2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2021

IVLMT - 209 P

AT THE SUPREME COURT OF INDRA

IN THE MATTER OF;

UNION OF INDRA
PETITIONER

V.

VOCAPP LLC & SODAFONE

RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

III
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

III
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………
V

STATEMENT OF FACTS

ISSUES RAISED

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I.WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN INVOKE ARTICLE 142 OF THE

CONSTITUTION?

…...…………………………………………………………………………………………….6

II. WHETHER THE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2015 AND INFORMATION PROTECTION
RULES, 2021 ISSUED THEREUNDER ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?...................................
6

2.1 DT ACT AND IP RULES IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 19, & 21 OF CONSTITUTION
OF

INDRA……………………………………………………………………………………….... 6

2.2 IP RULES ARE LEGISLATIVELY COMPETENT……………………………………..9

III. WHETHER COMPANIES ARE LIABLE FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH GOVERNMENT ORDER
AMID RISKING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTEGRITY OF INDRA………………….

…….9

IV. WHETHER UNION OF INDRA HAS VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW……………………………………………………………………………………….….11

PRAYER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

II
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

& And

Anr. Another

AIR All India Reporter

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CONST. Constitution of India

DT Act Digital Technology Act

Hon’ble Honorable

Id. Idem

IP Rules Information Protection Rules

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

RGDP General Rules on Data Protection

§ Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Case

SSMI Significant Social Media Intermediary

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

UDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights

v. Versus

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

III
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. BOOKS

1. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, V.N SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 13 ED.

2. M. P JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8TH ED, LEXIS NEXIS.

3. I. P MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 9TH ED.

4. C.K TAKWANI, LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 7TH ED.

B. CASES

1. MANEKA GANDHI V UNION OF INDIA (1978) SCR (2) 621

2. PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES V. UNION OF INDIA (1997) 1 SCC 301.
3. PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES V. UNION OF INDIA (2003) 4 SCC 399.
4.PRAJWALA V UNION OF INDIA 2015 17 SCC 29
5. FACEBOOK V. UNION OF INDIA 2019 (13) SCALE 13
6. PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES V. UNION OF INDIA (2004) 2 SCC 494
7. IN RE DELHI LAWS ACT 1912, (1951) 2 SCR 471
8. GANESH CHANDRA BHATT V. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALMORA AND ORS. AIR SC 1149
9. STATE OF TAMIL NADU V P. KRISHNAMURTHY 2006 4 SCC 6
10. ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD. V. STATE OF HARYANA 1993 1 BJLR 669
C. STATUTES
1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

2. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

3. INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000.

4. THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA

ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021.

D. CONVENTIONS

1. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, 1966

2. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 1948

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

IV
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court of India that the Petitioner have
approached this Hon'ble Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India. It reads as follows: —

“142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.—
(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such
order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and
any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India
in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until
provision in that behalf is so made, in such
manner as the President may by order146 prescribe.
2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court
shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any
order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of
any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

V
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Union of Indra is a country located in South- Asgard. It is an active supporter of sport

activities. Indra gets it major part of its business from Vocapp LLC and SodaFone
(Subsidiary of Jingo-Jinga Phones). Unopean Union is a union of multiple countries. It is
known for its history, culture, sports and fine arts. The Federal Republic of Bravos and
Westworld Republic are developed countries and form a part of the Union. Vocapp has 4.5
million monthly active users in Indra, highest in any country.

Plot 1.

The Atlantis International Games are held every four years. The 21st Atlantis International
Games are organized by Indra in its capital, Schrute City and hosted best athletes of the
world. During the Atlantis Games, a group of terrorists bombarded one of the stadiums and
abducted 17 officials of which, 2 were from Bravos and Westworld and were gravely injured.
This deadly attack injured 88 people and caused 39 deaths. Indra failed in the phone tracking
of officials. Thus, the Prime Minister of Indra Mr. Khal Drogo requested the CEO of
SodaFone, Mr. Tappu Gada to give away the last active location of terrorists for national
security of the country. His plea was rejected by Mr. Gada.

Later, one of the terrorists accessed Vocaap and gave up their location in an attempt to
communicate to their leader in Gopi Yunseri in Shiganshina. However, the Indra army
successfully rescued the 15 officials. The two gravely injured officials from Bravos and
Westworld died. Meanwhile, the Indra Army in view of collecting evidence and the details of
the planning to avoid further attacks, requested Vocapp to provide with the chats of the
terrorists before and during the attacks. The access was denied.

Plot 2.

The Prime Minister Drogo in the “Dil ki Baat” programme expressed his concerns over the
state of data privacy laws in the country and emphasized on the need to reform for the
purpose of national security. In Indra, the data privacy legislation is known as the Digital
Technology Act, 2015. The Government of Indra introduced the IP Rules, 2021 which made
the service providers to share the essential information to the government or any government
agency in cases of national security. They were required to implement the rules within 8
weeks from the date of publication of the Rules. The Rules enabled the Service Providers to

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

develop a mechanism to comply with them and further provided that such measures shall be
proportionate

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

III
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

to the interests of free speech and expression and privacy of users. The concerns raised by
Vocaap CEO Ms. Teja Hatela and Mr. Gada regarding the implementation of IP Rules, 2021
were clarified in a conference held by TD Minister of Indra Dr. Tuco Salamanca. He said that
the Rules are not to violate or interfere with the privacy of the user but to embolden the
protection. The criticism by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Digital Rights has
been defended on the grounds that the DT Act and the IP rules are passed and implemented
by the sovereign government.

In a turn of events, it was made public that since Vocaap LLC and Sodafone failed to comply
with the IP Rules, 2021, they are stripped off from their exemption from liability due to the
operation of the IP Rules. Further, they are open to criminal liability under the DT Act, 2015
and the National Penal Code of Union of Indra. Thus, the government filed a criminal case
against them for non-compliance with the Rules. Also, a case was filed against them at this
Court of Indra for failing to comply with the government orders during the Atlantis Games
attacks risking the national security and integrity of India.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN INVOKE ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

II. WHETHER THE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2015 AND INFORMATION PROTECTION
RULES, 2021 ISSUED THEREUNDER ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

III. WHETHER COMPANIES ARE LIABLE FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH GOVERNMENT ORDER
AMID RISKING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTEGRITY OF INDRA

IV. WHETHER UNION OF INDRA HAS VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

3
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I THE SUPREME COURT CAN INVOKE ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

It is humbly submitted that It is humbly submitted that the Supreme Court can invoke its
inherent power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution. The word
“complete justice” is uncatalogued and can be invoked in variety of situations. This particular
Article has been invoked in ordering of CBI enquiry and compensation for illegal detention.
The present case involves security of every individual of the State. Therefore, it is humbly
submitted that the present case has rightly invoked jurisdiction of Supreme Court under
Article 142.
ISSUE II THE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2015 AND INFORMATION PROTECTION RULES,
2021 ISSUED THEREUNDER ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.

It is humbly submitted that the government can impose restrictions on Article 19(1)(a) as
mentioned in Article 19(2). Reasonable restrictions are those which pass the test of legitimate
State Aim, Necessity and Proportionality. The aim was to safeguard people of this State from
any future terrorist attacks. It was necessary to curb the increased abuse of digital platforms.
The Government can ask for the information under Rule 4(2) for the purpose of investigation
which is proportional. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that DT Act and IP Rules are in
consonance with Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of Indra.

It is humbly submitted that laying down the delegated legislation before both the houses of
Parliament is not a common obligation on the administration. In case where the Statute
specifies the laying procedure, it is mandatory. There is no mention of laying procedure in the
DT Act, 2015. In cases where there is no laying procedure mentioned in the Statute, it is
optional. Thus, it is not mandatory to lay down the IP rules before the parliament and are
legislatively competent.

ISSUE III. COMPANIES ARE LIABLE FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH GOVERNMENT ORDER

AMID RISKING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTEGRITY OF INDRA.

It is humbly submitted that in the present case, the situation is of public emergency. The IP
rules were introduced during the investigation of the terrorist attack. The intermediaries are
required to follow the orders given by government or government agency, if it is in interest of
national security, sovereignty and integrity of the State. The Vocaap has denied to follow the

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

4
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

same. The Sodafone has violated section 69 by not complying with the order hence attracting
liability under Section 85(2) of the DT Act, 2015. Hence both the companies are liable for not
complying with the government orders risking the national security of Indra.

ISSUE IV. UNION OF INDRA HAS VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW.
It is humbly submitted that Union of Indra has not violated its obligation under ICCPR.
According to Article 6 of ICCPR it is duty of State that it is the duty of state to uphold its
national security and conduct an independent and impartial investigation regarding any
terrorist attack to prevent the same in future. In the present case, the steps taken to conduct
the investigation restricts the fundamental rights in proportionate manner. The restrictions
imposed fulfil the test of legitimate state aim, necessity and proportionality. Hence, the Union
of Indra has not violated its obligations under ICCPR.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

5
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN INVOKE ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

The goal of Article 142(1) is to provide complete justice in any case or matter before the
Court. The word “cause” or “matter” is any proceeding before the Court which includes civil
or criminal; or appellate or original.1 The phrase “complete justice” refers to the ability to
invoke this provision in a variety of situations. 2 Article 142(1) is a repository of
unenumerated power that has been left ‘undefined and uncatalogued’ in order for it to be
flexible enough to be moulded to suit the given situation.3

The Supreme Court in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat 4 declared that
Article 142 is a part of basic structure doctrine. It was decided that the Court’s competence to
do “complete justice” under Article 142(1) is of a completely different level and quality. This
constitutional power of the Court cannot be restricted by any limitations contained in
ordinary laws.

The scope of power under Article 142 is wide to fulfill the requirement of complete justice.
This Article was invoked in numerous matters such as ordering of CBI enquiry, payment of
interim compensation to rape victim and compensation for illegal detention. The present case
also falls in the above category of cases as it involves the security of every individual of
State.

2. WHETHER THE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2015 AND INFORMATION PROTECTION

RULES, 2021 ISSUED THEREUNDER ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

2.1 DT ACT AND IP RULES IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 19, & 21 OF CONSTITUTION
OF INDRA.

Any Procedure which permits impairment of constitutional rights, in consonance with the
principle of reasonableness cannot be condemned as unfair and unjust. Article 19 and 21 are
not mutual exclusive5. The right to speech and expression is an attribute of the term “personal
liberty” under Article 21. There is no restriction that forbids such an interpretation and
instillation of the right of company under Article 21 of the constitution. Katju J, in Ganesh

1
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitution Law : With Constitutional Documents 369 (2012).
2
Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201.
3
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co., (1996) 4 SCC 622.
4
Delhi Judicial Service Association v State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406.
5
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) SCR (2) 621.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

6
Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate Almora and Ors6, observed that the rights under said
provision can be taken away by “procedure established by law”. The word “procedure
established by law” must be interpreted in light of the right to indoctrinate reasonable
restriction within the method established within the procedure established by law. Such
contextual interpretation has to be given to term “procedure established by law” with respect
to freedom of speech and expression of company, imposing restrictions which are not
arbitrary and unreasonable, embedding the concept of reasonable restrictions within
procedure established by law. These restrictions would be reasonable if they fall within the
purview of public order, national security, interest of the nation and all such restriction
provided under article 19(2). It goes without saying that government can impose restrictions
on Article 19(1)(a) if necessary, in accordance with requirements mentioned under article
19(2).

In the present case, the terrorist attack by Akatsuki during Atlantis games lead to some
injuries and 88 deaths and also officials were abducted. In this context, it is vital to protect
sovereignty and integrity of India by imposing reasonable restrictions. Thus, to ensure that no
such terrorist attacks would take place in future, we are required to access the communication
that has been made via mobile messaging apps during the situations of public emergency.

Any restriction on fundamental rights would be reasonable if it passes the test of legitimate
state aim, necessity and proportionality. The requirement of need in terms of legitimate state
aim warrants that the nature and the content of restrictions conferred by law must fall within
the girth of reasonableness mandated by Article 14, guaranteeing non-arbitrary action on part
of state. As and when it comes to secure nation against the terrorist related activities the state
does have legitimate interest even in monitoring webs7 and new technological tools. The
technological development has led to the encryption of digitized data, which when combined
with that anonymity, makes internet as powerful tool for conspiracy. This drives a compelling
need on the part of government to exploit digitization in defence of national security 8. It is
contended that national security is justifiable mean for state to interfere with right to privacy
and right freedom of speech and expression. In the case of PUCL v. Union of India9

6
Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v District Magistrate Almora and Ors.1993(1) BLJR 669.
7
Richard A. Posner, “Privacy Surveillance and Law”, The University of Chicago Law Review (2008), Vol. 75
p. 251
8
Ibid.
9
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

7
surveillance was permitted in the interest of national security. Furthermore, the Supreme
Court was of the view that the right to privacy is subservient to the security of the state10.

The IT rules have been brought up to deal with the issues related to increased abuse of digital
platforms, including circulation of obscene content, spread of disharmony, inducement for
recruitment of terrorists, incitement of violence, public order. The SC, in the case of Prajwala
v. Union of India11 issued necessary guidelines regarding the elimination of child
pornography and related contents from the online platforms. In Facebook v. Union of India 12,
the SC observed that it is crucial to frame a regime for discovery of people, institutions and
bodies who are first originator of obscene content which makes it vital to seek information
regarding the same from the intermediaries.

The test of proportionality essentiates a restriction to be drawn in line with the territorial
extent of restriction, the state of emergency, nature of such restriction. Restrictions should be
required, appropriate and least possible measures. It may be noted that the new IP rules
imposes reasonable restriction on to the right to privacy and freedom of speech and
expression of users of service providers. Under Rule 4(2) the government seek only limited
information regarding the first originator of the information. In cases where the message in
public gaze gives rise to violence affects unity and integrity of nation, showcases obscene
content or sexual abuse of a child and the government is left with no other option, then it uses
this rule as a last measure to trace the originator of message. Terrorist organisations like
Akatsuki, uses end to end encrypted messaging apps to keep their plans undisclosed. In
absence of impugned rules, it becomes difficult for the govt. to investigate the matter. from
the preceding paragraphs, it is very well clear that the IP rules are not ultra vires of the parent
statute and are not violative of fundamental rights.

It is submitted that, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, 13 the SC

observed while considering the validity of a delegated legislation, that the object & scheme of
its parent act and the domain in which power is delegated needs to be contemplated. It is
well established that every statute carries with it a presumption of constitutionality. Such
presumption is also applicable on the statutes which imposes reasonable restrictions on

10
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399.
11
Prajwala v Union of India (2015) 17 SCC 29.
12
Facebook v Union of India 2019 (13) SCALE 13.
13
State of Tamil Nadu v P. Krishnamurthy (2006) 4 SCC 6.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

8
 2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

fundamental rights14. Further, it may be presumed that the statutory authority would not use
the power arbitrarily.

14
PUCL v. Union of India (2004) 2 SCC at p. 494, para 42.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
III
2.2 IP RULES ARE LEGISLATIVELY COMPETENT.

The legislature has power to delegate its non-essential functions. 15 Since the legislature grants
power to the administration, it is its responsibility to make sure that the delegated legislative
power is exercised in conformity with the primary legislation. One of the mechanisms where
parliamentary control is exercised over delegated legislation is through the laying procedure.
There is no common obligation on the administration to lay the delegated legislation before
the Parliament. If the statute provides with a laying clause, then that delegated legislation
must be laid in terms of the statute. However, if no such clause is provided in the statute, then
the laying down of delegated legislation is optional for the government.

The laying procedure of delegated legislation has been elaborately discussed by the SC in
Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana.16 In this case, an order issued under section 3
of Essential Commodities Act was challenged being ultravires as it was not laid before
Parliament. Clause 6 of the said section mentions that the order made under section 3 shall be
laid down before the parliament. The SC held that Section 3(6) is directory and not
mandatory. Hence, the order would not be void even if it has not been laid in the parliament.
One of the points to be considered for regarding a provision as mere directory is that there is
an “absence of any provision for meeting the contingency of the provision not being
complied with”.17

In the present case, there is no mention of laying down procedure of IP Rules in Section 69
and 69-A of DT Act before both the houses of Parliament. In such situations where the
provision is absent, the requirement of laying down is merely directory and not mandatory.
Hence, the legislative competence of the IP Rules could not be questioned on the ground that
they were not laid before the Parliament.

3. WHETHER COMPANIES ARE LIABLE FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH GOVERNMENT ORDER

AMID RISKING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTEGRITY OF INDRA?

A public emergency would mean the occurrence of a sudden circumstance of state of affairs
that affects the general public and necessitates prompt response. The term “public safety”
18
means state of freedom from danger and risk for general public. Before we dive deeper
into the nuances of ‘reasonable restriction’ as occurring in Part III of the constitution, we

15
In re Delhi Laws Act 1912 (1951) 2 SCR 471.
16
Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR SC 1149
17
MP Jain and S N Jain, MP Jain Principles of Administrative Law 142 (2007) .
18
Public Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India 1997 1 SCC 301.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

9
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

need to emphasize on certain facts. The terrorist attack that has happened during the
tournament of

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

III
Atlantis international games, the terrorist accessed the Vocapp to deliberate upon their plans
and other details which were not accessible due to the end-to-end encryption policy. In
today’s digital era, means for terrorism heavily relies on mobile messenger application which
provides the feature of non-traceability. Terrorists adopts such technological tools for
promoting and planning their terrorist activities. In the present case, end-to-end encrypted
service offered by Vocapp has been used by the terrorists as safe haven.

During the investigation of the terrorist attack that has happened on the 5th day of Atlantis
Games, the Indra Army for the purpose of preventing such attacks asked for access to the
chats of the terrorists involved in the attack. The Vocapp not complying with the order given
by the government agency, denied access to the same. In the meanwhile, for the purpose of
national security, this government notified the IP Rules, 2021 which requires the companies
to furnish data and essential details asked by the government or any government agency in a
bid to aid the investigation on cases of national security.

The Rule 6 of the IP Rules, requires the intermediaries other than the SSMIs as notified by
the concerned Ministry to comply with the Rule 4, if the matter is concerned with the
sovereignty and integrity of Indra and security of the State. In the instant case, an order was
served to Vocapp, a social media intermediary with less than 50 lakh registered users by the
Indra Army. Further, by virtue of Rule 6, Vocapp is bound to follow the obligations
mentioned in Rule 4. Vocapp was bound to follow the order but failed to comply with the
same.

According to Rule 7, if an intermediary fails to comply with Part II of the IP Rules, it loses
the immunity provided by the safe harbour provision that is Section 79(1) and shall be liable
for punishment under any law for the time being in force including the provisions of the
Parent Act and the Indian Penal Code. Inter alia, the Section 69 of DT Act provides the
power to central govt. for issuance of directions to intercept or monitor or decrypt any
information through any computer resource in the interest of defence and security of the State
for investigation of any offence as provided by the section. The Sub-section 2 of 69 envisages
the prescription of procedure and safeguards to intercept or monitor or decrypt. The Section
87(2) (y) empowers the Central Government to make the rules that has been directed under
sec 69(2). Section 69(4) imposes criminal liability for non-compliance of any part which
includes Part II of the IP Rules. On failure of assisting the government agency to provide
access to required information, intercept, monitor or decrypt the same under section 69(3),

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

10
2ND GDGU INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL LAW AND TECHONOLOGY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2021

the intermediary or any person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

III
and shall be also be liable to fine. In this regard, Vocapp would be liable under Section 69(4)
of DT Act, 2015.

In pursuant to Section 85(2) of the DT Act, if a company contravenes any provisions of this
Act, any rule, direction or order made thereunder with consent or due to negligent act of any
director, manager, secretary or any other officer of the company, such officials shall be
deemed to be guilty and punished accordingly. In current case, the company has acted in
contravention to section 69 and the rules thereunder.

4. WHETHER UNION OF INDRA HAS VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL

LAW?

India’s commitment to global human rights regime includes the acknowledgement of privacy
as a basic constitutional value. Under Article 51 of the Constitution, the state is required to
endeavour to “foster resect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of
organized peoples with one another”. 19 International and regional human rights treaty bodies,
courts, commissions, and independent experts have all provided significant guidance on the
scope and meaning of the right to privacy.

Under Article 6 of ICCPR, in the event of a terrorist attack, it is obligation of the state to
conduct an immediate, independent, impartial investigation and to take operational measures
to prevent any such future terrorist attacks. Further, under the same article, the state has an
obligation to uphold national security and safeguard the lives of individuals within its
jurisdiction. The Covenant permits restrictions on rights only under the pertinent provisions
of ICCPR. In case of restrictions imposed by the State, it is mandatory for the State to
demonstrate that such restrictions are necessary, proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate
aim to maintain effective protection of Covenant rights.20 According to Article 17 of ICCPR
no individual is subject to unlawful interference with right to privacy. Surveillance for the
reasons of national security or the prevention of terrorism or other crimes may be considered
a legitimate aim for the purposes of determining whether or not it is a legitimate aim under
article 17 of the Covenant.

The State must ensure that any interference with the right to privacy is authorized by laws
that (a) are publicly accessible; (b) contain provisions that ensure that collection of, access to
and use of communications data are tailored to specific legitimate aims; (c) are sufficiently
precise,
19
INDIA CONST. art.51.
20
UNGA the right to privacy in the digital age para no. 22.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

11
specifying in detail the precise circumstances in which any such interference occurs. In the
present case, DT Act imposes restrictions and is publicly accessible. The section 69 of DT
Act mentions that data can be accessed for the purpose of security of State which is a
legitimate aim. This Section provides the grounds for imposing restrictions such as in the
interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State and public order.

Article 19 of the ICCPR safeguards the right of every individual to freedom of opinion
without any inference. It also safeguards right to freedom of expression which includes right
to receive and impart information and different ideas through any media of communication.
In accordance with Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, restrictions imposed on these rights must be
“expressly prescribed by law” for the purpose of security of the State and public order. In the
present case, DT Act, 2015 which expressly imposes restrictions has been passed and
implemented by the sovereign government of Union of Indra in exercise of its sovereign
powers. Hence, it is submitted that the government of Union of Indra has not violated and
acted in accordance with its obligations under the International Law.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

12
 PRAYER

In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities citied, it is humbly
prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

The Vocaap LLC and SodaFone are liable for not complying with the Government Orders
amid risking the national security and integrity of Union of Indra.
And pass any other relief, that this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Union of Indra may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. For this act of kindness, the
Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

13
WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
9
WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
12