Issue 1

Directions to the DIT and/ or any other appropriate authority to discharge their
executive, statutory and all other obligations in relation to safeguarding of privacy of
Lady Unnamed and prevent public access of any information which threatens the
security of Sindhia and public order.

Argument-1

It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble HC of Sindhia that the directions should be
given to the DIT to take action against FUnbook and ChatOn to take down the videos which
threatens the security of Sindhia and public order.

Under Sec 69(A) IT Act 2000 which gives power to issue directions for blocking for public
access of any information through any computer resource. According to the above mentioned
Section Central government or any officially assigned officer authorised by central
government (that is respondent 2), if satisfied, that it is necessary or expedient to block the
blasphemous content from the public access it hinders sovereignty and integrity of India,
defence of India, security of the state, friendly relations with the foreign state or public order
or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence. In the present case,
because of the videos, which went viral on Fun book and ChaOn triggered communal riots
and hampered the public transquility and peace it should be blocked for public access. The
videos grossly harmed the state and threatened the unity and security and disturbed the public
order under Article 19(2).

Under Sec 79 Rule (3) (3)) if upon immediately receiving actual knowledge or on being
notified by the appropriate government or its agency that the information or data controlled
by the intermediately is being used to commit unlawful act, if the intermediately fails to
expeditiously remove or disable access to that material then the intermediatery will be liable.
In the case presented the intermediatery had the actual knowledge but denied and failed to
struck down the videos which in turn lead to commission of unlawful acts and disbalance in
the society.

The SC in its judgement of Shreya single v. Union of India has opined “

Issue 2

Directions to the Government of Sindhia under the Information Technology Act 2000
to: i. regulate the functioning of the platforms run by intermediaries;

Argument 2

Sindhia is a religiously diverse country with a majority of population following sinduism and
largest religion is Jerusalem. In sindhia people are so connected with religion that they can
insult any other religion. For this matter the government interference has been provided under
Sec 153 A of IPC.
Under this section Fun book and chat On were promoting enmity between different groups of
religion which disturbs the public transquiltiy and hence should be punished. Funbook was
showing the videos in the affected area again and again on their application in those areas
which were impacted the most by the riots and made the riots spread faster.

Argument -3

Today there is an open and candid conflict between the informational activism; and the right
to privacy which may be summed up as Public’s Right to Know versus infringement of
Privacy. Right to privacy which is an integral part of right to life is cherished a constitutional
value, and it is important that people should be allowed domains of freedom that are free of
public scrutiny unless they act in an unlawful manner.

The right to privacy of the Lady Unnamed was infringed as right to privacy under article 21
exists and any unlawful invasion of privacy would make the offender liable for the
consequences in accordance with the law.

Issue 3-Directions to Respondent 1 to immediately take down the Videos and prevent
further spread of the same and payment of compensation to Lady Unnamed.

Exploitation of a woman’s body without consent directly targets her dignity. In the present
case because of the videos going viral of dignity of the women.Is at stake. Here funbook
should be held liable for defamation as they did not take down the video2 even on the request
of the women which in turn harmed the lady’s dignity in society as harm caused to a person
by publishing a defamatory statement or video about him/her on a website or social media
platform is widespread as the information is available to the entire world.

Also funbook was bound to comply with Information Technology (Intermediaries

Guidelines) Rules 2011. Rule 3(3) read with Rule 3(2) which requires an intermediary to
observe due diligence or publish any information that is grossly harmful, defamatoryor
otherwise unlawful.

Rule 3(4) of guildlines creates obligation on an intermediary to remove such defamatory

content within 36 hours from receipt of actual knowledge

In Vyakti Vikas Kendra, &Ors vs. Jitender Bagga&Anr. Delhi High Court first held
Google to be an “intermediary” within the definition of Section 2(1)(w) and Section 79 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.

Google was directed to remove all defamatory contents about the plaintiffs posted by the
defendant No.1 from its website www.blogger.com as well as all the links containing
defamatory content within 36 hours from the date of knowledge of the order passed by this
Court.
So the council seek for damages for compensation.

(This is usually termed 'pain,suffering and loss of amenity'. Examples of this include physical
or emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, disfigurement, loss of reputation,
loss or impairment of mental or physical capacity, hedonic damages or loss of enjoyment of
life, etc)

General damages are generally awarded only in claims brought by individuals, when they
have suffered personal harm. Examples would be personal injury (following the tort of
negligence by the defendant), or the tort of defamation.