2nd NFSU NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2024

TC-07

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF ELYSIUM

Original Writ Jurisdiction

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P.No.__________ OF 2023
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ELYSIUM

BAGGINS…………………………………………………...(PETITIONER NO.1)
FORUM FOR NETIZENS’ RIGHTS……………………..(PETITIONER NO.2)
VERSUS
ALONE HUSK……………………………………….….(RESPONDENT NO.1)
CENTRAL DRUG AUTHORITY OF ELYSIUM……(RESPONDENT NO.2)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
AT THE HIGH COURT OF ELYSIUM

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUES PRESENTED
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE-1
ISSUE-2
ISSUE-3
ISSUE-4
PRAYER

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

2
ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

AI Artificial intelligence

ID Identity Document

EMSRI Elysium Medical Sciences and Research

Institution
FNR Forum Netizens’ Rights

FIR First Information Report

CTR 2021 Cyber Technology Rules, 2021

ECTA, 2019 Elysium Cyber Technology Act, 2019

Dr. Doctor

EPC Elysium Penal Code, 1860

ECPA 1980 Elysium Crimes Procedure Act,1980

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

cl Clause

HC High Court

SC Supreme court

No. Number

Ors. Others

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

u/a Under Article

u/s Under Section

3
 V. Versus

UOI Union Of India

Pvt. Private

Ltd. Limited

ITA 2000 Information Technology Act,

2000
Retd. Retired

S. Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

4
1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1
2. Union of India v. Cipla Limited (2017) 5 SCC 262
3. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant (1995) 5 SCC 75
4. Union of India v. Joseph (1973) 1 SCC 194
5. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
6. Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. MG Technologies Pvt Ltd. (2019) 260 DLT 690
7. Avinash Bajaj v. NCT Delhi (2005) 116 DLT 427
8. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335
9. State of Haryana v. Balwant Singh (1994) 3 SCC (SUPP) 210
10. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT Delhi (2004) 6 SCC 422

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Elysium has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32
of the Constitution of Elysium which reads as follows:

5
 “32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-
(1) The right to move the High Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The High Court 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.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Republic of Elysium is a developing nation, with one of the largest and growing
populations in the world. In recent times, the nation has witnessed widespread digital
revolution that has opened opportunities particularly for its younger population,
which makes a substantial chunk of overall population. There has been a robust of
growth in entrepreneurial and start-up ecosystem, accompanied by growth in Fourth
Industrial Revolution technologies, with AI and Machine Learning in particular.

6
2) One such individual, Mr. Alone Husk, CEO of a popular social media platform called
‘Chirp’ bought in January 2022, he has been at the forefront of such technological
development in Elysium and has been a proponent of freedom of speech and has
consistently called for self-regulation of social media platforms and restricted
regulatory of the state.
3) The Country faces challenges due to lack of quality infrastructure, affordability, lack
of human resource in its remote areas and lack of sufficient budgetary allocation
towards public healthcare, research and development.
4) Mr. Husk owns majority of shares in ‘Meditech Futura’ a startup involved in pursuing
research and development in medical science with use of AI. Mr. Husk in a recent
speech said- “the dream of Meditech Futura is to provide accessible, affordable and
timely healthcare to its people. Our aim is to reach the last mile and we are committed
to this vision. The Elysium of our dreams might not be far and perhaps technology
could be our guiding light.”
5) An employee of Meditech Futura developed an AI tool called Dr. Precision in October
2022, which helps in diagnose ‘rare diseases’ using facial features, calculates
similarities and dissimilarities and automatically links them to the genetic data of the
suspected patients and diverse results.
6) It has been equipped with ‘deep learning’ to enhance its accuracy. A trial, lasting 5
months revealed 95% tool accuracy in diagnosis. It could help diagnose rare disease
among a prominent tribal group named Nirvana which primarily lived in central
Elysium. People of Nirvana tribe since long have endured rare diseases, resulting in
high mortality, reason being unaffordable diagnostics.
7) Anthropologists had been cautioning since long, regarding extinction of groups like
Nirvana, in light of absence of affordable diagnostics and treatment.
8) The tool received approval of the Central Drug Authority of Elysium in April 2023,
despite the apprehensions from severe civil society organizations, if adequate safety
regulations and protocols were taken. Before beginning with the diagnosis the
patients had to sign an agreement which had following clauses, among others-
a. The patient shall agree to share the data and information generated
herein, including biometric as well as personal information, not limited
to facial information and personal health ID details, with Meditech
Futura, which can be used for enhancing the efficiency of the software.
b. Meditech Futura shall exercise due diligence in safety of the
information and shall be exempt from any liability in event the

7
 information or its computer resources are unduly interfered with or for
any circumstances which are beyond its reasonable care and
supervision.
9) The data of Meditech Futura was stored in the same cloud sever infrastructure as
Chirp, hosted in Netherlands, in general there has been absence of regulatory
oversight regarding data storage, use and processing in Elysium due to lack of
legislation. A draft of ‘Elysium Digital Citizens’ Data Protection Bill was recently
published but not has been passed by the Parliament.
10) One such suspected person Mr. Baggins, a part of Nirvana tribe community is
admitted to hospital in august 2023 believed to be suffering from the rare genetic
condition that impacted people of his community, his condition was diagnosed using
Dr. Precision not just for him, but for others from his community.
11) On 7th November, 2023 the social media was taken by a storm. Chirp, owned by Mr.
Husk saw personal details of several patients including Mr. Baggins who are
subjected to Dr. Precision, being released along with their contact numbers and
Personal Health ID details through an anonymous account handle ‘The Watcher’ who
claimed to ‘expose’ the weak data protection regime of Elysium. Meditech Futura
promptly informed its users about the leak and assured that immediate steps to
ensure the safety of their data would be taken by it.
12) Besides the leak of personal details, same Chirp account also uploaded certain ‘deep
fakes’ of the members of Nirvana tribe in Elysium’s widely spoken language making
disparaging remarks against the members of other communities. It generated hate
and backlash against the members of the Nirvana tribe, furthering stereotypes
against them, which aggravated the situation. Several cases of violence against the
members of Nirvana tribe across Elysium.
13) This raised significant questions around violation of ‘right to privacy’, while raising
questions regarding approval of Dr. Precision by the Central Drug Authority’.
14) The Government of Elysium ordered an immediate removal of the leaked data and
the content from Chirp under its Cyber Technology Rules, 2021 and S.69 of Elysium
Cyber Technology Act,2019. This was promptly complied by Chirp. An immediate
decision was taken to suspend the approval for Dr. Precision.
15) Meanwhile, an investigation by a private technology and civil rights firm FNR revealed
that Meditech Futura lacked basic safety protocols, highlighting a possibility of data
being leaked through Chirp since, its data being is being hosted on the same server.
FNR argued Chirp had ‘active’ role as intermediary.

8
16) Mr. Baggins on 9th November 2023 filed an FIR against Meditech Futura, Chirp and
unknown person u/s. 153(a),(b), 405, 415, 420, 499, 509 of EPC r/w S. 66E, 66D of
ECT Act,2019. He argued that
(i) there has been violation of his right to privacy;
(ii) negligence on part of Chirp as an intermediary, imposing liability
on harm to his reputation and emotional damage and Nirvana tribe.
17) Contemporaneously, a petition was also filed before the High Court of Elysium by
FNR on 1st December,2023 against Meditech Futura and Chirp for:
(i) Violating ‘right to privacy’;
(ii) Not taking ‘consent’ of suspected patients in a fully informed and reasonable way;
(iii) against the Central Drug Authority for hasty approval of Dr. Precision without
ensuring the safeguards.
18) Mr. Husk however claimed:
(i) ‘Safe harbour’ for Chirp u/s. 79 of ECT Act,2019. He has argued that Chirp had
no role in such data leak and has followed all the ‘due diligence’ protocols
(ii) the anonymous account of ‘The Watcher’ was promptly suspended and the
sensitive personal information was taken down from the Chirp
(iii) Chirp and Meditech Futura lack any liability for the data breach and subsequent
developments in light of the prior agreement with the suspected patients. He
approached the High Court of Elysium seeking quashing of FIR against him u/s. 482
of Elysium Crimes Procedure Act, 1980.

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE LEAK OF PERSONAL DETAILS OF PATIENTS, INCLUDING

MR. BAGGINS, AND THE CIRCULATION OF DEEP FAKES ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA

PLATFORM CHIRP, CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OR NOT?

ISSUE 2- WHETHER CONSENT IS TAKEN IN A FULLY INFORMED AND REASONABLE

WAY FROM THE PATIENTS BY MEDITECH FUTURA?

9
 ISSUE 3-WHETHER CHIRP, AS AN INTERMEDIARY EVADE LIABILITY BY CLAIMING

SAFE HARBOUR UNDER SECTION 79 OF ELYSIUM CYBER TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2019

AND HE IS ENTITLED TO SEEK FOR QUASHING OF FIR UNDER SECTION 482 OF

ELYSIUM CRIMES PROCEDURE ACT,1980 ON THIS GROUND?

ISSUE-4 WHETHER THE APPROVAL OF DR. PRECISION, BY THE CENTRAL DRUG

AUTHORITY WITHOUT ENSURING DUE SAFEGUARDS CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE

ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITY?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE-1 WHETHER THE LEAK OF PERSONAL DETAILS OF PATIENTS, INCLUDING

MR. BAGGINS, AND THE CIRCULATION OF DEEP FAKES ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM CHIRP, CONSTITUTE VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY OR NOT?

It is submitted that the right to privacy of the petitioners is not violated by the
respondents. The respondents being an intermediary are not subject to the allegations
of violating fundamental rights.

ISSUE 2- WHETHER CONSENT OF PATIENTS IS TAKEN IN A FULLY INFORMED AND

REASONABLE WAY FROM THE PATIENTS BY THE MEDITECH FUTURA?

10
It is submitted that the consent of patients has been obtained in a fully informed and
in a reasonable way. The language in the agreement is provided in the language which
is understandable by the patients, hence there is no scope of ambiguity in the terms all
the points regarding the treatment process are mentioned. Therefore, the consent given
by the patients is voluntary and is obtained in a fully informed and in a reasonable way.

ISSUE-3 WHETHER CHIRP, AS AN INTERMEDIARY, EVADE THE LIABILITY BY

CLAIMING SAFE HARBOUR UNDER SECTION.79 OF ECT ACT, 2019 AND HE IS
ENTITLED TO SEEK FOR QUASHING OF FIR u/s. 482 OF EPC ACT ON THIS GROUND?

It is submitted that therefore S.79 of the CT Act acts as an express legal bar for
instituting any criminal proceedings against Mr. Husk as “Chirp” does not have any
liability as an intermediary and is not responsible for any data leaked.

ISSUE 4- WHETHER THE APPROVAL OF DR. PRECISION, BY THE CENTRAL DRUG

AUTHORITY WITHOUT ENSURING DUE SAFEGUARDS CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE
ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITY?

The Central Drug Authority of Elysium possesses the expertise to evaluate medical
products and determine their suitability for approval. The Central Drug Authority has
exercised discretion to assess new technologies based on scientific evidence and expert
judgment.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE-1 WHETHER THE LEAK OF PERSONAL DETAILS OF PATIENTS,

INCLUDING MR. BAGGINS, AND THE CIRCULATION OF DEEP FAKES ON THE
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM CHIRP, CONSTITUTE VIOLATION OF RIGHT
TO PRIVACY OR NOT?
1. It is submitted that the right to privacy of the patients is not violated by the
respondents. The respondents being an intermediary are not subject to the allegations
of violating fundamental rights.
2. There is no role by the respondents as an intermediary in the alleged data leaked.
The respondents are exempted from liability u/s.79 of the CT Act, 2019 as an

11
intermediary. The procedure established by the law acts as an express legal bar,
protecting the respondents from any criminal proceedings against them.
3. It is held in the case of Modern Dental College & Research Centre1, four
subcomponents or proportionality which need to be satisfied were taken note of.
These are:
(a) A measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal
(legitimate goal stage).
(b) It must be a suitable means of furthering this goal (suitability
or rationale connection stage).
(c) There must not be any less restrictive but equally effective
alternative (necessity stage).
(d) The measure must not have a disproportionate impact on
the right holder (balancing stage).
4. Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud in the Puttaswamy Judgement2 laid down the test
of proportionality. It meant that the invasion of privacy must be in proportion to the
need for interference.
81. …vi) Right to privacy cannot be impinged without a just, fair and
reasonable law: It has to fulfill the test of proportionality i.e.
(i) existence of a law;
(ii) must serve a legitimate State aim; and
(iii) proportionality.
5. The procedure followed in diagnostic process was just, fair and reasonable. It is
for the legitimate state interest, the respondents mentioned that their aim is to
provide accessible, affordable, and timely healthcare to the people and is quite
successful with 95% accuracy, since Elysium lacked in quality infrastructure,
affordability, human resource, therefore it is developed to improve healthcare
standards, as a result method, nature, and quality of the interference are
proportionate to objects, needs, and purposes sought to be fulfilled by the law.
6. In the landmark judgment of KS Puttaswamy V. Union Of India 3 emphasized
the importance of informational privacy of EUGDPR4 which includes:

1 Modern Dental College and Research Centre V. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353
2 Justice KS Puttaswamy V. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1, 158 (per D.Y. Chandrachud. J,
Concurring) (India)
3 KS Puttaswamy V. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1, 255,256 (per A.K. Sikri. J, Concurring) (India)
4 European Union General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the
processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive
95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)

12
 (i) Principle of lawfulness, fairness and transparency;
(ii) Principle of purpose limitation;
(iii) Principle of data minimization, accuracy;
(iv) Principle of storage limitation;
(v) Principle of integrity and confidentiality;
(vi) Principle of accountability
7. It is submitted that Meditech Futura has complied all the above mentioned
principles:
(i) Data is collected lawfully, fairly in a transparent manner in relation to the data
subject.
(ii) Data collected for diagnosing their diseases to improve healthcare facilities.
(iii) Data processed is adequate, relevant, accurate, limited to what is necessary.
(iv) Data collected is stored for improving software efficacy.
(v) Data is stored by exercising due diligence in the safety of the information.
(vi) It shall be exempted from any liability when software is unduly interfered beyond
its reasonable care and supervision and has removed all the data leaked promptly after
receiving order from the government.

ISSUE 2- WHETHER CONSENT OF PATIENTS IS TAKEN IN A FULLY INFORMED

AND REASONABLE WAY FROM THE PATIENTS BY THE MEDITECH FUTURA?

8. It is submitted that the consent of patients has been obtained in a fully informed,
reasonable way. The language in the agreement is provided in the language which is
understandable by the patients, hence there is no scope of ambiguity in the terms, all
the points regarding diagnostic process are mentioned. Therefore, the consent given by
the patients is voluntary and is obtained in a fully informed, reasonable way.
9. Meditech Futura and Chirp included clauses in the agreement absolving them from
liability in event of the information, resources unduly interfered in any unforeseen
circumstances beyond their reasonable care and supervision control. These exemption
clauses shield them from legal liability arising from the data breach.
10. According to CTR, 20215

5 Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

13
 166. The Sensitive Personal Data Rules provide for additional
requirements on commercial and business entities relating to the
collection and disclosure of sensitive personal data (including
biometric information 6:
1. Privacy Policy: Entities collecting, receiving, possessing, storing,
dealing, or handling such information must provide a privacy policy
outlining how this information will be handled.
2. Consent: Written consent from the information provider is
mandatory before collecting or using their information.
3. Lawful Purpose: Information can only be collected if it serves a
lawful purpose connected to the entity's functions or activities, and
its collection is deemed necessary for that purpose.
4. Transparency: Information providers must be informed about the
collection, purpose, intended recipients, and details of the agency
collecting and retaining the information.5. Retention Period: Data
should not be retained longer than necessary for lawful purposes
or as otherwise required.
6. Purpose Limitation: Data collected should only be used for the
specified purpose.
7. Opt-Out Option: Providers should have the option not to provide
their information.
8. Grievance Handling: Entities must address any discrepancies or
grievances regarding information processing.
9. Disclosure Restrictions: Sharing information with third parties
requires prior permission, unless contractually agreed or legally
obligated.
10. Security Measures: Entities must implement reasonable security
practices and have documented information security programs in
place, with measures aligned with the nature of their business and
information assets. In case of a security breach, they must
demonstrate compliance with these measures as required by law.
11. Meditech Futura complied with all the rules by exercising due diligence in the
safety of the information collected, obtaining consent through the agreement, collecting
data for diagnosing purposes which is necessary to diagnose rare diseases, information

6 Shreya Singhal V. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 (per R.F. Nariman. J, concurring) (India)

14
for efficacy of the software, consent is obtained voluntarily, promptly removed the data
leaked.
12. In the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation V. Krishna Kant7
The Supreme Court of India upheld:
“exemption clauses in contracts, stating that parties may
agree to limit their liability under certain conditions.”
13. Meditech Futura and Chirp included clauses in the agreements absolving them
from liability in the event of any unforeseen circumstances beyond their reasonable
care and supervision. These exemption clauses shield them from legal liability arising
from the data breach.
14. Meditech Futura and Chirp acted in good faith and exercised due diligence in
implementing data protection measures and obtaining consent from patients. The
company made reasonable efforts to safeguard patient data and comply with applicable
laws and regulations.
15. Meditech Futura and Chirp have relied on third-party service providers that are
hosted in the Netherlands for data storage and security, assuming that these providers
would implement adequate safeguards. If the breach occurred due to the negligence of
these third-party providers, Meditech Futura and Chirp cannot solely be held
responsible.
16. In the case of Union of India V. K.P. Joseph (1993)8 The Supreme Court of India
emphasized:
the importance of proving direct causation in negligence claims,
stating that liability cannot be imposed without establishing a clear
link between the alleged act of negligence and the resulting harm.
17. It is submitted that to prove that Meditech Futura and Chirp had failed to
implement stringent safety protocols, there must be a direct causal link between their
actions or omissions and the occurrence of the data breach, without establishing a
clear connection between the alleged negligence and the breach, liability cannot be
attributed to the respondents.

7 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation V. Krishna Kant (1995) 5 SCC 75 (per BP. Jeevan
Reddy) (India)
8 Union of India V. K.P. Joseph (1973) 1 SCC 194 (per Kuttyil Kurein Mathew. J, concurring)

(India)

15
ISSUE-3 WHETHER CHIRP, AS AN INTERMEDIARY EVADE THE LIABILITY BY
CLAIMING SAFE HARBOUR UNDER SECTION.79 OF ECT ACT, 2019 AND HE IS
ENTITLED TO SEEK FOR QUASHING OF FIR u/s. 482 OF EPCACT ON THIS
GROUND?

18. It is submitted that the term "intermediary" is defined under the Elysium Cyber
Technology Act, 2002 as any person who, on behalf of another, receives, stores,
transmits electronic messages, or provides services related to those messages. This
includes Internet Service Providers and websites hosting user-generated content.
19. It is submitted in the landmark case of Shreya Singhal V. Union of India9 The
Supreme Court addressed:
the issue of whether intermediaries could be left to decide the legality
of the content on their platforms. The Court while delivering its
judgment held that the requirement for intermediaries to apply their
minds for judging the legality of content was absent from the
framework of the IT Act. The intermediaries could only be asked to
remove content from their platforms vide a court order or by an
appropriate government agency. This settled the law on the content
takedown and also protected intermediary platforms from liability
based on user-generated content and ensured that frivolous
takedown requests were culled out, protecting user speech online.”
20. It is submitted in the case of Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd. V. MG
Technologies Pvt Ltd. 10 The court applied the adage, “with great power comes great
responsibility.” It held that:
As per S.79 of the IT Act, an intermediary shall not be liable for any
third-party information, data, or communication link made available
or posted by it, as long as it complies with Section 79(2)(b) of the Act.
In other words, the intermediaries have to show that they-
i. Do not initiate the transaction,
ii. Do not select the receiver of the transmission, and
iii. Do not select or modify the information contained in the
transmission.”

9Shreya Singhal V. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 (per R.F. Nariman. J, concurring) (India)
10Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. V. MG Technologies Pvt Ltd.(2019) 260 DLT 690 (per
Prathiba M. Singh.J, concurring) (India)

16
21. S.79 of the IT Act is a “safe harbour” provision that grants conditional immunity
to intermediaries from liability for third party acts. It grants immunity concerning any
third party information, data, communication link made available or hosted by them,
subject to provisions under S. 79(2), (3). S. 79(2) essentially covers cases where the
activity undertaken by the intermediary is of a technical, automatic and passive
nature.
22. Furthermore, S. 79(3) (b) of the Act envisages a “notice and takedown” regime,
wherein the intermediary is required to take down unlawful content upon receiving
actual knowledge of its existence. The liability of the entities is further diluted in S.79
of the Act by providing the criteria of “knowledge” and “best efforts” before determining
the quantum of penalties. This means that the network service provider would not be
liable for the breach of any third-party data made available by him if he proves that
the offence or contravention was committed without his knowledge, or that the had
exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence or contravention.
23. It is submitted in the case of Avinash Bajaj V. NCT Delhi11 the Court emphasized
that:
Mr. Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com was arrested after a video clip
containing an objectionable matter was posted on his website. This
case brought forth issues and concerns relating to intermediaries and
in particular discussed the onus of proof lies heavily with the
intermediary. Thereafter, S.79 of the Act was amended in 2008 and
exonerated the intermediary from liability for third party information
albeit with riders provided u/s.79(2),(3) of the Act.
24. The aforementioned cases it is evident that intermediaries claiming safe harbour
are exempted from liability for the act done by the third parties as the intermediaries
do not have any role in the process and are entitled to seek for quashing of FIR.
25. In the case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal12 the Supreme Court has issued
seven guidelines that should be followed by the High Court in the exercise of its
inherent power vested by section 482 of CrPC to quash the pending criminal
proceedings.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the

11 Avinash Bajaj V. NCT Delhi (2005) 116 DLT 427 (per Vikramajit Sen.J, concurring) (India)
12 State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 (per S.R. Pandian. J) (India)

17
 proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
26. Therefore S.79 of the CT Act acts as an express legal bar for instituting any criminal
proceedings against Mr. Husk as “Chirp” does not have any liability as an intermediary
and is not responsible for any data leaked.

ISSUE 4- WHETHER THE APPROVAL OF DR. PRECISION, BY THE CENTRAL DRUG

AUTHORITY WITHOUT ENSURING DUE SAFEGUARDS CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE
ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITY?

27. The Central Drug Authority of Elysium possesses the expertise to evaluate medical
products and determine their suitability for approval. It has exercised discretion to
assess new technologies based on scientific evidence and expert judgment.
28. The approval of AI software like Dr. Precision reflects the government's commitment
to fostering innovation in healthcare while ensuring patient safety. Regulatory agencies
must strike a balance between promoting innovation and safeguarding public health.
29. In the case of State of Haryana V. Balwant Singh13 The Supreme Court held:
negligence must be judged based on the circumstances known or
foreseeable at the time of the alleged breach, emphasizing the
importance of establishing foreseeability.
30. Regulatory agencies such as the Central Drug Authority routinely assess the safety
and performance of approved products and have mechanisms in place to address any
emerging concerns. The approval of Dr. Precision likely involved a comprehensive risk-
benefit analysis, weighing the potential risks associated with AI technology against its
anticipated benefits in improving healthcare outcomes. Regulatory decisions are
guided by scientific evidence and expert judgment.

13 State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal (1994) 3 SCC (SUPP) 210, (per A.S. Anand. J) (India)

18
31. In the case of Suresh Gupta V. Government of NCT, Delhi14 the Delhi High Court
recognized the importance of continual monitoring and regulation in ensuring the
safety and quality of healthcare services.
32. It is submitted that the Central Drug Authority has continuously monitored the
use of Dr. Precision though it is not funded by the government, it has monitored to
ensure the safety and quality of healthcare services.
33. It is submitted in the case of Union of India V. Cipla Limited 15 The Supreme
Court of India emphasized:
The importance of balancing public health concerns with the promotion
of innovation in the pharmaceutical sector, recognizing the need for
regulatory flexibility.
34. The Central Drug Authority has approved Dr. Precision based on the ground that
it has 95% accuracy in diagnosing diseases, the Country of Elysium lacks quality
infrastructure, affordability and human resource in its remote areas, hence the tool
has been approved in the view that it will improve healthcare standards for certain
communities that are deprived especially the Nirvana Community.

14 Suresh Gupta V. Government of NCT, Delhi (2004) 6 SCC 422, (per D.M. Dharmadhikari)
(India)
15 Union of India V. Cipla Limited. (2017) 5 SCC 262

19
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble High Court of Elysium:

1. To dismiss the PIL filed by the petitioners along with the costs of the petition.
2. To quash and set aside the FIR filed by Mr. Baggins against the respondents.
3. To issue orders to the Government of Elysium to revoke the suspension order
placed on Dr. Precision.

AND/OR

Pass any other order/direction that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the
interest of justice, equity, and good conscience, all of which is respectfully submitted.
And for this act of kindness, the respondents duty bound shall ever pray.

Date:
S/d

20
Place: High Court of Elysium (Counsels for Respondents)

21