TEAM CODE-7-03 in The Hon'Ble High Court of Hayati: Case No. 1

1| P a g e
DSNLU 7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
TEAM CODE- 7-03
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HAYATI
Case No. 1
In Writ Petition No.1 of 2019
Rudra …………………………………………………….………… Petitioner
v.
Hashtag Solutions and another…………………………………… Respondent
CLUBBED WITH
Writ Petition No.2 of 2019
Rudra……………………………………………………………… Petitioner
v.
Union of India……………………………………………………… Respondent
Case no. 2
In Writ Petition No.3 of 2019
Mrs. Anjali Madhur…………………………………………………. Appellant
v.
Innovative Technology Solutions Mahishmati Private Limited &

Ors.……………………………………………… …... Respondent
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
7th DSNLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2| P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 2

LISTOFABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………..3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................... 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 7
ISSUES RAISED ....................................................................................................................... 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:
1. Hashtag Solutions and ITSM are not liable to handover the information back to the
Government of Mahishmati………………………………………………….........................11
2. Aadhaar should be mandatory to avail the services and benefits of Government of

Mahishmati…………………………………………………………………………………...16
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 19
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:
1. The appeal filed by Mrs. Anjali Madhur is not

mantainable….…………..…………………………………………………………………...20
2. The employee of ITSM are not liable for sexual harassment against Anjali
Madhur…………………..…………………………………………………………………...21
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 25

3| P a g e
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ITSM Innovative Technology Solutions Private Limited
Govt. Government
SC Supreme Court
ICC Internal Compliance Committee
Art. Article
Prof. Professor
Ors. Others
V. Versus
IT Information Technology
§ Section
CBSE Central Board of Secondary Education
Hon’ble Honorable
UIDAI Unique Identification Authority of India
PDS Public Distribution Scheme
S/O Son of
ID Industrial Dispute
Ltd. Limited
Pvt. Private
SCR Supreme Court Review
AIR All India Report
Ed. Edition
Vol. Volume
No. Number
¶ Paragraph
Pg. Page
ILR India Law Report
Const. Constitution
Anr. Another

4| P a g e
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
 Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipality, (1970) 1 SCC 582
............................................................................................................................................ 12
 Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1283 .......................................... 12
 Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 3081 .......................................... 16
 KP.Anil Rajgopal v. State of Kerala, (2018) 1 KLJ 106 .................................................. 22
 M P Sugar Mills v. State of UP, AIR 1979 SC 621 ........................................................... 11
 P. Abdul Razak and another v. State, represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Chennai (2018) IndLaw MAD 14613 ................................................................................ 14
 Pradip Mandal v. Union of India 2016 SCC Online Cal 10305 ........................................ 23
 Shanta Kumar v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (2018) 156 FLR 719 ..... 22
 Tanushree Chopra v. Ministry of Women and Child Development, (2015) SCC OnLine
Del 14393 ........................................................................................................................... 21
 Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies , (1968) 2 SCR 366. ....................................... 12
 Union of India v. Mangal Textile Mills (I) (P) Ltd. (2010) 14 SCC 553 .......................... 20
 Vidya Akhave v. Union of India and others, 2017 LLR 357 ............................................. 23
LEXICON
 Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition.
ONLINE SOURCES AND JOURNALS
 Shreya Dave, Promissory Estoppel and Government Agencies, The Doctrine of

Promissory Estoppel, Manupatra (2016).
 Miachel Roper, How does the software work?, Understanding Computers, IRMT and
ICA, Vol. 1 (1999).
 Vladimir Itsykson, Alexey Zozulya, "Automated program transformation for migration to
new libraries", Software Engineering Conference in Russia (CEE-SECR) 2011 7th
Central and Eastern European, pp. 1-7, 2011
5| P a g e
 Pioneer, Aadhaar Mandatory for 2nd time under PMJAY, UIDAI,

https://uidai.gov.in/images/news/Aadhaar-mandatory-for-2nd-time-treatment-under-
PMJAY-Pioneer.pdf
 MGNREGA,Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) and the Aadhaar Platform, Annual Master
Circular 2019-20,
https://nrega.nic.in/Netnrega/WriteReaddata/Circulars/2390Annual_Master_Circular_201
9-20.pdf
 Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Where the Appeal can be filed?, The Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
STATUTES
 The Aadhaar( Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act,2016
 The Companies act, 2013
 The Constitution of India, 1950
 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
 The Industrial Employment(Standing Order) Act,1946
 The Information of Technology Act,2002
 The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act,2013
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

6| P a g e
Writ Petition No. 1 of 2019 CLUBBED WITH Writ Petition No.2 of 2019:
This Hon’ble Court confers the right to hear the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution
of Mahishmati.1 Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority,
including the government, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.2 Article 226 reads as
follow:
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within those territories
Writ Petition No.3 of 2019:
This Hon’ble Court does not confer the right to hear the matter as the appellant failed to
exhaust the alternate remedy available under § 18 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (hereinafter referred as Sexual
Harassment Act) 2013.3
1
Indian Const. art. 226.
2
Dr Deepak Kapur vs Union Of India & Ors, (2017) 2 SCC 408.
3
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act(hereinafter
referred as Sexual Harassment Act), (2013), § 18.

7| P a g e
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Hashtag Solutions Private Limited provides consultancy services to its customers and is a
100% subsidiary of ITSM. ITSM is a leading software company with a good reputation in
Mahishmati. In 2016, the govt. of Mahishmati introduced a flagship programme, the
Digital Mahishmati for the benefit of the people. “Faceless, Paperless, and Cashless” is
one of the professed role of Digital Mahishmati. The govt. made it mandatory to use
digital modes for any transaction above a sum of MNR 1000/-.
2. In the same year the govt. also introduced the Aadhaar Act, 2016. Its main feature was to
create a digital ID. Govt. made it mandatory for all the citizens to provide their Aadhaar
details to purchase a SIM card by introducing § 57 of the act.
3. The govt. of Mahishmati and that Hashtag Solution entered into a contract for the
verification of Aadhaar number for a period of 2 years. The main condition of the contract
was to maintain the confidentiality of the information obtained by the customers.
4. In August 2017, the SC of Mahishmati declared that sec. 57 of Aadhaar act as

unconstitutional due to which the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
terminated the contract with Hashtag solutions and orally assured that the subsequent
contract to develop a software for offline verification will be awarded to them.
5. When the project got terminated Mrs. Anjali Madhur was asked to work at ITSM till
management assigns her a new project. Her work at ITSM was not welcomed by many
senior officers at ITSM during her tenure she discovered that ITSM was holding Aadhaar
information and when she questioned the management they told her that the information
was for an app called ‘Unisex’ for its offline verification.
6. Mrs. Anjali Madhur made allegations on two senior-most members of ITSM of sexual
harassment subsequent to which an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted and
after listening to both the parties it was proved that the allegations made by Mrs. Anjali
Madhur were false due to which without giving any notice her employment was
terminated and was asked to handover her belongings which were provides to her by

8| P a g e
ITSM. On 26.01.2019 the Aadhaar information was found to be leaked by Mrs. Anjali
Madhur’s laptop. Aggrieved by the decision of ICC Anjali Madhur approached the High
Court of Hayati on 19.02.2019.
7. Due to the leak of information Rudra, a non-profitable organisation, file a writ petition
against Hashtag and ITSM stating that Aadhaar is not important to avail any benefit or
service of Govt. of Mahishmati.
8. In order to decide the larger question on the issue of Aadhaar Act, 2016 the High Court of
Hayati decided to club the writ petitions. The final hearing is to be held on 18.08.2019,
coincidentally, the appeal filed by Mrs. Anjali Madhur is also listed before the same court
for final hearing on 18.09.2019.

9| P a g e
ISSUES RAISED
Writ Petition No.1 of 2019 CLUBBED WITH Writ Petition No.2 of 2019:
1. Whether Hashtag Solutions and ITSM are liable to handover the information back to the
Government of Mahishmati or not?
2. Whether Aadhaar is mandatory to avail services and benefits of Government of
Mahishmati or not?
Writ Petition No.3 of 2019:
1. Whether the writ petition by Anjali Madhur in the High Court of Hayti is maintainable or
not?
2. Whether the employees of ITSM are liable for Sexual harassment of Anjali Madhur or
not?

10| P a g e
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
RUDRA v. HASHTAG SOLUTIONS AND ANOTHER.

(In Writ Petition No. 1 of 2019 CLUBBED WITH Writ Petition No. 2 of 2019)
1. WHETHER HASHTAG SOLUTIONS AND ITSM ARE NOT LIABLE TO

HANDOVER THE INFORMATION TO GOVERNMENT OF MAHISHMATI OR
NOT?
Hashtag solutions and ITSM are not liable to handover the information to the Government of
Mahishmati as the data they had kept was due to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and that
they have not infringed the privacy of the citizens of Mahishmati as it was Anjali Madhur
who altered the source code and craftily shifted the blame towards ITSM.
2. WHETHER AADHAAR IS MANDATORY FOR AVAILING THE SERVICES

AND BENEFITS OF GOVERNMENT OF MAHISHMATI OR NOT?
Aadhaar is mandatory for availing the services and benefits of Government of Mahishmati as
it is clearly given in the provisions of the Aadhaar Act and under many schemes and benefits
(as provided in the Aadhaar Act), the Central Government has made it clear that Aadhaar is
mandatory to avail them.

11| P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT HASHTAG SOLUTIONS AND ITSM ARE NOT LIABLE TO HANDOVER

THE INFORMATION TO GOVERNMENT OF MAHISHMATI.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that hashtag solutions and ITSM are
not liable to handover the information to the Government of Mahishmati as the data they had
kept was due to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and that they have not infringed the
privacy of the citizens of Mahishmati
The information kept with ITSM was under the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
Hashtag Solutions is a 100 % subsidiary of ITSM.4 This means that the holding company i.e.
ITSM controls the composition of the Board of directors, exercises or controls more than
one-half of the total share capital (In the case concerned total share capital) and it shall be
deemed that the company is controlled by the Holding company.5
After the contract was terminated as § 57 was declared to be unconstitutional the Government
of Mahishmati had orally given an assurance for a contract to develop a software for offline
verification.6 According to Black’s Law Dictionary, ‘Assurance’ means the state of being
confident.7 The doctrine of Promissory estoppel has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as follow-
"Where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal
promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect, a legal relationship to arise in
the. future, knowing8 or intending that it would be acted upon by the-other party to whom the
promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be
binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be
inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place
between the parties, and this would be so irrespective whether there is any pre-existing
relationship between the parties or not."9
4
Moot Proposition, ¶ 1
5
The Companies act, § 2 (87) (2013)
6
7
Black’s Law Dictionary, 90 (9th Ed. 2009)
8
M P Sugar Mills v. State of UP, AIR 1979 SC 621(India)
9
Ibid, Pg. 623.

12| P a g e
Apart from the fact that the above decision, holding that the doctrine can be invoked against
the Government in all cases, has been expressly dissented from by another Bench of two
Judges of the Supreme Court.10
In Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies,11 the Government of India announced certain
concessions with regard to the import of certain raw materials in order to encourage export of
woollen garments to Afghanistan. Subsequently, only partial concessions and not full
concessions were extended as announced. The Supreme Court held that the Government was
estopped by its promise. Thereafter the courts have applied the doctrine of promissory
estoppel even against the Government.
The principle of estoppel in India is a rule of evidence incorporated in § 115 of The Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.12 The § reads as follows:
“When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted
another person to believe such a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor
his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such
person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”
The following are the essentials to make any promise binding on the Government:
 The State makes the promise within the ambit of law.

 There is an intention to enter into a legal relationship.
 The other party must do an act in furtherance of that promise or is forbidden to do
anything.13
In Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipality,14 the municipality

agreed to exempt certain existent industrial concerns in the area from octroi duty fora period
of seven years. However, later on it sought to impose duty. This was challenged and the
Supreme Court, while remanding the case to the High Court, held that where the private party
had acted upon the representation of a public authority, it could be enforced against the
authority
10
Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1283(India).
11
Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies , (1968) 2 SCR 366(India).
12
The Indian Evidence Act, § 115 (1872).
13
Shreya Dave, Promissory Estoppel and Government Agencies, The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel,
Manupatra.(2016).
14
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipality, (1970) 1 SCC 582(India).

13| P a g e
In the case concerned, it is clearly given that the Government had given assurance for a
contract to develop software to do an offline verification. based on which the Holding
Company was developing an app namely ‘Unisex’ to do an offline verification. Thus, the
Government is estopped by its promise.
ITSM has not infringed the Right to Privacy:
As per § 8(2)(b) of THE AADHAAR (TARGETED DELIVERY OF FINANCIAL AND

OTHER SUBSIDIES, BENEFITS AND SERVICES) ACT, 201615 (herein after referred as
Aadhaar Act) the data stored for Authentication shall be only stored to the Central Data
Repository (hereinafter referred as CDR).
§ 28 (3) of the Aadhaar Act,16 states that “The Authority shall take all necessary measures to
ensure that the information in the possession or control of the Authority, including
information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository, is secured and protected against
access, use or disclosure not permitted under this Act or regulations made thereunder, and
against accidental or intentional destruction, loss or damage.” And § 29 states that no
information shall be shared with anyone.17
It is contended before this Hon’ble court that the information of ‘many citizens’ was leaked
on 27th January 2019.18 ITSM was holding the information that was stored for the purpose of
sim card verification as per § 57 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 which was later declared to be
unconstitutional.19 After the leakage of such information, an investigation found out that the
source code was uploaded from Anjali Madhur’s laptop on 26th January.20
§ 65 of the INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 (hereinafter referred as IT act)

"source code" means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layout and
programme analysis of computer resource in any form. Source code is a command which you
15
The Aadhaar( Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Acy (hereinafter
referred as The Aadhaar Act), § 8(2)(b) (2016).
16
Id, the Aadhaar Act,§ 28(3).
17
Supra no.15, the Aadhaar Act, § 29.
18
Moot Proposition, ¶ 7.
19
20
Supra no.18.

14| P a g e
give to the computer to perform.21 Source Code is a high-level language typically used by
programmers to compose computer software.22
Software is the computerised instructions that operate the computer, execute particular
functions or tasks, and manipulate the data. For software (the instructions) to perform various
functions, it must be programmed. That is, the instructions need to be written various
functions, it must be programmed.23 For example, when we set an alarm for the day after
tomorrow it is the command given to the computer by the user. Similarly, a program works
accordingly to the source code. And it is hereby brought to the attention of this Hon’ble code
that source code can be modified or altered.24
The Internal Compliance Committee report was submitted on 20th January 2019.25 And Mrs.
Anjali Madhur was terminated from her employment on 24th January 2019.26 And it is given
that she was already expecting her employment to be terminated. So, in the due course of
time, she was in the possession of the laptop. On 24th January 2019, her laptop and all the
other accessories were given back to the IT department of ITSM. 27 The laptop that she was
given was password protected.28 No other person could’ve accessed to it until or unless they
had the same.
In the case of Sherin V. John S/o Joy V. John v. State of Kerala,29 the court said that the
Source Code shall not be misused. And in the case of P. Abdul Razak and another v. State,
represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai,30 the court said that the Source
code shall not be used for personal gains.
Mrs. Anjali Madhur while she was in the possession of the laptop from 20th January till 24th
January.31 She was an IT personnel and in the investigation that was held after the leakage, it
was found that the source code was leaked from her laptop only. It is contended before this
21
Miachel Roper, How does the software work?, Understanding Computers, IRMT and ICA, Vol. 1 (1999).
22
Bernstein v. United States Dep't of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132,1140.
23
Supra note 21.
24
Vladimir Itsykson, Alexey Zozulya, "Automated program transformation for migration to new
libraries", Software Engineering Conference in Russia (CEE-SECR) 2011 7th Central and Eastern European,
pp. 1-7, 2011
25
26
Id.
27
28
Moot Clarification, 16.
29
Sherin V. John S/o Joy V. John v. State of Kerala,(2018) 3 KLJ 441(India).
30
P. Abdul Razak and another v. State, represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai (2018)
IndLaw MAD 14613(India).
31
Supra note 27.

15| P a g e
Hon’ble court that Mrs. Anjali Madhur had mala fide intention to frame ITSM after her
allegations were declared to be false. Being an IT personnel, she knew the source code and
had an adequate amount of knowledge about programming. She altered the code within these
4 days and made the program to leak the data of ‘Many citizens’ on 26 th so that the blame is
shifted towards ITSM. Not only the data of the people who had verified their data for sim
cards was leaked but also the data of the others. The government of Mahishmati from 2016
has been working towards the initiative of e-Mahishmati.32 The data is stored with the CDR
for authentication as per the Aadhaar Act.33 It is brought to the attention of this Hon’ble
Court that when the source code asked the data, the UIDAI gave the same believing it was
ITSM only as the latter had been a helping hand in achieving the initiative of e- Mahishmati.
Due to alteration of the source code, there was leakage and the blame was shifted towards the
ITSM. Therefore, it is contended before this Hon’ble Court that Mrs. Anjali Madhur has
attracted liability under § 65 of the IT act. The § reads as follow-
“Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys or alters or intentionally or

knowingly causes another to conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a
computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network, when the computer
source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force, shall be
punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh
rupees, or with both”34
In the case concerned, she had intentionally altered the source code which was used for the
software (computer programme) for an offline verification to leak the data and frame ITSM
for the same. In arguendo, even if we believe that the laptop of Anjali Madhur from which
the data was leaked was not the one which was in possession with the ITSM at that time, i.e.
26th January 2019, she could’ve made the programme to run from her own laptop. In this
scenario, she is also liable under § 66 (1) of the IT act as the said § states that “Whoever with
the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the
public, commits hack” and § 66 (2) states that “Whoever commits hacking shall be punished
with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend upto two lakh rupees, or
with both.”35
32
33
Supra note 15, the Aadhaar Act, § 8.
34
The Information of Technology Act (hereinafter IT act), § 65 (2002).
35
Ibid, IT act,§ 66(2).

16| P a g e
2. THAT AADHAAR IS MANDATORY FOR AVAILING THE SERVICES AND

BENEFITS OF GOVERNMENT OF MAHISHMATI.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Aadhaar is mandatory for availing
the services and benefits of Government of Mahishmati as it is clearly given in the provisions
of the Aadhaar Act.
§ 7 of the Aadhaar Act states that “The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State
Government may, for the purpose of establishing identity of an individual as a condition for
receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service for which the expenditure is incurred from, or the
receipt therefrom forms part of, the Consolidated Fund of India, require that such individual
undergo authentication, or furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number or in the case of
an individual to whom no Aadhaar number has been assigned, such individual makes an
application for enrolment:
Provided that if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual, the individual shall be
offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or
service.”36
Interpretation of the said §:
In § 7, the first paragraph, it is clearly given that Aadhaar is mandatory for availing the
services of Mahishmati and in case one doesn’t have the same he has to enrol for it. In the
proviso, it is given that if a person doesn’t have an Aadhaar he can avail the services via
alternate means of identification for the time being. Nowhere it is mentioned that Aadhaar is
not mandatory in the said proviso.
The Supreme Court in its landmark judgement said that Aadhaar shall be mandatory for the
purpose of Public Distribution Scheme (hereinafter referred as PDS) scheme and in the
distribution of foodgrains and for the purpose of LPG distribution Scheme.37 In case a person
is not able to enrol themselves under the Aadhaar Act or there’s a failure of biometric,
exceptions to § 7 has been notified by the Government.38
36
Supra note 15, the Aadhaar Act, § 7.
37
Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 3081(India).
38
Ajay Bhushan Pandey, Exception to § 7, Exception handling in PDS and other welfare schemes, (2017).

17| P a g e
Aadhaar is Mandatory:
Services as per the Aadhaar Act means “any provision, facility, utility or any other assistance
provided in any form to an individual or a group of individuals and includes such other
services as may be notified by the Central Government.”39
Benefit means “any advantage, gift, reward, relief, or payment, in cash or kind, provided to
an individual or a group of individuals and includes such other benefits as may be notified by
the Central Government.”40
As per the Annual Master Circular 2019-20 by Ministry of Rural Development the Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005,41 “The States and the UTs shall
take the following steps:
 Complete the Aadhaar based authentication of the beneficiaries covered under

MGNREGA
 The beneficiaries who have provided the Aadhaar number but the same has not been
validated, such cases may be expeditiously checked and got verified.
Under Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, Aadhaar has been mandatory for availing the
treatment the second time under the said scheme.42 In the notification given by UIDAI dated
8th October 2018, if a person doesn’t have an Aadhaar he will have to prove that he has at
least enrolled for the same.43 This scheme is to provide secondary and tertiary hospital care
facilities.44
Under Atal Pension Yojana, to subscribe one has to fill the Registration form. Under the said
form, Aadhaar details have been given an asterisk mark indicating it as mandatory. Also,
under the said registration form it is given that:
“Atal Pension Yojana has now been included under § 7 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of
Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act 2016. As per the provisions of the
39
Supra note 15, the Aadhaar Act, § 2(w).
40
Id, the Aadhaar Act, § 2(j).
41
MGNREGA,Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) and the Aadhaar Platform, Annual Master Circular 2019-20,
(Aug. 8 2019, 7:55 PM ),
https://nrega.nic.in/Netnrega/WriteReaddata/Circulars/2390Annual_Master_Circular_2019-20.pdf
42
Pioneer, Aadhaar Mandatory for 2nd time under PMJAY, UIDAI, (Aug .8 2019, 8:00 PM),
https://uidai.gov.in/images/news/Aadhaar-mandatory-for-2nd-time-treatment-under-PMJAY-Pioneer.pdf
43
Id.
44
Supra note 42.

18| P a g e
act, any individual who is eligible to receive benefits under the scheme will have to furnish
proof of possession of Aadhaar number or undergo enrolment under Aadhaar authentication.
All new APY registrations will have to comply with the above directives.”
After the Right to Privacy judgement,45 Aadhaar-PAN linking has been mandatory by the
order of Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 30th June 2018 and the same has to be linked
within 31st March 2019.
It is therefore contended before this Hon’ble Court that Aadhaar is mandatory for availing the
services and benefits by the Government of Mahishmati.
45
Supra note 37.

19| P a g e
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Mrs. Anjali Madhur v. Innovative Technology Solutions Mahishmati Private Limited
(In Writ Petition No.3 of 2019)
1. Whether the appeal filed by Mrs. Anjali Madhur is maintainable or not?
The appeal filed by Anjali Madhur in the High Court of Hayati is not maintainable as they
have not exhausted the alternate remedy available under § 18 of The Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred
as Sexual Harassment Act). Article 226 cannot be curtailed by other provisions of
Constitution or a statute. However, High Courts have imposed upon themselves certain
restrictions if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, High Court would not exercise
its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of Mahishmati.
2. Whether the Employees of ITSM are liable for Sexual Harassment of Mrs. Anjali Madhur
or not?
In the case concerned, the report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee was as
according to the procedure established under the Sexual Harassment Act. And the employees
have not committed any Sexual Harassment and are not liable for the same.

20| P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY ANJALI MADHUR IN THE HIGH COURT OF

HAYATI IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the appeal filed by Anjali Madhur
in the High Court of Hayati is not maintainable as they have not exhausted the alternate
remedy available under § 18 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as Sexual Harassment Act).46
Article 226 cannot be curtailed by other provisions of Constitution or a statute. However,

High Courts have imposed upon themselves certain restrictions if an effective and efficacious
remedy is available, High Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the
Constitution of Mahishmati.47
As per § 18 of The Sexual Harassment Act:
“Any person aggrieved from the recommendations may prefer an appeal to the court or
tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the said person
or where no such service rules exist then, without prejudice to provisions contained in any
other law for the time being in force, the person aggrieved may prefer an appeal in such
manner as may be prescribed.”
The person aggrieved may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority notified under § 2(a) of
the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 which define an appellate authority
as:
“An authority appointed by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official

Gazette to exercise in such area as may be specified in the notification the functions of the
appellate authority under this Act”.48
In Tanushree Chopra v. Ministry of Women and Child Development49, It was the grievance of
the petitioner that the respondent, Ministry of Women and Child Development has not
appointed the Appellate Authority within the meaning of § 18 of the Sexual Harassment Act
46
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act(hereinafter
referred as Sexual Harassment Act), (2013).
47
Union of India v. Mangal Textile Mills (I) (P) Ltd. (2010) 14 SCC 553(India).
48
The Industrial Employment(Standing Order) Act, § 2(a) (1946).
49
Tanushree Chopra v. Ministry of Women and Child Development, (2015) SCC OnLine Del 14393(India).

21| P a g e
which could have been approached by the petitioner with the grievances as made in this
petition. Thereafter, the court directed the respondent to appoint an appellate authority within
five weeks and the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to, if remains
aggrieved from the recommendations ultimately made by the ICC, appeal before the
Appellate Authority.
In the concerned case, if Anjali Madhur is aggrieved with the report of the ICC she should
appeal in an appellate authority initially and after the decision of the said authority, she
should further move forward with an appeal in the High Court. Anjali Madhur’s direct appeal
to the High Court of Hayati is thus not maintainable before this court.
2. THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF ITSM ARE NOT LIABLE FOR SEXUAL

HARASSMENT OF MRS. ANJALI MADHUR.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the report submitted by the
Internal Complaints Committee was as according to the procedure established under the
Sexual Harassment Act.50
As per the Sexual Harassment Act, “sexual harassment” includes any one or more of the
following unwelcome acts or behaviour (whether directly or by implication) namely:
Physical contact and advances; demand or request for sexual favours; making sexually
coloured remarks; showing pornography; any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-
verbal conduct of sexual nature51.
In the concerned case, Anjali Madhur has accused two senior most members namely, Shahid
Khan and Khanna Guru of ITSM of sexually harassing her within the premises of ITSM. She
has claimed that these two members started calling her with nicknames, making offensive
gestures, passing improper comment about her to the other colleagues, making physical
contact and advances.52. In the case of, Shanta Kumar v. Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research53 the court held that Physical contact or advances would constitute sexual
harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour.
Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. A
mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual
50
Supra note at 46, Sexual Harassment Act, § 11.
51
Supra note at 49, Sexual Harassment Act, § 2(n).
52
Moot Proposition,¶ 5.
53
Shanta Kumar v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (2018) 156 FLR 719(India).

22| P a g e
harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is
not occasioned by complainant's gender may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
All physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment, and only a physical contact or
advances which are in the nature of an unwelcome sexually determined behaviour would
amount to sexual harassment.
In another case of KP. Anil Rajgopal v. State of Kerala54, the act or behaviour must be
connected with sexual harassment including allegations of promise, threat or an offensive or
hostile work environment towards female employees. A solitary allegation of intemperate
language against a female employee in a report does not constitute an offence under the
Sexual Harassment Act.
In the concerned case, the act done by the members does not amount to sexual harassment as
there is no sexual undertone in the acts. ITSM is a leading software developing company
where many employees both, male and female work on a daily basis. These employees spend
almost 18-20 hours with each other thereby having friendly relations and a healthy work
environment. While working there might be physical touch or things said and done which are
not welcomed by the other person but merely on the basis of that a sexual harassment case
cannot be filed. Furthermore, it is established by the courts in the two cases that the acts must
have a sexual undertone and sexual nature. When Anjali Madhur joined ITSM she was asked
to be a part in more than two projects55 which clearly indicates that there was no
discrimination or injustice meted out to her in ITSM because if there was anything wrong, the
two members were the senior most members of ITSM and were evidently at a powerful
position to use their power in not involving Anjali Madhur in the projects.
Under § 9 of the Sexual harassment Act, a complainant has to file a complaint within 3
months of the incident, provided further that the Internal Committee may, for the reasons to
be recorded in writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months, if it is satisfied that
the circumstances were such which prevented the woman from filing a complaint within the
said period56. Anjali Madhur filed a complaint of sexual harassment after the limitation
period i.e. 3 months were over57. Though the ICC has the discretion to extend the time limit
further by 3 months if it is satisfied that the circumstances prevented the person from filing
54
KP.Anil Rajgopal v. State of Kerala, (2018) 1 KLJ 106(India).
55
56
Supra note at 46, Sexual Harassment Act, § 9.
57

23| P a g e
the complaint. The ICC has explicitly mentioned in its report given on 20.01.19 that the
complainant’s reason for approaching the ICC after a span of 3 months was not convincing58.
Hence there is a violation of § 9(1) of the Sexual Harassment Act.
In the case of Vidya Akhave v. Union of India and others59, the petitioner filed a complaint
after the 3 months were over. It was held that, as for the incidents that took place before
February/March 2012, the limitation period of three months prescribed under the Sexual
Harassment Act had expired and thus, were not taken into account by the ICC. Thus it is
justified on the part of ICC to reject Anjali Madhur’s complaint on this ground.
In Pradip Mandal v. Union of India60, the court held that an inquiry report made by the ICC
binds the employer. In Vidhya Akhave v. Union of India61, The Court ruled that it would not
interfere with an order of punishment passed by the Internal Complaints Committee in
relation to a sexual harassment complaint unless the order is shockingly disproportionate.
Hence, the report by ICC was just, fair and according to the procedure established.
That Termination of Mrs. Anjali Madhur was Justified.
As per § 14(1) of the Sexual Harassment Act,62 where the Internal Committee, as the case
may be, arrives at a conclusion that the allegation against the respondent is malicious or the
aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has made the complaint knowing
it to be false or the aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has produced
any forged or misleading document, it may recommend to the employer, as the case may be,
to take action against the woman or the person who has made the complaint, in such manner
as may be prescribed. The employer can take any action including a written apology,
warning, reprimand or censure, withholding of promotion, withholding of pay rise or
increments, terminating from service, undergoing a counselling session or carrying out
community service.63
58
Id.
59
Vidya Akhave v. Union of India and others, 2017 LLR 357(India).
60
Pradip Mandal v. Union of India 2016 SCC Online Cal 10305(India).
61
Supra note at 58, Vidya Akhave v. Union of India and others(India).
62
Supra note at 55, Sexual harassment Act, § 14(1)
63
Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Where the Appeal can be filed?, The Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, (Aug. 9 2019, 1:00 AM),
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/#sent/QgrcJHrjCsHNHzxDBjvTGHxKtklNnLdsKqb?projector=1&messagePa
rtId=0.1

24| P a g e
The ICC, after proper enquiry, declared the complaint by Anjali Madhur as false 64. Her intent
of filing a false complaint can be proved by the fact that Anjali Madhur was already prepared
for her termination of the employment.65 The report of the ICC came on 20.01.2019 and
Anjali Madhur was terminated on 24.01.2019, during that time Anjali Madhur expressed no
dissatisfaction over the report of ICC neither did she appeal against the report of the ICC.
Only after her termination did she file an appeal directly in the High Court of Hayati. She
even tried to tarnish the global image of ITSM by falsely accusing its two senior most
members of a grave offence as sexual harassment66. Thus termination of Anjali Madhur’s
employment was under the prescribed rules.
64
65
66

25| P a g e
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court, that it may please to adjudge
and declare
In Writ Petition No.1 of 2019 CLUBBED WITH Writ Petition No.2 of 2019:
1. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare Hashtag Solutions and ITSM are not
liable to handover the information back to the Government of Mahishmati.
2. A writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and
declaring that Aadhaar is mandatory for availing the services and benefits of the
Government of Mahishmati.
In Writ Petition No.3 of 2019:
1. That the appeal filed by Mrs. Anjali Madhur is not maintainable.

2. That the employees of ITSM are not liable for sexual harassment of Mrs. Anjali Madhur.
AND/OR
The Respondent additionally prays that the Court may make any such order as it may deem fit in
terms of Equity, Justice and Good Conscience. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall
as duty-bound ever humbly pray.
S/d_______________________
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

TEAM CODE-7-03 in The Hon'Ble High Court of Hayati: Case No. 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE-7-03 in The Hon'Ble High Court of Hayati: Case No. 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1| P a g e

DSNLU 7th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE- 7-03

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HAYATI

In Writ Petition No.1 of 2019

Rudra …………………………………………………….………… Petitioner

Hashtag Solutions and another…………………………………… Respondent

Writ Petition No.2 of 2019

Union of India……………………………………………………… Respondent

In Writ Petition No.3 of 2019

Mrs. Anjali Madhur…………………………………………………. Appellant

Innovative Technology Solutions Mahishmati Private Limited &

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

7th DSNLU INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 2

2. Aadhaar should be mandatory to avail the services and benefits of Government of

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 19

1. The appeal filed by Mrs. Anjali Madhur is not

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ITSM Innovative Technology Solutions Private Limited

ICC Internal Compliance Committee

CBSE Central Board of Secondary Education

UIDAI Unique Identification Authority of India

PDS Public Distribution Scheme

SCR Supreme Court Review

AIR All India Report

ILR India Law Report

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition.

ONLINE SOURCES AND JOURNALS

 Shreya Dave, Promissory Estoppel and Government Agencies, The Doctrine of

 Pioneer, Aadhaar Mandatory for 2nd time under PMJAY, UIDAI,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Writ Petition No.3 of 2019:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. In August 2017, the SC of Mahishmati declared that sec. 57 of Aadhaar act as

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Writ Petition No.3 of 2019:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

RUDRA v. HASHTAG SOLUTIONS AND ANOTHER.

1. WHETHER HASHTAG SOLUTIONS AND ITSM ARE NOT LIABLE TO

2. WHETHER AADHAAR IS MANDATORY FOR AVAILING THE SERVICES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1. THAT HASHTAG SOLUTIONS AND ITSM ARE NOT LIABLE TO HANDOVER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 The State makes the promise within the ambit of law.

In Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipality,14 the municipality

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ITSM has not infringed the Right to Privacy:

As per § 8(2)(b) of THE AADHAAR (TARGETED DELIVERY OF FINANCIAL AND

§ 65 of the INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 (hereinafter referred as IT act)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

“Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys or alters or intentionally or

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2. THAT AADHAAR IS MANDATORY FOR AVAILING THE SERVICES AND

Interpretation of the said §:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 Complete the Aadhaar based authentication of the beneficiaries covered under

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS