Page|1

NARAYANRAO CHAVAN LAW COLLEGE, NANDED

LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN MEMORIAL 5th NATIONAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2018

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEFORE THE HON‟BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE MATTER OF

ABC
(PETITIONER)

VERSUS

STATE OF PRIDE
(RESPONDENT)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ALONG WITH BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................5-6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES..................................................................................................7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................8

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................9-22

PRAYER CLAUSE...........................................................................................................23

CASES
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES WITH BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Benet Coleman v Union of India...................................................15

2. Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association(foreign case)......16
3. Chiranjith lal v Uion of India.........................................................12
4. D K Yadav v J M A Industries.......................................................19
5. Francis Coralie v Union territory of Delhi.....................................18
6. Godawat Pan Masala case..............................................................22
7. Kartar Singh and Ors v CBI...........................................................10
8. Kishor Dattatreya v State of Mahrashtra.........................................10
9. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India....................................................18
10. Olga Tellis v Bombay Muncipal Corporation....................................15.
11. Ramesh kumar v state of Chattisgarh................................................09
12. Sakal papers v union of India............................................................16
 13. Sukhdev Singh v Bhagathram Sardar Raghuvanshi...........................13
14. R C Cooper v Union of India..............................................................12

Books and Websites Referred

 Constitution of India by R S Bedi
 Constitution of India by Dr J N Pandey
 Constitution of India by B N Gandhi
 Constitution of India by D D Basu
 PSA Pillai‟s Criminal Law
 Crimes and Indian Penal Code by S K Achari
 Company law by Avatar Singh
 Lawnotes.com
 Livelaw.in
 Scconline.com
 Indiakanoon.org
 Advocateskhoj.com
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petition has bee moved by the ABC company before the hon‟ble Supreme court of Indica
challenging the decision of State of Pride on the ban imposed on a game “RedOx” developed by
the company U/S 69A of IT act ,2000 under article 32 of Indian constitution

Art.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

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2
), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution

THE PETITIONERS THEREFORE HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THE HON‟BLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDICA HAS JURISDICTION IN THE PRESENT MATTER
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. ABC is a company engaged in designing online games have created a game entitled
“RedOx” which is to be played on mobile phones
2. The game being challenging in nature, caught immediate attention of the users
especially children and youngsters. In short period of time it became a big hit and the
game is to be downloaded by the users from app store and a set of terms and conditions
are to be agreed by him. Among the set of terms, there exist a condition that the users
must be above age of 18
3. Once the user get registered the, he is required to furnish his personal details and after the
registration he is provided with an administrator and he will observe the the given tasks
performed by the player .The game consists of 50 levels, on each level, the difficulty
level increases.
4. Initially the tasks will be simple and in order to prove the performance of tasks the
players has to make some mark and upload the video of the same. It was observed after
the 50th level the players suicide after drawing an image of red ox on their hand.
5. The game became more so popular among the youth that even it penetrated into few
school going children around the age group of 11-12 were found committing suicide
with a logo of red ox on their hand
6. The State of Pride identifying it as a lethal threat to the society issued a notice to ABC
company asking them to withdraw their operation from the cyber space. The company
replied saying that t they will not withdraw the game as such it do fall within the six
golden freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution. The company replied to the notice
that the object of the game is to make the user more firm and competent at their
decision.
. it also consisted of a statement that „there is no abatement to suicide as
7. such as the task given was supposed to be individual competence and observance and
one must understand whether to commit suicide on once provocation or not‟. Moreover
the reply consisted on allegations on the state that so many persons have committed
suicide for various reasons either by hanging to a tree or fan or poisoning even many of
the times brides are burnt by gas explosion. The reply further alleges that the government
did nothing to prevent these .
8. The State of Pride after due deliberation have registered a crime under Sec. 306 and Sec.
120B of IPC against the company for abatement of suicide by conspirating with the
administrators, imposed a ban on the game throughout the country U/S 69-A of
Information Technology Act- 2000 Aggrieved by this decision, the company have moved
a petition under Art. 32 of the constitution claiming violation of their rights under Art.
14, 19(1)(a) and 19 (1)(g) read with Art. 21
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. Whether the petitioner has committed any offence under sec. 306 and 120B of
IPC?

II. Whether the State of Pride has violated the rights of petitioner enshrined
under Art. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19 (1)(g) read with Art. 21

III. Whether imposing ban on the application “RedOx” u/s 69A of

information Technology Act is constitutionally valid
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. Whether the petitioner has committed any offence under sec. 306 and 120B
of IPC?

In order to be punished u/s 306 of IPC, there must be an active suggestion or

instigation and there should exist an agreement for the commission of offence but here
there exists no such an intention „men rea‟ or an agreement therefore company has not
committed any offence under punishable under above sections

II. Whether the State of Pride has violated the rights of petitioner enshrined
under Art. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19 (1)(g) read with Art. 21?
The state of Pride violated the the right to equality before the law and equal
protection of law as well as freedom of speech and expression , freedom to carry out
any profession along with right to life and personal liberty by imposing the ban on the
game

III. Whether imposing ban on the application “RedOx” u/s 69A of information
Technology Act is constitutionally valid?
The ban imposed on the game “RedOx” developed by the company is a violation of
fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution and the state acted „Ultra Vires‟
 ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether the petitioner has committed any offence under sec. 306 and 120B of IPC?

a) In order to be punished u/s 306 of IPC, there must be an active suggestion or

instigation.
1. To make out a case of abetment, there must be some active suggestion/instigation,
provocation, incitement, or encouragement by the accused to do an act . In context of
section 306 of IPC, the important facet is what the accused intended and not what the
deceased felt. Ingredients of abetment of suicide would be satisfied only when the
suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct encouragement or incitement of
accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Extreme carefulness and
circumspection is required in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case
finding out whether the suicide had been abetted or it took place because the victim
was hypersensitive to ordinary circumstances1.
2. What the petitioner intended was to make the user more firm and competent in their
decisions. There is no abetment to suicide as such as the task given was supposed to be
individual competence and observance and one must understand whether to commit
suicide on once provocation or not. The administrator only demands the users to commit
suicide at the last level, there is no force or compulsion to commit suicide. There is no
such situation created by the administrators where the users are left with no other option
but to commit suicide. The users who committed suicide on mere provocation of the
administrators were more hypersensitive to ordinary circumstances.
3. The SC observed that even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell
the deceased „to go and die‟, that itself doesn‟t constitute the ingredient of „instigation‟.
The word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable
action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore is the necessary
concomitant of

1 Rameshkumar v State of Chattisgarh

 4. instigation. In Kartar Singh & ors. V .CBI it has been observed that mens rea is an
essential ingredient and state is required to show that the accused had mens rea to drive
the deceased to commit suicide2.Here the petitioners had no mens rea to drive their users
to commit suicide.
5. “In order to attract the provisions of Sec.306 of IPC, there must be an allegation that
accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide and that the accused had in
anyway aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide”- said the SC3. In the
present case, it is not evident that the victims committed suicide due to the demand of the
administrator and in anyway aided to such an act. The children have a tendency of
carving tattoos on their body. Therefore the image of Red Ox found on the bodies of such
suicidees can not be treated as a valid evidence against the petitioners. There exist no
such element to prove abetment of suicide against the petitioners. Hence the petitioner
has not committed any offence under Sec.306 of IPC

b) Agreement is the rock bottom of conspiracy

6. For an offence to be charged under the punishment for criminal conspiracy u/s 120B
of IPC, the essential ingredients are:
 There should be two or more persons;
 There should be an agreement between themselves ;
 The agreement must be to do or cause to be done;
- An illegal act or

-A lawful act by illegal means.

7. In order to constitute conspiracy the first and foremost thing is that there should be an
agreement and association to break law, whether any act be done by the conspirators or
not. It is an inference from circumstances.. The essence of an agreement of criminal
conspiracy is that it should be „to commit an illegal act or a lawful act by illegal
means‟. There is no agreement between the company and the administrators to commit
the

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 131(2000)DLT 43 Dlhi
3 Kishor Dattatreya v state of Maharashtra
 offence being mentioned in this case.
8. For an act to be an offence the element mens rea is necessary. The essentials of a single
conspiracy require that there must be a common design and a common intention of all to
work in furtherance of the common design. The company has no such criminal intention.
The intention of the company was to make the user more firm and competent in their
decision making. Therefore there is no such circumstances from which conspiracy can be
inferred.
Hence it is clear from the above contentions that the petitioners are not guilty of the
offences u/s 306 and 120B of IPC.

II. Whether the State of Pride has violated the rights of Petitioner enshrined under Art.14,
19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) read with Art.21 ?

a) Yes, the State of Pride has violated the petitioner‟s right under Art.14 read
with Art.21.
i) Art.14 declares that “the state shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India”.
9. Art.14 uses two expressions “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the law”.
While equality before the law is somewhat a negative concept implying the absence of
any special privilege in favor of individuals and the equal subject of all classes to the
ordinary law. Equal protection of the law is a more positive concept implying equality of
treatment in equal circumstances
10. While examining the first expression “equality before the law”, it is a concept implying
absence of any special privilege by reason of birth , creed, or the like in favor of any
individual and also the equal subject of all individuals and classes to the ordinary law of
the land. The ordinary law of the land should be equally applicable to all .Equality before
the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally
administered, that like should be treated alike. Further no person shall be subject to harsh,
uncivilized or discriminatory treatment.
11. The protection under Art.14 is guaranteed to any person which includes any company or
association or body of individuals. The protection under Art.14 is available to both
 citizens and non-citizens and to natural persons and legal persons4.Hence the company
ABC is entitled to get protection under Art.14. There were similar games in the online
portal like – „CokemanGo.‟ which were banned by the Govt .But no criminal case was
registered against them. Here the State of Pride have registered a crime under Sec.306
and Sec.120B of IPC against the company ABC for abetment of suicide by conspirating
with the administrators along with imposing ban on the game throughout the country U/S
69A of IT ACT..There is a clear violation of equality before the law and equal protection
of law which is evident from the additional charge of criminal case on ABC ,in addition
to the ban imposed on the company .The law which was applied for imposing ban on
„CokemanGo‟ should be equally administered in case of imposing ban on ABC ,as
among the equals the law should be equal and equally administered.
ii) The ban imposed on the game curtails company‟s Right to Life and
Personal Liberty contemplated under Art.21
12. While examining whether a company is entitled to get the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Art.21 which says that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to the procedure established by law”, the “ Principle of lifting of
corporate veil” have to be applied .Lifting the corporate veil : The effect of this Principle
is that there is a fictional veil between the company and its members. That is, the
company has a corporate personality which is distinct from its members. But, in a number
of circumstances, the Court will pierce the corporate veil or will ignore the corporate veil
to reach the person behind the veil or to reveal the true form and character of the
concerned company. It is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as
the rights or liabilities of its shareholders.
13. The Bank Nationalisation Case5 has established the view that the fundamental rights of
shareholders as citizens are not lost when they associate to from a company. When
their fundamental rights as shareholders are impaired by State action their rights as
shareholders are protected. The reason is that the shareholders' rights are equally and

4 Chiranjihlal v Union of India

5 R C Cooper v Union of India
 14. necessarily affected if the rights of the company are affected. In Sughdev Singh v
Bhagatram Sardar Raghuvanshin6, it has been observed that cases in which lifting of
corporate veil of a company can be permitted when it relates to tax matters ,fraud, agency
or trust and infringement of fundamental right of shareholders and employees of the
company. In Bennet Coleman & co v Union of India7, the Supreme Court has observed
the fact that the petitioners were companies was not a bar to award relief for violation of
the rights of shareholders and editorial staff. The shareholders of company ABC are
natural persons entitled to Art.21 who come to form a company. Therefore imposing ban
on the company is in turn the violation of fundamental rights of the shareholders.

iii) Violation of the petitioner‟s right under Art.14 read with Art.21
The rule imposing ban on the company ABC is arbitrary. The absence of arbitrary power
is the first postulate of rule of law upon which the whole Constitutional edifice is based.
In a system governed by rule of law, discretion when conferred upon an executive
authority must be confined with clearly defined limits. If the discretion is exercised
without any principle or without any rule, it is a situation amounting to the antithesis of
Rule of Law. Discretion means sound discretion guided by law or governed by known
principles of rules, not by whim or fancy or caprice of the authority. If the discretion do
not follow any principle or rule it results in arbitrariness. The reply given by the
petitioners consists that so many persons have committed suicide for various reasons
either by hanging to a tree or fan or poisoning even many times brides are burnt by gas
explosion and the Govt. did nothing to prevent these activities by adopting a mechanism
.Therefore the imposition of ban on this particular game where the object of the game is
to make the user more firm and competent at their decision making is arbitrary. It shows
that the discretion of the State was exercised without any principle and creates
arbitrariness. Every state action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of
arbitrariness which is the crux of Art.148.

6 1975 AIR1331

7 1973 AIR 106

8 law Resource India

15. By virtue of Art.21, every discretionary power vested upon the authorities should be
exercised according to the procedure established by law and in a just, fair and reasonable
way .In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India9, the SC held that the Govt. was not justified in
withholding the reasons for impounding the passport from the petitioner. The opportunity
of hearing was denied which resulted not only in breach of statutory provisions (Passport
Act), but also in violation of the rule of natural justice embodied in the maxim “ Audi
Alteram Partem”10.Natural Justice is a great humanizing principle intended to invest law
with fairness and to secure justice. Fairness in action , therefore, demands that an
opportunity to be heard should be given to the person affected.
16. Rule of Fair Hearing11: This is the second long arm of natural justice which protects the
„little man‟ from arbitrary administrative actions whenever his right to person or
property is jeopardized. The expression “audi alteram partem” simply implies that a
person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. Right to fair hearing is a code of
procedure and covers the following stages through which an administrative adjudication
is properly performed:

. Right to notice
. Right to present case and evidence
.Right to rebut adverse evidence.
.No evidence should be taken at the back of other party.
.Reasoned Decision
.Institutional Decision or one who decides must hear, and
.Rule against Dictation, the decision must be actually his who decides
17. Here the authorities have not given the company ABC Ltd. a chance to be heard
before the court of law and did not cover the above mentioned stages and hence
violated the basic principle of natural justice. The natural justice principle which
involves just, fair

10 www.lawnotes.im
11 Indiakanoon.org
 and reasonableness in procedure was not followed. The procedure is arbitrary, unfair or
unreasonable. The concept of reasonableness must be projected in procedure. Thus it is
clear that the discretion was not exercised in a just, fair and reasonable way as
contemplated in Art21 and resulted in arbitrariness. Thus the petitioners Right to Equality
under Art.14 read with Art 21 is violated.
18. Art.21 guarantees right to life and personal liberty which includes within its ambit
right to livelihood12. By the ban imposed on the game, the right to livelihood of the
shareholders is taken away as the company ABC is the source of their livelihood. Thus
the shareholders‟ right of equal protection of law guaranteed under Art.14 read with
Art.21 is violated.

b) The petitioner‟s fundamental rights under Art. 19 (1) (a) read with Art.21
is violated.
i) Art.19 (1) (a) of the constitution guarantees to the citizens of India the
Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
19. “Freedom of speech and expression” is indispensable in a democracy. It means the
right to express one‟s own convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing,
printing, pictures or any other mode. It thus includes the expression one‟s ideas
through any communicable medium or visible representation, such as gesture, signs and
the like
.the expression connotes also publication and thus the freedom of Press is included in this
category.
20. The Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Art 19(1)(a) is available only
to citizens of India. But in Bennet Coleman and Co. & Ors v . Union of India13, it was
held that the rights of shareholders with regard to Article 19(1)(a) are projected and
manifested by the newspapers owned and controlled by the shareholders through-the
medium of the corporation. The individual rights of freedom of speech and expression
of editors, Directors and shareholders are all exercised through their newspapers through
which they speak. The press reaches the public through the Newspapers. The

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Olga Tellis v Bombay Muncipal

corporation 13 1973 Air 106

 shareholders speak through their editors- The fact that the companies are the petitioners
does not prevent this Court from giving relief to the shareholders, editors, printers who
have asked for protection of their fundamental rights by reason of the effect of the law
and of the action upon their rights. In Sakal Papers Ltd v. Union of India14, the Court
struck down the state order which fixed a minimum price and number of pages which a
newspaper was entitled to publish. It said that the right of Freedom of Speech and
Expression cannot be taken away with the object of placing restrictions on the business
activity of a citizen. Thus from the above stated case it can be summarized that the
company ABC is entitled to get protection under Art. 19 (1) (a) as the game is the
medium through which the company expresses its ideas.
21. The main object of the game developed by the petitioner ABC, company specialized in
designing games, is to make the user more firm and competent at their decisions. Like the
protected books, plays, and movies, games communicate ideas and even social messages
through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and
through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player‟s interaction with the
virtual world). In the landmark judgment of Brown v Entertainment Merchants
Association15, the Supreme Court of United States has held that video games qualify as
protected free speech, and that California‟s 2005 law banning the sale of violent video
games to minors without parental consent is unconstitutional. Although California and
many parents in the United States did not like this decision the Court‟s rational is valid.
Even when the protection of our children is the main object, there are constitutional limits
on governmental actions. As society, we cannot expect too much government interference
in our lives; instead, as parents we should step in and take control of our children. Maybe
parents should be the ones limiting access to violent video games, and time our children
play with these games; maybe parents should talk more to their children about what is
fiction and what is reality; maybe parents should go out with their children and share
some sport or meaningful time; maybe parents should share some meal or nice TV

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14 1981 AIR 746

15 1983 SCR(3) 9303

 program with their children. Perhaps these parental actions can better influence our
children. Because when the violent video game is the only influence in a child‟s life, we
cannot blame the video game industry. Since the Fundamental Rights under part three of
the Constitution of India has been taken from the American Constitution, the protection
of Freedom of Speech and Expression given to the video games in this case has to be
considered.
Hence from the above stated case it can be established that ban imposed on the game is
violative of Art 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution
.
ii) Violation of petitioner‟s rights under Art.19 (1) (a) read with Art.21

22. Art. 21 guarantees “right to life and personal liberty”. The term “personal liberty”
encompasses wide ranges of freedom pertaining to the liberty of an individual, and has
been given expansive interpretation by the apex court of the country. In the light of the
above observation it is put forth that a company‟s right to freedom of speech and
expression must be read into the Article 21 of the Constitution, which is conferred on the
company. A personal and an extensive right of speech and expression is an attribute of
the term “personal liberty” of an individual. The above submission must be read in light
of dictum of the court in Maneka Gandhi: “we may point out even at the cost of repetition
that this Court has said in so many terms in R.C. Cooper's case that each freedom has
different dimensions and there may be overlapping between different fundamental rights
and therefore it is not a valid argument to say that the expression 'personal liberty' in
Article 21 must be so interpreted as to' avoid overlapping between that Article and
Article 19(1).Freedom of speech and expression, which lays down a platform for the
effective functioning of a democratic institution, ought to be devolved upon a company
that should be able to effectively enforce such right itself. Such a freedom should be
protected and enforceable by a company under Article 21 as the term „personal liberties‟
has been given expansive interpretation over the years. Thus the freedom of speech and
expression of a company flows from the term personal liberty of an individual. Such a
liberal interpretation of the company‟s fundamental right under Article 21 will ensure the
enforceability in situations where the company is subjected to cruel administrative or
 legislative actions purporting to take away a company‟s valuable freedom of speech and
expression16
23. In Maneka Gandhi‟s case the court gave a new dimension to Art. 21. It held that the right
to „live‟ is not merely confined to physical existence but it includes within its ambit the
right to live with human dignity. In Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi17, court
held that right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along
with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as, adequate nutrition , clothing and
shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing ourselves in diverse forms,
freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human being. Here the
petitioner‟s right of expressing themselves in diverse forms and mixing and commingling
with its users which is a part of their right to live with human dignity is deprived. Thus
the Freedom of Speech and Expression under Art.19(1)(a) read with Art.21 is violated.

c) The ban imposed on the game violates Art. 19 (1) (g) read with Art.21

i) Art.19 (1) (g) guarantees Right to Freedom of Profession, Occupation,

Trade or Business

24. By virtue of Art.19(1)(g), all citizens shall have the right to practise any profession or to
carry on any occupation, trade or business. “Profession” means an occupation carried on
by a person by virtue of personal and specified qualifications. Occupation, on the other
hand has wide meaning such as any regular work, profession, job etc. “Trade” in its
wider sense includes any bargain or sale, any occupation or business carried on for
subsistence or profit. “Business is a very wide term and would include anything that
occupies the time, the attention and labour of a man for profit. This freedom means that
every citizen has the right to choose his own employment or to take up any trade. Here
the right of the company as a collection of individuals are deprived of its guaranteed
freedom under the

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 1978 AIR 597

17 1981 (2)SCR 516

 virtue of above Art.19(1)(g) when the state authorities infringed the operation of the
“RedOx” game from every available sources in cyberspace u/s 69(a) of the IT act.

ii) Violation of the petitioner‟s right under Art.19(1)(g) read with Art.21

25. In D K Yadav v. JMA Industries 18, the apex court held that the right to life enshrined
under article 21 includes the right to livelihood; and therefore termination of service of a
worker without giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing is unjust, arbitrary and
illegal. The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the
requirements of Art 14, that is right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive
.In short it must be in conformity of the rules of natural justice. Art. 21 clubs life with
liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of
dignity of person would be merely reduced to the animal existence. Thus the ban imposed
on the game without giving the petitioners reasonable opportunity of hearing is violation
of their freedom of carrying out any profession, occupation, trade or business read with
Art.21.

III. Whether imposing ban on the application “RedOx” u/s 69 A of Information

Technology Act is Constitutionally valid?

a. The ban imposed on the game “RedOx” violates Fundamental Rights

guaranteed under the Constitution
26. The ban imposed on the game “RedOx” by virtue of Sec.69A of IT Act, is violative of
the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Art. 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and
21 of the Constitution . Art.14 which guarantees equality before the law and equal
protection of the law, prohibits arbitrariness of State action. The State of Pride in
addition of imposing ban on the game has also registered criminal case against the
company u/s 306 and 120B of IPC whereas it has not registered any such criminal case
against the

18 AIR 1993 SCC 306

 games like “CokemanGo” which is of the similar nature. Thus equality before the law
and equal protection of the law is denied

27. The State of Pride has unreasonably imposed ban on the game without considering the
contention of the petitioners regarding their objective of making the users more firm and
competent in their decision making. The opportunity of hearing embodied in the natural
justice principle was denied to the petitioners. All the above acts points to the
arbitrariness of the state action. Thus the right to equality under Art.14 is violated.
28. While considering Art.19(1)(a), the ban imposed on the game by virtue of Sec 69A of
IT Act curtails the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression of the petitioners. Here
the company‟s objective of making the users more firm and competent in their decision
making is what they try to express. One of the special purpose that Freedom of
Expression serves is that it provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to
establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change. Here the company
aims at a social change. The ban on the game prevents the petitioners from expressing
their idea. Hence it is violative of the right to Freedom of Speech and
Expressionguaranteed under Art.19(1)(a)
29. The Petitioner is a company specialized in developing online games which is their
profession. Art.19(1)(g) guarantees the right to Freedom of Profession, Occupation,
Trade, or Business. The game is their source of income and the means of their
survival. Thus by the ban imposed on the game the petitioner‟s right to profession
under Art.19(1)(g) is violated.
30. In order to deprive a person of his right to Life and Personal Liberty, Art .21 requires
that: there must be a valid law, the law must provide a procedure, the procedure must be
just fair and reasonable and the law must satisfy the requirements of Art.14 and 17 that is,
it must be reasonable. The State of Pride imposing ban on the game by virtue of Sec.69A
of IT Act has not followed the natural justice principle contemplated in Art.21 of the
Constitution. The opportunity of fair hearing is the corner stone of natural justice
principle which was denied to the petitioners. Here the procedure not being just, fair and
reasonable does not satisfy the requirement of Art.14. Hence the Petitioners‟ Right to
Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Art.21 is violated.
31. An act of the state may be legally valid but when it contravenes a fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution, it becomes constitutionally invalid. As the ban imposed
on the game “RedOx” violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners, the State of
Pride‟s action is constitutionally invalid.

b. Ban imposed on the game “RedOx” by the State of Pride U/S 69A of IT Act –
Ultra Vires.

32. The section 69A of IT Act: power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any
information through any computer resource\
(1)Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorized by in its
behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty
and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any
cognizable offence relating to the above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-
section(2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the
Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for
access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in
any computer resource.
32. From the above section it is clear that only the Central Govt. has the power to issue
direction to block any content when it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. Sec.69A of
IT Act gives powers to the Central Govt. to block access “by public any information
generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource”. In essence,
Sec 69A grants authority to the Central Govt to block the access to such games. Here the
State of Pride has imposed ban on the game “RedOx” throughout the country u/s 69A of
IT Act. This action is ultra vires the act since the power to impose ban resides with the
Central Govt. The state has no authority to impose such a ban on the game by virtue of
Sec.69A of IT Act.
33. In Godawat Pan Masala Products P Ltd. v Union of India19the court upheld the
petitioners contention that the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products( Prohibition
of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and
 Distribution) Act,2003 passed by the parliament vests the power to declare a product as
injurious to health only with the Central Government u\s 23 of the Act and no such power
is vested with the state government.
34. Back in 2012,the J&K Home Department issued a Govt20. order completely blocking
access to www.youtube.com, http://www.facebook.com etc. The J&K Govt. cited its
powers under Sec.5(2) of the Telegraph Act as its basis to block these websites as the
particular act does not discriminate in affording powers to the Central and State
Governments. The J&K Govt did not apply Sec 69A of IT Act here as the act does not
confer the State Government such an authority. Here the game has been banned by the
State of Pride and not by the Central Govt. The provision itself has mentioned that the
Central Govt. is the sole authority to block any content and that the state has no such
authority. Thus the State of Pride acted ultra vires the Act.
35. The state has the power to ban anything within its territory only. It cannot exercise the
powers beyond its territorial jurisdiction. For banning such an online game countrywide,
only the Central Govt. can do so. Even if the state issues such an order, it cannot be
enforced throughout the country

19 Appeal (civil) No: 4674 of 2004

20 Issued by Jammu ad Kashmir government (special provision)

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore in the light of issues raised , arguments advanced and authorities cited it is
most humbly submitted before this Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Indica , that court may
hold , adjudge and declare that
 Petitioner has not committed any offence under sections 306 and 120B of IPC
which are abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy respectively
 The fundamental rights of petitioners guaranteed by the constitution are
violated by the act of state
 The ban imposed in the game under section 69A of IT act is unconstitutional

Or take any other decision , decree or order I spirit of justice, equality and good conscience
For the respondents shall for ever pray

Counsels for the Petitioners