SME 422

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF ELDORADO

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

ELDORADO

IN THE MATTER OF
WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2020
THE STATE OF ISHMAELIA …………………………………………. [PETITIONER]

v.
THE UNION OF ELDORADO …………………………………………. [RESPONDENT]

CLUBBED WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. ______ OF 2021
THE ALL ELDORADO …………………………………………………... [PETITIONER]
FARMERS JUSTICE MOVEMENT
& ORS.

v.
THE UNION OF ELDORADO …………………………………………. [RESPONDENT]

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF ELDORADO
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents …………………..………………..………………..…………………. 2

List of Abbreviations…………………...………………..………………..……………… 3

Index of Authorities …………………..………………..………………..……….………. 4

Statement of Jurisdiction …………………..………………..………………..………….. 6

Statement of Facts …………………..………………..………………..……….………... 7

Issues Presented …………………..………………..………………..……….………….. 12

Summary of Arguments …………………..………………..………………..…………... 13

Arguments Advanced …………………..………………..………………..……….……. 14

ISSUE a. Whether the amendment to Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, vide the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 violates Article 14 and
21 of the Constitution of Eldorado? …………………..………………..…..…………….. 14

[a.1] non-arbitrary and based on reasonable classification …………..…………... 14

[a.2] adheres to the rule of “ejusdem generis” ……………..…………………….. 16

ISSUE b. Whether Rule 4 (2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 violates the Right to Privacy enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution of Eldorado? …………………..………….………..……………... 19

[b.1] Right to Privacy is not absolute …………………..…….…….……………. 19

[b.2] the rule is in furtherance of a compelling state interest …..……………..…. 20

ISSUE c. Whether the Central Legislature has the legislative competence to enact the three

Farm Laws, 2020? …………………..………………..…………….……..……….….…. 22

[c.1] Article 249 of the Constitution permits the Central Legislature to do so ..…. 22

Prayer …………………..………………..………………..……….……...….………… 24

2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

NAP National Action Party

NIA National Investigation Agency

AIR All India Reporter

All ER All England Law Reports

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

ed. Edition

& and

Ltd. Limited

Co. Company

Ors. Others

Anr. Another

Para Paragraph

v. Versus

No. Number

§ Section

Hon’ble Honourable

3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

1. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 ……………… 14

2. P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India, AIR 1952 SC 59 ……………..... 14

3. Re The Special Courts Bill, 1979 (1) SCC 380 …………….......................... 15

4. Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, 1955 SCR (1) 1045…………………… 15

5. D.S. Nakara & ors. V. Union of India, 1983 AIR 130………………………. 15

6. S. Seshachalam v. Bar Council of T.N., (2014) 16 SCC 72………………… 15

7. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75………………. 15

8. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722………………… 15

9. Shayra Bano v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4609………………………… 15

10. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538………… 15

11. Tribhuvan Prakash Nayar v. Union of India, 1970 AIR 540………………… 16

12. Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, 1972 AIR 1863………… 16

13. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, AIR 2002 SC
1766………….………………..………………………………………..…….. 16

14. Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. & Ors.,
AIR 1987 SC 1023…………………………………………………………… 17

15. Utkal Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC
1454…………………..………………..………………..………………..……. 17

16. Chertsey UDC v. Maxnam’s Properties, 1964 2 All ER 627…………………. 17

17. State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan, AIR 1955 SC 810………..........…………… 18

18. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., 1964 SCR (1) 332……..….… 19

19. Mr. X v. Hospital Z, AIR 1999 SC 495.………………..………...………….. 19

4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 20. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 3592………….. .……. 19

21. Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh & anr., 1975 SCR (3) 946……….…….. 20

Books

1. 44 Halsbury, Laws of England 894 (4th ed).………………..……………….. 17

2. Aparajita Baruah, Preamble of the Constitution of India: An Insight and Comparison

with other Constitutions, 88 (2007).………………..………………..……… 19

3. Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes 297 (12th ed)…………………..……….. 18

Statutes

1. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, No. 28, Acts of Parliament,

2019…..………………..………………..………………..………………….. 16

2. Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, No. 37, Acts of Parliament,

1967…..………………..………………..………………..………………….. 16

Constitution

1. INDIA CONST. art. 14…..………………..………………..……………… 15

2. INDIA CONST. art. 21…..………………..………………..……………… 19

3. INDIA CONST. art. 249…..………………..………………..……………. 22

5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondents approached The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Eldorado in this matter under

Article 32 of the Constitution of Eldorado filed by the petitioners which reads as follows:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement

of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme 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.”

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.

6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

A brief background of the Nation of Eldorado

1. Eldorado is a nation situated on the Utopian Continent. It received it’s independent in

the year 1999 after a spirited anti-colonial struggle. The “grundnorm” of the country,

i.e., the Constitution of Eldorado, was adopted in the year 2001. Eldorado is a

landlocked country surrounded by three countries – Avaron to the East, Buranda to

the South & Cambrodya to the West. Although the country is industrializing itself at a

rapid pace as well as becoming increasingly a service sector-oriented economy

powered by the advent of technology, agriculture still constitutes the main economic

activity of Eldorado, which currently employs 65% of the population of Eldorado. In

2014, the National Action Party (hereinafter the NAP) convincingly triumphed over

the erstwhile ruling party Liberatis by virtue of their strong electoral stance on the

issues of terrorism, economic reforms and removal of poverty.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019

1. Eldorado maintains good relations with its Southern neighbour Buranda, it is

frequently in tussle with its other two neighbouring nations for disputed territory in

border region that it shares with these two nations. The nation of Eldorado often

7 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 detects elements of cross-border terrorist activities in the vicinity of its borders with

Avaron and Cambrodya. Lately, the armies of Avaron as well as Cambrodya have

been engaged in sponsoring terrorist activities conducted in Eldorado through rogue

outfits which incite the local population to secede from the Union of Eldorado.

Eldorado’s neighbours are thus constantly trying to produce domestic terrorist outlets

so as to further their territorial ambitions.

2. There was a spike in spate of terrorist activities within Eldorado from 2014-19, a

bomb blast occurred at the Rayon Hotel located in 'Slytherin' (the financial capital of

Eldorado), which claimed the lives of 150 people and there was an attempt to attack

the Parliament of Eldorado itself (located at its capital - Gilead). The Government of

Eldorado being unsatisfied with the statute pertaining to terrorism, i.e., the Unlawful

Activities Prevention Act, 1967, sought to amend Section 35 of the said statute by

passing the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019, which entitled

the Central Government of Eldorado to add as well as to remove names of individual

terrorists from the proposed Fourth Schedule. This was similar to procedure practiced

pertaining to terrorist outfits as well as other consequential amendments pertaining to

that.

Rule 4 (2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media

Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

1. With a view to bolster the anti-terrorist efforts the Government of Eldorado also

discussed the role played by social media as well as instant messaging in facilitating

the coordination of terror related activities. Based on the reports of its Investigative

Agencies, the Eldoradian Government was firmly convinced that such applications

are key in planning as well as executing terror related activities.

8 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 2. Keeping in mind the objectives and considerations mentioned above, the Eldoradian

Government exercising powers conferred to it by the provisions of Section 87 of the

Information Technology Act, 2000, as well introduced the Information Technology

(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, superseding

the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, except as

respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession.

3. Specifically, the Government enacted the Rule 4 (2) of the Information Technology

(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

The Farm laws

1. Also at the same time, the Central Government of Eldorado was working to introduce

major reforms in its agriculture. The legislative intent behind this was to enable the

farmers of Eldorado to freely trade without license or stock limit, so that the increased

competition among the farmers leads to better prices for the farmers. Furthermore, by

the government of Eldorado wanted to do away with the corrupt mandi systems at the

state level.

2. Keeping in mind the objectives and considerations mentioned above, the Government

of Eldorado constituted a Standing Committee to delve into possible approaches and

amendments to bolster the position of Eldoradian farmers. The Standing Committee

within six months of its formation concluded by strongly asserting the necessity of

reforms in Eldoradian agriculture.

3. On the basis of the recommendations of the Standing Committee the Government of

Eldorado in the August of 2020 promulgated three ordinances:

(i) the Farmers‟ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation)

Ordinance, 2020;

9 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 (ii) the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance

and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020;

(iii) the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. (hereinafter these

shall be collectively referred to as “Farm Laws”).

Why the present Petitions?

1. The announcement of the three ordinances on farm laws resulted in a backlash from a

section of the farmers of Eldorado. Farmers hailing from the State of Ishmaelia,

started protesting against the said farm laws. The State Governments too extended

support to the farmers alleging that the Central Government is not constitutionally

competent to promulgate the said Farm laws. The State of Ishmaelia challenged the

constitutional validity of the said farm laws before the Supreme Court of Eldorado.

2. While this matter was sub judice, on the 5th of January, 2021, Mr. Taimur Ali, Leader

of the All Eldorado Farmers Justice Movement as well as a resident of the State of

Ishmaelia in one of the rallies delivered a speech against the Eldoradian Central

Government.

3. After this, within a week’s time, a group of around 70,000 protesting farmers marched

towards Gilead. At the vicinity of the city, the farmers were met with obstacles that

the local Police had set up. Things escalated into a situation of tussle between the

farmers and the police resulting in injuries. Ten Policemen of the Gilead Police Force

lost their lives due to injuries sustained.

4. The speech delivered by Mr. Taimur Ali was seen by the Eldoradian Central

Government as an attack on the sovereignty, integrity, public order as well as the

national security of the nation of Eldorado. The Police filed several cases against the

protestors vide the Eldoradian Penal Code, 1860. Although, the Eldoradian Central

Government exercised its power under The Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

10 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Amendment Bill, 2019, and designated Mr. Taimur Ali as a terrorist under Schedule

IV of the said statute. Proceedings in accordance with the said statute were initiated

against Mr. Taimur Ali and he was taken into custody by the National Investigation

Agency (hereinafter referred to as NIA).

5. During the course of the investigation the NIA discovered a document entitled

“toolkit” in Mr. Taimur Ali’s mobile device. The NIA has believed that the said

document constituted reasonable evidence to initiate investigations for preventing,

detecting, investigating, prosecuting or punishing an offence related to the nation of

Eldorado’s sovereignty and integrity, the security of the State, public order, and of

incitement to an offence pertaining to the above.

6. The NIA firmly believed that the entire act was orchestrated through social media

intermediaries in particular ‘Hi7’ a well known social media intermediary familiar for

its privacy and end to end encryption. Thus “toolkit” was alleged to be the key to the

whole conspiracy to instigate unrest in Eldorado. For this reason, the NIA after

securing the relevant permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs Secretary,

summoned “Hi7” to provide the first originator of the “toolkit” document on its

application.

7. The actions of the Central Government of Eldorado attracted the outrage of the All

Eldorado Farmers Justice Movement as well as various NGO’s and Civil Society

groups. They reached the decision to challenge the constitutional validity of The

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019, as well as Rule 4 (2) of the

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)

Rules, 2021. All the aforementioned petitions were clubbed by the Supreme Court of

Eldorado for the hearing to come.

11 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE a. Whether the amendment to Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,

1967, vide the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 violates Article 14 and

21 of the Constitution of Eldorado?

ISSUE b. Whether Rule 4 (2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and

Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 violates the Right to Privacy enshrined under Article

21 of the Constitution of Eldorado?

ISSUE c. Whether the Central Legislature has the legislative competence to enact the three

Farm Laws, 2020?

12 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE a. It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the amendment to Section 35

of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, vide the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Amendment Act, 2019 does not violate Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Eldorado. This

contention will be proved in two-fold manner: [a.1] non-arbitrary and based on reasonable

classification [a.2] adheres to the rule of “ejusdem generis”.

ISSUE b. It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the Rule 4 (2) of the

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

2021, does not violate the Right to Privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of

Eldorado as the [b.1] Right to Privacy is not absolute. [b.2] the rule is in furtherance of a

compelling state interest.

ISSUE c. It is humbly contended before the court that the Central Legislature has the legislative

competence to enact the three Farm Laws, 2020, as [c.1] Article 249 of the Constitution permits

the Central Legislature to do so.

13 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE a. Whether the amendment to Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,

1967, vide the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 violates Article 14 and

21 of the Constitution of Eldorado?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the amendment to Section 35 of the

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, vide the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Amendment Act, 2019 does not violate Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Eldorado. This

contention will be proved in two-fold manner: [a.1] non-arbitrary and based on reasonable

classification [a.2] adheres to the rule of “ejusdem generis”.

[a.1] Non-arbitrary and based on reasonable classification

1. A legislation can classify as well as apply to specific individuals, if due to some

special circumstances or reason is applicable to him/her and not applicable to others.1

1
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.

14 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 The present amendment in pursuance of this entitles the Central Government of

Eldorado to classify individuals as terrorists so as to effectively control and tackle the

menace of terror activities plaguing Eldorado.

2. Classification refers to segregation in classes which have a systematic relation,

usually found in common properties and characteristics. It postulates rational basis

and does not mean herding together of certain persons and classes arbitrarily.2 A

legislation can make as well as set apart the classes in accordance with the needs and

exigencies of the society and as suggested by experience.3 It is well established that

although class legislations are forbidden by Article 14 of the Constitution of

Eldorado4, reasonable classification is not forbidden for the purposes of legislation.5

However, the classification ought not to be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive” but ought

to be grounded in some real and substantial bearing, a just as well as reasonable nexus

to the object that is sought to be accomplished by the legislation.6

3. In order to fulfil the above-mentioned reasonable classification test, the following two

conditions must be met, i.e.,

(i) The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which

distinguishes persons from things that are grouped together from others left

out of the group; and

(ii) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be

achieved by the statute in question.7

2
P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India, AIR 1952 SC 59.
3
Re The Special Courts Bill, 1979 (1) SCC 380.
4
INDIA CONST. art 14.
5
Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, 1955 SCR (1) 1045.
6
D.S. Nakara & ors. v. Union of India, 1983 AIR 130; S. Seshachalam v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 16
SCC 72.
7
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1
SCC 722 and Shayra Bano v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4609.

15 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4. It is pertinent to note that each statute carries with it the presumption of

constitutionality and so as to sustain this presumption of constitutionality the court

may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of report, the

history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived

existing at the time of the legislation.8 The Nation of Eldorado has experienced a

spike in terrorist activities from 2014-2019. The most brutal attack occurred at the

Rayon Hotel situated in 'Slytherin', which claimed the lives of 150 people.

Furthermore, there was an attempt to attack the Parliament of Eldorado itself located

at capital city Gilead, a symbolic attack on the sovereignty of the country.9

5. Therefore, in keeping with the needs of the country, the government being unsatisfied

with the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 196710, as it was insufficient to address

the current problems and allowed individuals involved in terror activities to evade

justice by simply changing the identity of their organization, passed the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 201911, to effectively tackle the menace of

terrorism by catching and holding individuals behind heinous terrorist acts liable.12

[a.2] It adheres to the rule of “ejusdem generis”

1. It is humbly contended before the court that the amendment made vide the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, to the Unlawful Activities Prevention

Act, 1967, is not arbitrary, vague or irrational. The amendment is grounded in the rule

of “ejusdem generis”. This rule strives to reconcile the incompatibility between

specific and general words, in view of the other rules of interpretation that all words

8
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.
9
Para. 4, Moot Proposition.
10
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, No. 37, Acts of Parliament, 1967.
11
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, No. 28, Acts of Parliament, 2019.
12
Para. 5 & 6, Moot Proposition.

16 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 in a statute are given effect if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and

that no words in a statute are presumed to be superfluous.13 The rule of “ejusdem

generis” is grounded in the idea that

2. When particular words relating to a class of genus are followed by general words,

they are construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified. The afore-

mentioned rule is applicable only when14:

(i) The statute enumerates the specific words;

(ii) The subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category;

(iii) That class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration;

(iv) The general terms follow the enumeration &

(v) There is no indication of a different legislative intent.

3. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge,

the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause,

phrase by phrase and word by word.15 Similarly, in Utkal Contractors & Joinery Pvt.

Ltd. v. the State of Orissa, it was observed by the court that:16 “It is again important

to remember that Parliament does not waste its breath unnecessarily. Just as

Parliament is not expected to use unnecessary expressions. Parliament is also not

expected to express itself unnecessarily. Even as Parliament does not use any word

without meaning something, Parliament does not legislate where no legislation is

called for. Parliament cannot be assumed to legislate for the sake of legislation; nor

can it be assumed to make pointless legislation.”

13
Tribhuvan Prakash Nayar v. Union of India, 1970 AIR 540.
14
Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, 1972 AIR 1863; M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd. v.
Collector of Customs, Bombay, AIR 2002 SC 1766.
15
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1987 SC
1023.
16
Utkal Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1454.

17 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4. It is pertinent to note that utilization of general words in a statute does is not in itself a

conclusive reason as to why every case falling literally within them should be

governed by that statute, and the context of any Act may well indicate that wide or

general words should be given a restrictive meaning.17 While the words of an

enactment are important, the context is no less important.18 The context will be

expounded upon in the subsequent paragraph, nonetheless, it is clear from perusal of

the enacted legislation that the objective being pursued by the legislation in question

is to tackle the issue of terrorism. In Chertsey UDC v. Maxnam's Properties19 it was

observed that: “General words and phrases, therefore, however wide and

comprehensive they may be in their literal sense, must usually be construed as being

limited to the actual objects of the Act.”

5. The general word which follows particular and specific words of the same nature as

itself takes its meaning from them, and the presumption is that it is restricted to the

same genus as those words.20 The present legislation utilizes specific words to

delineate a genus and then is followed by a general term as is required for this rule to

be applicable.21 Specific words utilised in the legislation in question, i.e., ’commits or

participates’, ‘prepares’ and ‘promotes’ followed by the term ‘or otherwise involved

in terrorism’.22

17
44 Halsbury, Laws of England 894 (4th ed).
18
Utkal, supra
19
Chertsey UDC v. Maxnam's Properties, 1964 2 All ER 627.
20
Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes 297 (12th ed).
21
State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan, AIR 1955 SC 810.
22
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, § 35, No. 28, Acts of Parliament, 2019

18 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ISSUE b. Whether Rule 4 (2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and

Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 violates the Right to Privacy enshrined under Article

21 of the Constitution of Eldorado?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the Rule 4 (2) of the Information

Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, does not

violate the Right to Privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of Eldorado as the

[b.1] Right to Privacy is not absolute. [b.2] the rule is in furtherance of a compelling state

interest.

[b.1] Right to Privacy is not absolute

1. The ‘Right to Privacy' is not specifically & expressly enumerated in the Constitution.

It has merely been interpreted as being part & parcel of the ‘Right to Life & Liberty'

under Article 21 of the Constitution.2324 In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh &

23
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
24
Aparajita Baruah, Preamble of the Constitution of India: An Insight and Comparison with Other
Constitutions, 88 (2007).

19 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 ors.25 wherein the court laid down the scope of ‘Right to Privacy' & also limits upon

its exercise, it was observed that “our constitution does not in terms confer any like

constitutional guarantee.”

2. In Mr. X v. Hospital Z,26 it was observed by the court that: “‘Right of Privacy' is not

treated as absolute and is subject to such action as may be lawfully taken for the

prevention of crime or disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of

rights and freedoms of others.”

3. In Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh27 it was observed by the Constitutional

Bench of the Supreme Court that: “fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed

as absolute, but it must bow down to compelling public interest.”

[b.2] the rule is in furtherance of a compelling state interest

4. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh & anr.28

that: “privacy-dignity claims deserve to be examined with care and to be denied only

when an important countervailing interest is shown to be superior.” Therefore, a law

infringing a fundamental privacy rights must satisfy the compelling state interest test

i.e., whether a state interest is of such paramount importance as would justify an

infringement of the right.29

5. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics

Code) Rules, 2021, in particular its Rule 4(2), was introduced largely in part by the

Government of Eldorado to bolster the anti-terror movement as it was firmly believed

by the Eldoradian Government on the basis of the reports of its Investigative

25
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., 1964 SCR (1) 332.
26
Mr. X v. Hospital Z, AIR 1999 SC 495.
27
Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 3592.
28
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh & anr., 1975 SCR (3) 946
29
Id.,

20 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Agencies, that messaging applications were key to the planning as well as execution

of terrorist activities within Eldorado, threatening its very social fabric.30

6. It is made clear by a perusal of the rule in question that an order under this rule shall

only be passed for the purposes of31: “prevention, detection, investigation,

prosecution or punishment of an offence related to the sovereignty and integrity of

Eldorado, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public

order, or of incitement to an offence relating to the above or in relation with rape,

sexually explicit material or child sexual abuse material, punishable with

imprisonment for a term of not less than five years:”

7. It is humbly submitted before the court that the rule in question is therefore of crucial

importance in combatting the pressing menace of terrorism in Eldorado among other

serious offences mentioned above and thus there exists a “compelling state interest”

behind the rule.

30
Para. 7, Moot Proposition.
31
Para. 9, Moot Proposition.

21 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ISSUE c. Whether the Central Legislature has the legislative competence to enact the three

Farm Laws, 2020?

It is humbly contended before the court that the Central Legislature has the legislative

competence to enact the three Farm Laws, 2020, as [c.1] Article 249 of the Constitution

permits the Central Legislature to do so.

[c.1] Article 249 of the Constitution permits the Central Legislature to do so

1. It is humbly contended that Article 249 of Constitution of Eldorado32, entitled,

“Power of Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List in the

national interest” it is expressly stated that33: “if the Council of States has declared

by resolution supported by not less than two thirds of the members present and voting

32
INDIA CONST. art. 249.
33
INDIA CONST. art. 249, § 1.

22 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 that it is necessary or expedient in national interest that Parliament should make laws

with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List specified in the resolution, it

shall be lawful for Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory

of India with respect to that matter while the resolution remains in force.”

2. It is pertinent to note that 65% of the population of Eldorado is engaged in agriculture,

making it the main economic activity of the landlocked country.34 In the 2014

elections the NAP managed to oust the former ruling party by virtue of promising

economic reforms and removal of poverty.35

3. In light of the above the Central Government began working on major agricultural

reforms so as to revolutionize Eldoradian agriculture. The legislative intent of the

Central Government was to permit the Eldoradian farmers to freely trade without any

limitations on license or stock, the Government expected that by fostering competitive

spirit among the farmers will enable them to gain better prices for their produce.

Furthermore, the Government was desirous of moving away from the existing system

of corrupt state mandis.36

4. In view of the above the Government constituted a Standing Committee for the

purposes of perusing possible avenues & amendments so as to bolster the position of

Eldoradian farmers. The Standing Committee within six months of its formation

submitted a report which strongly asserted the necessity of reforms in Eldoradian

agriculture. On the basis of these recommendations the Government promulgated

three ordinances.37

34
Para. 2&3, Moot Proposition.
35
Para. 4, Moot Proposition.
36
Para. 11, Moot Proposition.
37
Para. 11&12, Moot Proposition.

23 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5. It is humbly submitted therefore that the Central Government of Eldorado has the

competence to promulgate the three farm ordinances (laws), as the Government of

Eldorado promulgated these three laws in furtherance of the national interests of

Eldorado by revolutionizing its main economic activity i.e., agriculture and to

improve the conditions of its farmers.

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that in the

light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to,

• Dismiss the Petition by the State of Ishmaelia with cost.

24 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 • Dismiss the Petition by All Eldorado Farmers Justice Movement

and others with cost.

• Assert that Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Act, 1967, vide the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Amendment Act, 2019, does not violate Article 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of Eldorado.

• Assert that Rule 4 (2) of the Information Technology

(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,

2021, does not violates the Right to Privacy enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of Eldorado.

• Assert that the Central Legislature has the legislative

competence to enact the three Farm Laws, 2020.

And / Or pass any such order, direction or relief as it may deem

fit in order to uphold the principles of justice, equity & good

conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the respondent shall forever humbly

pray.

25 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Sd/-

Counsel for the Respondent

26 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT