Professional Documents
Culture Documents
T12P
T12P
In The Matter Of -
CLUBBED WITH
CLUBBED WITH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................1
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................................................8
ISSUES RAISED......................................................................................................................10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................................11
ARGUMENT ADVANCED........................................................................................................13
[ A ] The instant writ petition made by howsapp and quitter is admissible for
adjudication under Article 32...........................................................................................13
[ B ] Whether writ petition filed by the dominian challenging the order of the learned
additional sessions judge (ld. Asj) is maintainable...........................................................14
[ B ] The it rules infringe on the right to privacy guaranteed under article 21..............16
PRAYER..............................................................................................................................22
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ Paragraph
§ Section
Art. Article
Inc. Incorporation
Ltd. Limited
v. versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors 2020 (81)
PTC 399 (Del)..........................................................................................................................19
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, (2020) 5
SCC 481,..................................................................................................................................16
Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. AIR 2017 SC
4525..........................................................................................................................................18
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr . 2018 SCC OnLine Del
14406........................................................................................................................................19
Kent RO Ltd & Anr. Vs. Amit Kotak & Ors, 2017 (69) PTC 551 (Del).................................21
MySpace Inc v Super Cassettes Industries Ltd 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6382: (2017) 69 PTC
..................................................................................................................................................20
ARTICLES
Guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on E-Commerce, Press Note No. 3 (2016
Series), dated 9 March 2016....................................................................................................20
Mukul Sharma, Ishita Khandelwal, Sanchit Garg & Astha Tambi, Safe Harbour
Protection for E-Commerce.....................................................................................................20
Review of the Policy on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in e-commerce, Press Note No.
2 (2018 Series), dated 26 December 2018 (FDI Guidelines - 2018 Series).............................20
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Ravis
under article 32 read with article 142 of the constitution of republic of ravis.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
The Republic of Ravis, a sovereign nation in South Asia, emerged from British colonial rule
in 1947 alongside the creation of the Republic of Freman. It is a diverse nation with a rich
cultural, linguistic, and ethnic tapestry, comprising of 80% Hindus, 15% Muslims, and 5%
other minority groups. Recent census data reveals that Republic of Ravis is home to
approximately 30.4 million Dinkoists, representing 2.7% of the population. The majority of
Dinkoists, around 20 million, reside in the northern state of Kaziranga, constituting 60% of
the state's population. Post-independence, a movement advocating for an independent
autonomous Dinkoist State emerged but eventually waned. However, the movement regained
momentum recently, particularly amongst the Dinkoist diaspora in Republic of Caladan,
home to the largest national Dinkoist population (2.1%). The resurgence of the movement for
an independent Dinkoist State has led to heightened tensions between Republic of Ravis and
Republic of Caladan. Instances of hate crimes targeting people of Ravisian descent in
Republic of Caladan have been reported, including the tragic deaths of Ravisian students.
Quiter Inc. and HowsApp Inc. are prominent social media intermediaries operating in
Republic of Ravis. Quiter boasts over 200 million active users across the country, facilitating
public discourse and conversation. HowsApp, with over 400 million users in Republic of
Ravis, offers end-to-end encrypted messaging and calling services, prioritizing user privacy
and security. Recently amidst the rising tensions the Government of Republic of Ravis
alleges that certain social media accounts on Quiter and HowsApp are spreading anti-
Republic of Ravis propaganda, provocative content, and misinformation. These accounts,
believed to be operated from territories backed by Republic of Caladan, pose a threat to
public order and sovereignty.
In 2020 the Government of Republic of Ravis in response to the misuse of social media
platforms, issued an Office Memorandum-I under Section 69A the IT Act which directed
Quiter to permanently remove accounts spreading anti-Republic of Ravis propaganda. The
same year the Government of Republic of Ravis also issued an Office Memorandum-II on
similar lines under section 69A IT Act to HowsApp to break its encryption and reveal the
identities of individuals spreading secessionist ideas.
Subsequently, in and around May 2021, the Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology, Republic of Ravis, introduced the Information Technology (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021). These rules
mandated social media intermediaries to remove objectionable content and enable the
identification of the first originator of information. However, the introduction of IT Rules
2021 was met with resistance from social media intermediaries and in April 2023, HowsApp
filed a writ petition under article 226 of Constitution of Republic of Ravis challenging the
validity of the IT Rules 2021 on the grounds that it violates the fundamental right to privacy
and freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Articles 19 by enabling the
identification of the first originator of the information in Republic of Ravis and Article 21 of
the Constitution of Republic of Ravis of more than 400 million HowsApp users in Ravis and
is also ultra vires, the IT Act.
In May 2023, Quiter also challenged the vires of IT Rules 2021 along with Office
Memorandum-I on the ground that it gives the government the power to demand takedowns
of any content deemed objectionable and dilutes Quiter’s identity of being a platform that
welcomes all manner of political debate.
Both these petitions were dismissed by the High court of Kemp without a speaking order and
thus, Quiter and HowsApp independently moved a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Republic of Ravis challenging the vires of IT Rules 2021 on same grounds as
before High Court.
Meanwhile in April 2023 in a separate legal proceeding, e-commerce platform Dominian
found itself unfairly targeted in a trial related to an offense under the Ravisian Penal Code,
1860, and Arms Act, 1959. On April 5, 2023, the accused allegedly used a knife purchased
from Dominian to cause injuries. After finishing the investigation, the Police filed the
chargesheet designating Mankad as an accused party while the trial was still in progress;
Dominian was not named as an accused party. Through the Order, the Ld. ASJ gave police
instructions to look into Dominian's involvement in the crime and add its name to the
chargesheet. However, Dominian contests this order, asserting its exemption from liability
under Section 79(2)(c) of the IT Act as an intermediary.
Given the interconnected nature of these legal issues and the far-reaching implications for
fundamental rights and democratic values, the Supreme Court of Ravis has rightfully
consolidated the writ petitions challenging the validity of IT Rules 2021 with Dominian's
petition.
ISSUES RAISED
II. WHETHER THE IT RULES, 2021 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ULTRA VIRES?
THE IT ACT, CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR FACILITATING THE PURCHASE OF A KNIFE
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION MADE BY HOWSAPP AND QUITTER IS ADMISSIBLE FOR
ADJUDICATION UNDER ARTICLE 32
[¶2] It is submitted that both Howsapp and Quitter had previously filed under
Article 2262 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ravis challenging the vires of IT
Rules.3 The same was dismissed without a speaking order and thus aggrieved by such
a dismissal the two intermediaries moved to the Supreme Court under Article 32. 4 In
the case of Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi5it has been held that the Supreme
Court in a case which has been dismissed without a speaking order in a suitable case
entertains the application before itself. 6 The judgement states how there is no short
period of limitation prescribed for Fundamental Rights lest they be frustrated and how
in a suitable case the Supreme Court may entertain a petition after a lapse of time.
[¶3] In the case of Daryao v. State of U.P. 7 it has been held that, “when a petition
1
INDIA CONST., Art. 32.
2
INDIA CONST., Art. 226
3
Moot Proposition, ¶ 16.
4
INDIA CONST. art. 32.
5
Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110.
6
Ibid.
7
Daryao v. State of U.P. 1961 AIR 1457.
under, Article 226 is dismissed not on the merits but because of laches on the party
applying for the writ or because an alternative remedy is available to him, such
dismissal is no bar to the subsequent petition under Article 32 except in cases where
the facts found by, we High Court might themselves be relevant under Article 32.”
[¶4] It is submitted that the petition has been filed in 2023 owing to two major
factors, firstly as per the circular of the Supreme Court dated 20 th April 2021, only
matters of urgency were being taking up owing to the global pandemic of COVID-
19.8 The circular explicitly listed Fresh matters as those that shall not be treated as
matters of urgency. Quitter and HowsApp being leading pioneers of the digital world
were going through the IT Rules, 2021 with a fine-tooth comb before raising these
heavy contentions while also going through the updated versions which came out in
both 20229 as well as 202310 before finally submitting the same before the Hon’ble
Court
[¶5] The Writ Petition is thus maintainable under Article 32 11 of the Constitution of
Republic of Ravis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE DOMINIAN CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE
8
Supreme Court of India, F. No. /Judl.(I)/2021 (issued on 20th April, 2021).
9
Notification dated 28 October 2022, https://www.meity.gov.in/content/notification-dated-28th-october-2022-
gsr-794e-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines (last visited February 1, 2024).
10
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023,
Acts of Parliament, 2023.
11
INDIA CONST., Art. 32.
12
State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed, 1994 SCC (2) 664.
13
Moot Proposition, ¶ 19.
14
INDIA CONST., Art. 19.
15
Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P., (1974) 4 SCC 788.
16
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
17
Moot Proposition, ¶ 13.
18
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632.
encryption provides the users with a safe space allowing them to communicate at
liberty, enabling the identification of the first originator of information in Republic of
Ravis on HowsApp breaks end-to-end encryption and restricts this freedom.
Individuals will not feel safe to speak freely as they shall now fear that private
interactions will be used against them and this defeats the intent of the creation of
such a Fundamental Right.
[ ¶ 12 ] Lastly, there has been no express valid law passed by the Parliament
authorizing this infringement upon the fundamental right of speech and expression. In
Bishan Das and Others v. State of Punjab,19 it has been held that any infringement
on a fundamental right must be backed by law. Accordingly, IT Rules, 2021 should be
struck down owing to their unconstitutional violation of the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression.
19
Bishan Das and Others v. State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1570.
20
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2015) 10 SCC 92.
21
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2015) 10 SCC 92.
22
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
23
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2015) 10 SCC 92.
28
Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of H.P., (2000) 3 SCC 40.
29
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637.
30
Moot Proposition, ¶ 10.
31
School Managing Comm. Amaramunda Gov’t Primary Sch. v. State of Odisha, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 474.
32
Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. AIR 2017 SC 4525.
33
The Information Technology Act 2000, § 79, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)
34
The Information Technology Act 2000, § 2, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)
35
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. vs State of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 14406.
36
Mukul Sharma, Ishita Khandelwal, Sanchit Garg & Astha Tambi, Safe Harbour Protection for E-Commerce
platforms, CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS,
(2021)https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2021/07/safe-harbour-protection-for-e-commerce-platforms/
(accessed on 12/12/2022)
37
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors 2020 (81) PTC 399 (Del).
38
The Information Technology Act 2000, § 79(2)(c), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)
[ ¶ 29 ] Lastly, Section 79(1) does not extend 39 its protective mantle when an
intermediary is implicated in conspiring, abetting, aiding, or inducing an unlawful act.
In scrutinizing Dominian's role, it emerges that it remained intact within the ambit of
its role as a mere intermediary platform, devoid of any involvement in conspiratorial,
abetting, or inducing activities vis-à-vis unlawful acts. 40 Consequently, Dominion
stands entitled to the protection accorded by Section 79(1) of the IT Act, absolving it
from liability arising from the dissemination of third-party information on its
platform.
39
The Information Technology Act 2000, s 79(3)(a), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)
40
Anjali Singh, Safe Harbour Protection: A Blanket Immunity to the E-Commerce Intermediary, 5 INDIAN J.L.
& LEGAL RSCH. 1 (2023).
41
Guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on E-Commerce, Press Note No. 3 (2016 Series), dated 9
March 2016.
42
Review of the Policy on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in e-commerce, Press Note No. 2 (2018 Series),
dated 26 December 2018 (FDI Guidelines - 2018 Series).
43
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Consolidated FDI Policy Circular of 2020, DPIIT
File Number 5(2)/2020-FDI Policy, para 5.2.15.2.2 (iv), (issued on October 15, 2020).
44
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Consolidated FDI Policy Circular of 2020, DPIIT
File Number 5(2)/2020-FDI Policy, para 5.2.15.2.2 (iii), (issued on October 15, 2020).
45
Vasundhara Majithia, The Changing Landscape of Intermediary Liability for E-Commerce Platforms:
Emergence of a New Regime, 15 INDIAN J. L. & TECH. 470 (2019)
46
Amazon Seller Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Pvt. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 454.
engagement with them inherently falls under the umbrella of value-added services.
Considering the lack of “specific knowledge” 47 as per My Space Inc. v. Super
Cassettes Industries Ltd or “actual knowledge”,48 such services, when aligned with
the marketplace model, do not contravene its intermediary role, rendering Dominian
eligible for protection under the Safe Harbour Principle.
47
MySpace Inc v Super Cassettes Industries Ltd 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6382.
48
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.
49
Kent RO Ltd & Anr. vs. Amit Kotak & Ors, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7201.
50
The Information Technology Act 2000, § 79(3)(b), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)
51
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.
52
Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 1951 SCR 671.
53
State of Haryana v. Subhash Chand, (2003) 11 SCC 326
54
M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, 2001 (8) SCC 151
55
Anvish Bajaj v. State, (2008) 105 DRJ 721.
Therefore, it can be humbly argued that Dominion should not be held criminally liable
for the actions of individual users who may misuse the platform for unlawful
purposes.
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners humbly prays before this
Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
and/or
Pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity,
fairness and good conscience.
For this act of kindness of your lordship, the Petitioners shall duty bound forever pray.
Place: S/d-