 of 2022
Opposition Party … Petitioner;
Versus
Union of Kennedy … Respondent.
Memorial on Behalf of Petitioners
-TABLE OF CONTENTS-
-TABLE OF CONTENTS- I
-LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS- III
-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- IV
-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION- VIII
-STATEMENT OF FACTS- IX
-STATEMENT OF ISSUES- XI
-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS- XII
-ARGUMENTS ADVANCED- 1
I. That Sections 8, 18, 19 and 22 of the 1
Digital Personal Data Protection Act,
2022 is violative of Fundamental
Rights enshrined in the Constitution of
Union of Kennedy
A. Section 8 is violative of Fundamental 1
Rights
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Govt. Government
HC High Court
Hon'ble Honourable
Ltd. Limited
MP Madhya Pradesh
NCLAT National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal
No. Number
Ors Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Supp Supplement
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
v. Versus
-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-
SUPREME COURT CASES
1. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’, (1998) 8 SCC 296 11
2. AGM v. Radhey Shaym Pandey, (2020) 6 SCC 13
438
3. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 3, 10
SCC 637
4. Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 11
397
5. Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 7 10
SCC 59
6. Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of 10
UP., (1982) 1 SCC 39
7. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation 13
Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156 :
AIR 1986 SC 1571
8. Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. 1
Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 752
9. Directorate of Revenue v. Mohd. NisarHolia, 6
(2008) 2 SCC 370
10. District Registrar & Collector v. Canara 12
Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496
11. District Registrar and Collector v. Canara 3
Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496
12. Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 11
3 SCR 946
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-
The Petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Union
of Kennedy under Article 32 of Constitution of Union of Kennedy.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Union of Kennedy reads as follows-
Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this
Part:
(1) The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The SC shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto 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 SC by clause
(1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to
exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the
powers exercisable by the SC under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended
except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
The Appellant has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Union
of Kennedy under Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002.
Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002 reads as follows-
§ 53T. Appeal to Supreme Court. —The Central Government or
any State Government or the Commission or any statutory authority
or any local authority or any enterprise or any person aggrieved by
any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to
the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of communication
of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to them:
Provided that the Supreme court may, if it is satisfied that the
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal
within the said period, allow it to be filed after the expiry of the
said period of sixty days.
-STATEMENT OF FACTS-
-BACKGROUND-
The Union of Kennedy gained its independence in 1947 and
embarked on the journey by making a Constitution and bestowing upon
its citizens fundamental rights, standing on the pillars of justice,
equality and liberty. Meanwhile, two parties rose to prominence : NPP, a
predominantly right-wing party and Socialistic Liberal Party,
representing the minority population.
In 2018, NPP won the elections by a majority and formed
Government at the Centre. Within several years, at least three non-NPP
-ruled State Governments were toppled due to the defection of
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
has been active since April 2021. Dementor was allowed by Bluetick to
collect and store the personal data of its users to predict behaviour
patterns. Suspicion was cast on the ruling party NPP, if it had availed
the services of Dementor during the elections.
-GOVERNMENT RESPONSE-
To pacify the public, the Government introduced the Digital Personal
Data Protection Bill, 2022. Subsequently, in December 2022 medical
data breach occurred and all the private medical information of the
patients was leaked. The government after being blamed disregarded
the responsibility it had and the above-mentioned Act was questioned.
-CONNECTED PETITIONS & APPEAL-
Acanti filed an Appeal at the Supreme Court of Union of Kennedy
against the order of NCLAT. The Opposition Party filed a Writ Petition
against the Government for failing to protect the rights of its citizens
and using unethical and illegal means to secure power.
SLP, wanting to hold the government liable for the breach, filed a
Writ Petition in the Supreme Court of Union of Kennedy alleging that
the leak of medical data happened due to the negligence of the
Government.
The Supreme Court took notice of several interconnected matters
that were filed before the Hon'ble Court & took Suo motu cognizance of
the Open Editorial letter dated 26 July 2022 and connected all three
matters.
-STATEMENT OF ISSUES-
ISSUE - I
Whether Section 8, 18, 19 and 22 of the Digital Personal Data
Protection Act, 2022 is violative of Fundamental Rights enshrined in the
Constitution of Union of Kennedy?
ISSUE - II
Whether the Government violated the Fundamental Rights laid down in
the Constitution of Union of Kennedy by employing the Unicorn
software?
ISSUE - III
Whether bluetick should have made available an opt-out of sharing
data with the parent company option without having users to let go of
their services?
ISSUE - IV
Whether the terms and conditions of the recent update by Bluetick
violate the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002?
-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-
ISSUE - I
That Sections 8, 18, 19 and 22 of the Digital Personal Data
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced
before the court/tribunal earlier.26 The board has been given the power
of review without any reasonable guidelines or due process or due
process which is against fundamental rights.
II. THAT THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS LAID DOWN IN THE CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF
KENNEDY BY EMPLOYING THE UNICORN SOFTWARE
¶26. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the Union
of Kennedy has violated the fundamental rights of the targets of this
spyware attack and periled their rights as there is (A) Violation of Right
to Privacy under Article 21 and (B) Gross Violation of Article 19 of
Constitution of Union of Kennedy.
A. Violation of Right to Privacy under Article 21
¶27. The government has violated Article 21 guaranteed under Part
III of the Constitution. The following is elaborated through a three-fold
argument as laid in the Puttaswamy.27 It is submitted that “right to
privacy” is emanating from the two expressions of the Preamble
namely, “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship” and
“Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual” and emanating from
Article 19(1)(a) and further, emanating from Article 19(1)(d) and
lastly, from the expression “personal liberty” under Article 21.28
¶28. The judgment held that the right to privacy may be restricted
where such invasion meets the three-fold requirement. The criteria are
as follows (1) Existence of law to justify encroachment on privacy, (2)
Existence of a legitimate state aim and (3) Existence of proportionality
between the means and objects.
1. Existence of law to justify encroachment on privacy or
Legality
¶29. The first requirement is that there must be a law in existence
to justify an encroachment on privacy is an express requirement of
Article 21. The government periled on the right to privacy of people
without any lawful justification or reason, or without any legal basis or
rationality, whatsoever.29 It is submitted that it is clear that a law does
not exist to justify encroachment, further this infringement violates
other existing laws. The statutes being violated are (A) Sections 5, 6,
7, 12 of the DPDP Act, (B) Sections 43, 69 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act) and (C)
Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
(a) SECTIONS 5, 6, 7, 12 OF THE DPDP ACT
¶30. Section 530 of the DPDP Act states that there should exist a
lawful purpose for processing of data which is clearly absent in the
case. Additionally, Section 631 of the act provides that this should be
provided and notified in a clear and plain in language before the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 17 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection of data, the same has not been done in this instant case.
¶31. Similarly, Section 732 of the DPDP Act provides that consent of
the data fiduciary is necessary before collecting data, as the Spyware
was downloaded onto a mobile device even without the user's
knowledge which subsequently compromised the user's privacy.33
¶32. Section 1234 of the act provides for Right to Information about
personal data to the data principal, wherein the data principal has the
right to have the information regarding collection and processing of the
personal data which is conspicuously absent in the instant case.35
(b) SECTIONS 43, 69 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT , 2000
¶33. Usage of military-grade technology (unicorn), on a smartphone,
which falls within the definitions of ‘computer’ and ‘computer system’
as under Section 2 of the IT Act, violates Sections 43(a)36 , 43(b)37 , 43
(c)38 and 43(d)39 of the IT Act, as it involves accessing a
computer/computer system by introducing a ‘contaminant’ or ‘virus’;
damaging the device and extracting data without permission of the
owner of the device.40
¶34. Unicorn therefore is a ‘computer virus’/‘contaminant’ as under
the IT Act as it is designed to attach itself to a targeted device, modify,
record and transmit data from the target device. Section 69 bestows
the government the power to issue directions for interception or
monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer
resource.41
¶35. However, on perusal of Section 69(2) of the IT Act, the usage
of the term “such interception or monitoring or decryption may be
carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed”42 indicates that a due
procedure should be followed, which is missing in the apparent case
and rather arbitrary.
(c) SECTION 5 OF THE TELEGRAPH ACT , 1885
¶36. The use of Unicorn spyware ‘goes much beyond’ the
interception, monitoring and decrypting of messages which is allowable
under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Moreover, the same shall
only be possible vide an ‘order’.43
2. Existence of a Legitimate State aim
¶37. A legitimate state aim is an essential for such a violation to be
legally valid, however no such aim or object can be made out.
Evidently, there are legal and legitimate reasons why phone tapping
can be permitted, howbeit, same cannot be found in the instant case.
¶38. Phone tapping is authorized by Rule 419A of the Indian
Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2007,44 which authorizes such type of
surveillance only for the purpose of public Safety.45 The expression
“Public Safety” means the State of freedom from danger for the people
at large.46
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 18 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
such data and the same was observed in Karmanya Singh Sareen v.
UOI.86
3. The policy is compliant of General Obligations
¶65. It is humbly submitted that the privacy policy is compliant of
General Obligations as (A) It is compliant of Section 9(6) and (B) it
fulfils the reasonable Expectation of Privacy.
(a) THE POLICY IS COMPLAINT TO SECTION 9(6)
¶66. Section 9(6) provides that a Data Fiduciary must cease to
retain personal data, as soon as it is reasonable to assume that : (a)
the purpose for which such personal data was collected is no longer
being served by its retention and (b) retention is no longer necessary
for legal or business purposes.87
¶67. In accordance with section 9(6), Clause 6 of the privacy policy
provides that if a user deletes her account, Acanti will delete the
personal data that is no longer needed to operate or provide Services.
Further, clause 3 provides that third-party service providers and other
Bluetick companies in the capacity of Data processors who use data on
Acanti's behalf are subject to the Privacy policy of Acanti while handling
such data. Hence, in case an account is deleted, Acanti's data
processors are liable to follow clause 6 and delete all personal data.
(b) REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
¶68. Section 9(3) & (4) require a Data Fiduciary shall implement
appropriate technical and organizational measures to ensure effective
adherence with the provisions of the Act and every Data Fiduciary and
Data Processor shall protect personal data in its possession or under its
control by taking reasonable security safeguards to prevent personal
data breach.88
¶69. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court identified nine types
of privacy, including “communicational privacy which is reflected in
enabling an individual to restrict access to communications or control
the use of information which is communicated to third parties.”89 Users
thus possess a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”90
¶70. Acanti in accordance with these provisions and the spirit of
“reasonable expectation of privacy” of users has adopted end-to-end
encryption for their services.91 End-to-end encryption means that users
messages are encrypted to protect against Acanti itself and third
parties from reading or sharing them. Acanti thus enables users to
exercise their right to freedom of speech and expression without fear of
retaliation.
IV. THAT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE RECENT UPDATE BY
BLUETICK DO NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPETITION ACT ,
2022
¶71. It is most humbly submitted that the terms and conditions of
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 23 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 8(6), No. __, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).
4 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 8(7), No. __, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).
5 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 8(8), No. __, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).
6
M. Venugopal Reddy v. Trans Union CIBIL Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine CCI 100.
7
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
8 The issues with ‘deemed consent’ for credit scoring : Issues considered, MEDIANAMA (Jan
13, 2023), https://www.medianama.com/2023/01/223-deemed-consent-credit-scoring-data-
protection-bill-2022/.
10
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87.
13 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241; District Registrar and Collector v.
Canara Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496.
14
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 18(2), No. __, Acts of Parliament, 2022
(India).
16
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
18
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
20
Sri Vasunathan v. The Registrar General, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 424.
23
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 19(3), No. __, Acts of Parliament, 2022
(India).
25 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87; K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3
SCC 655.
26
S. Madhusudan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 SCC Online SC 1034; Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1955) 1 SCR 520.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 28 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; N.S. NAPPINAI,
TECHNOLOGY LAWS DECODED, Lexis Nexis 2017.
28 Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., (1964) 1 SCR 332; M Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8
SCC 212; Directorate of Revenue v. Mohd. Nisar Holia, (2008) 2 SCC 370.
29
Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737.
30 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 5, No. __, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).
31
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 6, No. __, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).
32
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 7, No. __, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).
34 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 12, No. __, Acts of Parliament, 2022 (India).
35
Registrar of Companies v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3263.
36 Information Technology Act, 2000, § 43(a), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
37 Information Technology Act, 2000, § 43(b), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
38
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 43(c), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
39 Information Technology Act, 2000, § 43(d), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
40
Rahul Chowdhary v. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 2387.
41
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 69, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
42
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 69(2), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
43 Telegraph Act, 1885, § 5, No. 13, Acts of Parliament, 1885 (India); State of Maharashtra
v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 SCC 5.
44
Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2007, Rule 419A, Department of Telecommunications,
2007 (India).
45 Telegraph Act, 1885, § 5(2), No. 13, Acts of Parliament, 1885 (India).
46 People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301.
47
Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, (2011) 1 SCC 496; State of Madras
v. V.G. Row, (1952) 1 SCC 410 : 1952 SCR 597.
48 Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 1; R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1
SCC 248 : AIR 1970 SC 564.
50
INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(a).
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 29 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)(P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.
52 People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301.
53
INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(d).
56
Moot Proposition, ¶ 12.
58
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
59
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353.
60 Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59; Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v.
State of U.P., (1982) 1 SCC 39.
62
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018).
63 R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1970 SC 564; Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
64 Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCR 946; R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.,
(1994) 6 SCC 632; PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301; ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’, (1998) 8 SCC
296; Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493; Manoj Narula v. UOI, (2014) 9 SCC 1; Asha
Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397.
65
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; 2nd Ed. VINOD DHALL,
COMPETITION LAW TODAY : CONCEPTS, ISSUES, AND THE LAW IN PRACTICE, Oxford
University Press 2019.
66 Moot Proposition, ¶ 7.
67 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 2(5), No. __, Acts of Parliament, (India).
68 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 13, No. __, Acts of Parliament, (India).
69 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 7, No. __, Acts of Parliament, (India).
71 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; District Registrar &
Collector v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496.
73
Orange România SA v. Autoritatea Naţională, (2020) C-61/19, Court of Justice of the EU;
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 30 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74 Olly Jackson, Businesses Retreating from Consent Under GDPR, International Financial Law
Review, (2018), https://www.proquest.com/docview/2035197430.
75 Annexure 2, cl. 1.
77
Annexure 2, cl. 6.
78 Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC
156 : AIR 1986 SC 1571.
79 Lilly White v. Mannu Swami, AIR 1966 Mad 13; AGM v. Radhey Shaym Pandey, (2020) 6
SCC 438.
80 M.P., Ram Mohan and Murugavelu, Promode and Ray, Gaurav and Jain, Anmol, Indian Law
on Standard Form Contracts, 62 JILI (2020) 413, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3892293.
81 Mark Taylor and Jeannie Paterson, Protecting Privacy in India : The Roles of Consent and
Fairness in Data Protection, 16.1 IJLT (2020) 71, https://www.ijlt.in/journal/protecting-
privacy-in-india%3A-the-roles-of-consent-and- fairness-in-data-protection.
82
Annexure 2.
83 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 7(4), No. __, Acts of Parliament, (India).
84 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 8(9), No. __, Acts of Parliament, (India).
85 Annexure 2, cl. 2.
87 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 9(6), No. __, Acts of Parliament, (India).
88 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, § 9(3) & (4), No. __, Acts of Parliament,
(India).
90 Cochin Institute of Science & Technology v. Jisin Jijo, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1800; Charles
Katz v. United States, 1967 SCC OnLine US SC 248.
91 Annexure 2, cl. 1.
92 The Competition Act, 2002, § 2(r), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
93 The Competition Act, 2002, § 19(4), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
94 The Competition Act, 2002, § 4, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
95 The Competition Act, 2002, § 19(5), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
96
The Competition Act, 2002, § 2(t), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 31 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
97
United Brands Co. v. Commission, 1978 ECR 207, (ECJ); Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v.
Commission, 1979 ECR 461, (ECJ); US in Berkey Photo v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F. 2d 263
(1979).
98 Moot Proposition, ¶ 7.
100 Exclusive Motors (P) Ltd. v. Automobili Lamborghini SPA, (2014) 121 CLA 230 (CAT); Shri
Pravahan Mohanty v. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Card Services Division of the HDFC Bank, Case No.
17 of 2010 (CCI).
101 Ramakant Kini v. Dr. L.H. Hiranandani Hospital, 2014 SCC OnLine CCI 15; Belaire Owner's
Association v. DLF Limited, 2011 SCC OnLine CCI 89; Manoj K. Sheth v. National Stock
Exchange of India Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine CCI 38; M/s HNG Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v.
Competition Commission of India, 2014 Comp LR 304.
102
William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, Market Power in Antitrust Cases, 94 Harv. L. Rev.
937 (1981), https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2551&context=journal_articles.
104 ABIR ROY, COMPETITION LAW IN INDIA : A PRACTICAL GUIDE (2nd ed. 2016).
105 Sunil Bansal v. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., 2015 Comp LR 1009 (CCI).
107 Fast Track Call Cabs (P) Ltd. v. CCI, 2016 SCC OnLine Comp AT 89.
108
Moot Proposition, ¶ 11.
109 Kapoor Glass (India) Private Limited v. Schott Glass India Private Limited, 2012 SCC
OnLine CCI 16.
111
The Competition Act, 2002, § 4(2)(a)(i), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
113 Jupiter Gaming Solutions Private Limited v. Government of Goa, (2012) 106 CLA 339
(CCI).
114 Sunil Bansal v. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., 2015 Comp LR 1009 (CCI).
115 MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. v. NSE India Ltd, Case No. 13/2009 (CCI).
116 MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. v. NSE India Ltd, Case No. 13/2009 (CCI).
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 32 Monday, January 22, 2024
Printed For: Sanika Sunil, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
117 Marina Lao, No-Fault Digital Platform Monopolization, 61 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 755 (2020),
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol61/iss3/4.
120
Moot Proposition, ¶ 7.
121 Collis, David, Ashley Hartman and Aakash Mehta, $19B 4 txt app WhatsApp…omg!,
HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL Case 715-441, (January 2015),
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=48458.
123
Vinod Gupta v. WhatsApp, Case No. 99 of 2016, (CCI).
124 The Competition Act, 2002, § 2(r), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
125
The Essential Facilities Concept, OECD,
http://www.oecd.org/competition/abuse/1920021.pdf; United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n
of St. Louis, 224 US 383 (1912).
126
MCI Communications Corporation v. AT&T, 708 F. 2d 1081, 1132 (7th Cir. 1983).
127 Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd (ARIL) v. Ministry of Railways, (2013) 112 CLA 297 (CCI).
128
Shamsher Kataria (Informant) v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd, 2014 Comp LR 1 (CCI).
129
Moot Proposition, ¶ 11.
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.