TEAM CODE -

LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020.

IN THE MATTER BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

IN THE MATTER OF

M. BANERJEE ND ORS. …PETITONER

V.

UNION OF INDICA …RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETETIONER

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENTS OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................ 8

ISSUE: 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 8

ISSUE: 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 8

ISSUE: 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 8

ISSUE: 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................... 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 10

I. WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 14. ............................................................................................................................ 10

II. WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 19. ............................................................................................................................ 13

III. WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 21 ............................................................................................................................. 19

IV. WHETHER THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. ............ 21

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. NO. ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

1. AIR ALL INDIA REPORT
2. ANR. ANOTHER
3. U/S. UNDER SECTION
4. ITA INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT
5. HON’BLE HONOURABLE
6. GOVT. GOVERNMENT
7. INDLAW INDIA LAW

8. SEC. SECTION
9. LNIND LEXIS NEXIS INDIA

10. GUD. GUDIGUDI

11. BOM BOMBAY
12. IT ACT. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT.
13. ORS. OTHERS
14. P. PAGE
15. PIL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

16. SC SUPREME COURT

17. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

18. ART. ARTICLE

19. U.T. UNION TERRITORIES

20. S.C.R. SUPRERME COURT RECORDS

21. NY. NEWYORK

22. v. VERSUS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487 ........................................................................... 14
Anuradha Bhasin v. UOI, 2020 1 MLJ 574. ................................................................................. 21
AnuradhaBhasin and Ors. Vs. Union of India .............................................................................. 17
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34 ............................................................. 11
BabulalParate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884. .......................................................... 19
Bachansingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336 .................................................................... 14
BudhanChoudhry v. State of BiharAIR 1955 SC 191. ................................................................. 11
Chintamanrao v. state of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1951 SC 118. ................................................... 15
District register and collector v. Canara bank, AIR 2005 SC 186 ............................................... 12
District register and collector v. Canara bank, AIR 2005 SC 186 ................................................ 14
EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 .............................................................. 14
Fedco (P) Ltd. Bilgrami,S.N., AIR 1960 SC 415. ........................................................................ 20
Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas v. State of Gujarat, C/WPPIL/191/2015............................................... 19
Indian Express v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641. ............................................................ 18, 21
Jan Md., Noor Mohammad Begam v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 385. ................................. 20
Julian J Robinson v.The Attorney General of Jamaica; Justice K.S Puttaswamy and Ors. V.
Union of India and Ors. AIR 2017 SC 4161 ............................................................................. 22
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 4161 ..................................... 21
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 ..................................................................... 20
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 ................................................................... 14
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal,
(1995) 2 SCC 161; ..................................................................................................................... 19
Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh. (1969) 1 SCC 853. ............................................ 16
Municipal Corporation v. Jan. Md. Usmanbhai, AIR 1986 SC 1205. ......................................... 20
Nar Pal Singh v. UOI, AIR 2000 SC 1401 ................................................................................... 21
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 430. ............................................................... 20
Natural resource allocation, Re Special Reference Number 1 Of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1 (77 .... 11
P.P Enterprises v. UOI, (1982) 2 SCC 33. .................................................................................... 13
PUCL v. UOI, (2003) 4 SCC 399. ................................................................................................ 16
Ramdhandas v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1559. ................................................................... 20
ShreyaSingal v. UOI (2015) 5 SCC 1. .......................................................................................... 19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 5

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC .......................................................................... 18

State of Karnataka v. associated management of (Govt. Recognized – Unaided – English
Medium) Primary and Secondary Schools, (2014) 9 SCC 485. ................................................ 14
State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, AIR 1970 SC 1157. ................................ 20
Style (Dress Land) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh,(1999) 7 SCC 89. ........................................ 13
Thommen J, in Indira Sawhney v. UOI, AIR 1993 SC 477. ........................................................ 11

STATUTES

The Constitution of India, 1950…………………………………………………………………..

Information technology Act, 2000………………………………………………………………..

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885……………………………………………………………………….

BOOKS

M.P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW…………………………………………………

D.D BASU CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COMMENTARY, 14TH EDITION LexisNexis……….

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 6

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

-: FACTUAL BACKGROUND :-

❖ The Union of Indica comprises of 29 states and 9 Union territories in which each territory
enjoys certain degree of autonomy and control over the affairs within its jurisdiction. The
Union Territory of Gudigudi is a dominion falling under the control of Union of Indica. The
outbreak of communal violence and anti-national activities are quite frequent in the
territory because of its social structure. On one occasion, a WhatsOn message disparaged a
particular religion causing severe unrest among the locals. Flowing of the said message
through different social media sites and applications ultimately caused protests and
subsequently some incidences of unrest in the territory.

-: PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:-
❖ Following this, the Union of Indica imposed certain restrictions in the territory of Gudigudi
to maintain law and order. The government not only suspended the freedom of movement
but also imposed a complete ban on the Internet services along with certain other rights
throughout the territory. This decision of the Government adversely affected communication,
net banking, voice calls, SMS, tourism, day-to-day business activities etc. Banking services
were also disrupted. Online traders suffered loss of business profit. The universities had to
postpone their exams due to non-availability of internet facility. Students were unable to
submit various exams forms within scheduled time limit. The needy were unable to withdraw
money from ATMs in time. Due to all these issues many people faced irreparable losses.

-:CURRENT SCENARIO:-
❖ Being aggrieved by this decision of the Government and the hardships faced the common
people, various petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica seeking issuance of appropriate writs, to compensate
for losses suffered, for setting aside or quashing the order of suspension of internet service in
the UT and to restore all modes of communication. Looking into the matter, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court clubbed all the petitions as the present one. In addition to this the Hon’ble
Supreme Court issued a show cause notice to the Union of Indica. In reply to which, the
Union of Indica opposed the writ petition and justified their actions.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32
of the constitution of Indica.1

11
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.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE: 1

WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 14?

ISSUE: 2

WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 19?

ISSUE: 3

WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 21?

ISSUE: 4

WHETHER PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATION?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE: 1

WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 14.
The counsel for the petitioners humbly submits before this Hon’ble Supreme court that, in the
instant matter of M. Banerjee and Ors. V. Union of Indica the internet suspension imposed in the
territory of Gudigudi is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of Indica as it restricts the people
of Gudigudi from carrying out their day to day activities in which internet plays a very vital role.

ISSUE: 2

WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 19.
The counsel for the petitioners humbly submits before this Hon’ble Supreme court that, in the
instant matter of M. Banerjee and Ors v. Union of Indica. It is contended that the impugned
restrictions have affected the freedom of movement, freedom of speech and expression and right
to free trade and avocation of the people of Gudigudi.

ISSUE: 3

WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 21.
The counsel for the petitioners humbly submits before this Hon’ble Supreme court that, in the
instant matter of M. Banerjee and Ors. V. Union of Indica the government deprived the people
of web connectivity which directly hampered their Right of Personal Liberty.

ISSUE: 4

WHETHER PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATION.

The counsel for the petitioners humbly submits before this Hon’ble Supreme court that, in the
instant matter of M. Banerjee and Ors. V. Union of Indica that the restrictions imposed by the
Govt. should be set aside or quashed under which modes of communication including internet,
mobile and fixed line telecommunication services should be restored also to provide an enabling
people of Gudigudi free access of the internet.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 14.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon‘ble SC that, the matter involves a substantial question of
law of general public importance. The arbitrary and hasty use of power by the Union of Indica
over the people of Gudigudi.
1. Equality is one of the magnificent corner-stones of Indian democracy.2
2. The doctrine of equality before law is a necessary corollary of Rule of Law which
pervades the India Constitution. 3 The underlying object of Art.14 is to secure to all
persons, citizens or non-citizens, the equality of status and opportunity referred to in the
preamble to our Constitution.4
3. Art. 14 bars discrimination and prohibits discriminatory laws. Art.14 is now proving as a
bulwark against any arbitrary or discriminatory state action. The horizons of equality as
embodied in Art.14 have been expanding as a result of judicial pronouncements and
Art.14 has now come to have a “highly activist magnitude”.

A. TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

1. It is humbly submitted that Article 14 provides for equality before the law and equal
protection of the law. Two tests have been provided by the Supreme Court overtime, in
which any law passed by the government is required to satisfy, in order to fulfill the
requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution, and the Acts in question are unable to
satisfy the requirements so laid down.
2. For upholding the classification under Article 14 these two tests must be satisfied. In the
case of BudhanChoudhry v. State of Bihar5, the Constitution Bench of seven Judges of
this Court explained the true meaning and scope of Article 14 as follows: “It is now well
established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of
permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) That the
classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons
2
Thommen J, in Indira Sawhney v. UOI, AIR 1993 SC 477.
3
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34.
4
Natural resource allocation, Re Special Reference Number 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1 (77).
5
BudhanChoudhry v. State of BiharAIR 1955 SC 191.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 11

or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) That the
differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute
in question.”

i. The Principle of Intelligible Differentia:

3. Under Article 14 a permissible classification must be based on intelligible differentia
which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others. The expression
Intelligible differentia means difference capable of being understood and should be
reasonable and not arbitrary. 6The order U/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be
passed to the public generally, and must be specifically against the people or the group
which is apprehended to disturb the peace. It is necessary for the State to identify the
persons causing the problem, and an entire State cannot be brought to a halt. Therefore, it
is on the part of the Government, before making a complete ban on the Internet in the
state of Gudigudi, to bring a prudent differentia of its actions. Complete ban on Internet
and unreasonable restrictions on movement cannot be a solution for the problems which
arose in the state and moreover it all added to the further plight of the common people.

ii. Reasonable Nexus between Classification and the Object Sought:

The contention from the government on banning the internet was to stop the severe
unrest raising among the locals. Not only this but also it imposed restrictions on the
trade, movement, speech, access to health facilities, education etc. This particular action
of government cannot be justified on the grounds that stopping the common people from
using internet or putting restrictions on the trade or movement can curb the unrest in the
state of Gudigudi. Complete ban is no solution. It should be classified according to a
reasonable nexus to seek the desired objective.

The exercise proved to be absolutely this proportionate to the purpose sought to be

achieved. The reasonable Nexus between stringency of the provision and the purpose
sought to be achieved must exist.7

6
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 876 (7th ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur,
2016).
7
District Registrar and Collector v. Canara bank, AIR 2005 SC 186.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 12

B. ARBITRARINESS:
Any state action, legislative or judicial or executive, is void if it contravenes Article 14.
The word ‘State’ thus includes all ‘instrumentalities or agencies’ of the government,
whether they are departments of the government or not, whether a statutory corporation
or other private body. It is the duty of state to allay fears of citizens regarding
discrimination and arbitrariness. 8
What Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must
necessarily involve negation of equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does
not satisfy the aforementioned two conditions, the impugned legislation or executive
execution would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Art. 14 would
be breached.9 It is held that the expression "reasonable" connotes that the limitation
imposed on a person in the enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an
excessive nature beyond what is required in the interests of public10. Further, in order to
be reasonable, the restriction must have a reasonable relation to the object which the
legislation seeks to achieve, and must not go in excess of that object. Thus in the instant
matter, the restrictions imposed by the Union of Indica on internet, trade, movement and
other rights cannot be justified and are unreasonable.

Firstly, according to learned counsel restrictions on the rights guaranteed by clause (2)
and (3) of Art. 19 of the Constitution can be placed in the interest of "public order" and
not in the interest of the "general public", which expression, according to him is wider in
its ambit than public order and that since s. 144 enables a magistrate to pass an order in
the interest of the general public the restrictions it authorizes are beyond those
permissible under cls. (2) And (3) of Art. 19. It is significant to note that s. 144 nowhere
uses the expression "general public". Some of the objects for securing which an order
thereunder can be passed are, "to prevent obstruction, annoyance, injury" etc. No doubt,
the prevention of such activities would be in the "public interest" but it would be no less
in the interest of maintenance of "public order.
Rule of law which permeates the entire fabric of Indian constitution excludes
arbitrariness. “Whenever we find arbitrariness and unreasonableness there is denial of
rule of law”. Article 14 enacts primarily a guarantee against arbitrariness and inhibits

8
Style (Dress Land) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh,(1999) 7 SCC 89.
9
Durga Das Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8th Edition of 2007, Volume 2.
10
P.P Enterprises v. UOI, (1982) 2 SCC 33.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 13

state action, whether legislative or executive, which surfers from vice of arbitrariness.
“Every state action must be non- arbitrary and reasonable. Otherwise, the court would
strike it down as invalid".11
It is primarily a guarantee against arbitrariness in state action and the doctrine of
classification has been evolved only as a subsidiary rule for testing whether a particular
state action is arbitrary or not. If a law is arbitrary or irrational it would fall foul of article
14. It is necessary, where power granted is open to use disproportionately purpose to be
achieved is invalid In the absence of guidelines or principles or norms which are
‘essential’ for exercise of such power. 12The legislature cannot validly in at a provision
conferring naked or arbitrary power on administration to be exercised by it in its absolute
discretion. No law ought to confer excessive discretionary powers on any authority.

II. WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 19.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon‘ble SC that, the word ‘freedom’ in Art. 19 of The
Constitution mean absence of control by the state. In all matters specified in Art. 19(1), the
citizen has the liberty to choose, subject only to restriction in Art. 19(2) to (6).13
1. Clauses (a) to (g) of Art. 19(1) guarantee to the citizens of Indica six freedoms, viz, of
‘speech and expression’, ‘peaceful assembly’,’ association’,’ free movement’,’residence’
and ‘practicing any ‘profession and carrying on any business’.
2. These various freedoms are necessary not only to promote certain basic rights of the
citizens but also certain democratic values in and the oneness and unity of, the country.
Art. 19 guarantee some of the basic, valued and natural rights inherent in a person.
3. We are confining ourselves to declaring that the right to freedom of speech and
expression Under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to carry on any trade or business under
19(1)(g), using the medium of internet is constitutionally protected. Freedom of speech
and expression is the bulwark of democratic Govt. it is therefore truly said that it is the

11
Bachansingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336; EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555;
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487.
12
District register and collector v. Canara bank, AIR 2005 SC 186.
State of Karnataka v. associated management of (Govt. Recognized – Unaided – English Medium) Primary and
13

Secondary Schools, (2014) 9 SCC 485.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 14

mother of all other liberties 14. In a democracy, freedom of speech and expression opens
up channels of free discussion of issues but in this case the restriction imposed on
internet facilities through the territory have deprived the people of Gudigudi from
exercising their fundamental right.
4. Freedom of speech plays a crucial role in the formation of public opinion on social,
political and economic matters as it embraces within its scope the freedom propagation
and interchange of ideas, dissemination of information which would help formation of
one’s opinion and view point and debates on matters of public concern.
In the matters of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI 15, Bhagvati J, has emphasized on the significance of the
freedom of speech and expression in these words:
Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion, for that is the only corrective
of Govt. action in a democratic setup. If democracy means Govt. of the people by the people, it
is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order
to enable him to intelligently exercise his right of making a choice, free and general discussion
matters is absolutely essential.
5. The phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in
enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is
required in the interests of the public. The word "reasonable" implies intelligent care and
deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which
arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of
reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in
Article 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by Clause (6) of Article 19, it must be
held to be wanting in that quality.16
The object of the law or the executive action is irrelevant when it infringes a fundamental right
although its subject matter may be different. Even a law dealing directly with a purpose
mentioned in Art. 19(2) would be invalid if it is not reasonable. Thus the restriction imposed on
the internet and trade should be declared invalid as they cannot be considered as reasonable. The
Court must in considering the validity of the impugned law imposing a prohibition on the
carrying on of a business or profession, attempt an evaluation of its direct and immediate impact
upon the fundamental rights of the citizens affected thereby and the larger public interest sought
to be ensured in the light of the object sought to be achieved, the necessity to restrict the citizen's

14
Report of the Second Press Comm., Vol. I, 34-35.
15
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597.
16
Chintamanrao v. state of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1951 SC 118.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 15

freedom the possibility of achieving the object by imposing a less drastic restraint or that a less
drastic restriction may ensure the object intended to be achieved. 17
6. The Supreme Court dealt with the aspect of the freedom elaborately. The right of the
citizens to obtain information on matters relating to public acts flows from the
Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Art. 19(1)(a)18. Therefore the freedom of
expression, as contemplated by Art. 19(1)(a) which in many respects overlaps and
coincides with freedom of speech, has manifold meanings.
7. On 05.08.2019, Constitutional Order 272 was issued by the President, applying all
provisions of the Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and
modifying Article 367 (Interpretation) in its application to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir. In light of the prevailing circumstances, on the same day, the District
Magistrates, apprehending breach of peace and tranquility, imposed restrictions on
movement and public gatherings by virtue of powers vested Under Section 144, Code of
Criminal Procedure Due to the aforesaid restrictions, the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1031
of 2019 claims that the movement of journalists was severely restricted and on
05.08.2019, the Kashmir Times Srinagar Edition could not be distributed. The Petitioner
has submitted that since 06.08.2019, she has been unable to publish the Srinagar edition
of Kashmir Times pursuant to the aforesaid restrictions
8. It was contended that due to various restrictions imposed on the press and media freedom
of speech and expression was restricted which is why print media came to a grinding halt
due to non-availability of internet services, which in her view, is absolutely essential for
the modern press.
9. It is submitted that the communications/internet restrictions which were imposed under
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 [hereinafter "Telegraph Act"] needs to follow the
provisions of Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, in line with Article 19 of the Constitution.
The procedure that is to be followed for restricting Internet services is provided under the
Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service)
Rules, 2017 [hereinafter "Suspension Rules"], which were notified under the Telegraph
Act.
10. The learned Counsel contended that the orders are based on an apprehension of
likelihood that there would be danger to a law and order situation. Public order is not the

17
Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh. (1969) 1 SCC 853.
18
PUCL v. UOI, (2003) 4 SCC 399.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 16

same as law and order, and the situation at the time when the orders were passed did not
warrant the passing of the orders resulting in restrictions.19
11. The Union of Indica can declare an emergency only in certain limited situations. Neither
any 'internal disturbance' nor any 'external aggression' has been shown in the present case
for the imposition of restrictions which are akin to the declaration of Emergency.
12. Indicating that the State can impose restrictions, we should focus on the question of the
"least restrictive measure" that can be passed. It is submitted that while imposing
restrictions, the rights of individuals need to be balanced against the duty of the State to
ensure security. The State must ensure that measures are in place that allows people to
continue with their life, such as public transportation for work and schools, to facilitate
business, etc.
13. The learned senior Counsel emphasized on the term "reasonable", as used in Article
19(2) of the Constitution, and submitted that the restrictions on the freedom of speech
should be reasonable as mandated Under Article 19 of the Constitution. These
restrictions need to be tested on the anvil of the test of proportionality.
14. It is submitted that the freedom of speech and expression is meant to allow people to
discuss the burning topic of the day which through the actions of the government is not
possible.
15. It is submitted that Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution require that any action of the
State must demonstrate five essential features: (a) backing of a law', (b) legitimacy of
purpose, (c) rational connection of the act and object, (d) necessity of the action, and (e)
when the above four are established, then the test of proportionality.
16. Law and technology seldom mix like oil and water. There is a consistent criticism that
the development of technology is not met by equivalent movement in the law. In this
context, we need to note that the law should imbibe the technological development and
accordingly mould its Rules so as to cater to the needs of society. Non recognition of
technology within the sphere of law is only a disservice to the inevitable. In this light, the
importance of internet cannot be underestimated, as from morning to night we are
encapsulated within the cyberspace and our most basic activities are enabled by the use
of internet.
17. We need to distinguish between the internet as a tool and the freedom of expression
through the internet. There is no dispute that freedom of speech and expression includes

19
Anuradha Bhasin and Ors. Vs. Union of India, 2020 1 MLJ 574.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 17

the right to disseminate information to as wide a Section of the population as is possible.

The wider range of circulation of information or its greater impact cannot restrict the
content of the right nor can it justify its denial.
18. In the case of Shreya Singal v. Union of India, Section 69(A) of the Information
Technology Act, 2000(which got repealed) read with the Information Technology
(Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules,
2009 allows blocking of access to information. This Court, in the Shreya Singhal case,
upheld the constitutional validity of this Section and the Rules made
thereunder. It is to be noted however, that the field of operation of this Section is limited
in scope. The aim of the Section is not to restrict/block the internet as a whole, but only
to block access to particular websites on the internet. Recourse cannot, therefore, be
made by the Government to restrict the internet generally under this section.20
19. The development of the jurisprudence in protecting the medium for expression can be
traced to the case of Indian Express v. Union of India, wherein this Court had declared
that the freedom of print medium is covered under the freedom of speech and
expression.21
20. It should also be noted that the internet is also a very important tool for trade and
commerce. The globalization of the Indian economy and the rapid advances in
information and technology have opened up vast business avenues and transformed India
as a global IT hub. There is no doubt that there are certain trades which are completely
dependent on the internet. Such a right of trade through internet also fosters consumerism
and availability of choice. Therefore, the freedom of trade and commerce through the
medium of the internet is also constitutionally protected Under Article 19(1)(g), subject
to the restrictions provided Under Article 19(6).
21. Keeping in mind the national interest and internal security, the government shall make
endeavors to ensure that normal life is restored in the state of Gudigudi so that the people
can access to health care facilities and schools, colleges and other educational institutions
and public transport functions and operates normally. All forms of communication,
subject to overriding consideration of national security, shall be normalized, if required
on a selective basis, particularly for healthcare facilities.
22. The second contention was that wholesome exercise of power under Section 144 of the
Code in any case was not permissible, because if we consider the notification, it is for

20
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC.
21
Indian Express v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 18

alleged misuse of social media. As per the learned counsel, certain social media sites
could be blocked, even if the purpose was to be achieved by exercise of the power, like
Twitter, Face Book, WhatsApp etc. but complete blockage of access to internet through
mobile could not be said as warranted in law. As per the petitioner, except the broadband,
all internet facilities on mobile phones were blocked, hence such would not even meet
with the minimal restriction to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) of
the Constitution22.
23. Law and technology seldom mix like oil and water. There is a consistent criticism that
the development of technology is not met by equivalent movement in the law. In this
context, we need to note that the law should imbibe the technological development and
accordingly mould its rules so as to cater to the needs of society. Non recognition of
technology within the sphere of law is only a disservice to the inevitable. In this light, the
importance of internet cannot be underestimated, as from morning to night we are
encapsulated within the cyberspace and our most basic activities are enabled by the use
of internet.
24. Firstly, according to learned counsel restrictions on the rights guaranteed by clause (2)
and (3) of Art. 19 of the Constitution can be placed in the interest of "public order" and
not in the interest of the "general public", which expression, according to him is wider in
its ambit than public order and that since s. 144 enables a magistrate to pass an order in
the interest of the general public the restrictions it authorizes are beyond those
permissible under cls. (2) and (3) of Art. 19. It is significant to note that s. 144 nowhere
uses the expression "general public". Some of the objects for securing which an order
thereunder can be passed are, "to prevent obstruction, annoyance, injury" etc. No doubt,
the prevention of such activities would be in the "public interest" but it would be no less
in the interest of maintenance of "public order."23
25. We need to distinguish between the internet as a tool and the freedom of expression
through the internet. There is no dispute that freedom of speech and expression includes
the right to disseminate information to as wide a Section of the Population as is possible.
The wider range of circulation of information or its greater impact cannot restrict the
content of the right nor can it justify its denial. 24

22
Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas v. State of Gujarat, C/WPPIL/191/2015.
23
BabulalParate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884.
24
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC
161; ShreyaSingal v. UOI (2015) 5 SCC 1.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 19

26. All these rights combined have a wider expression and would comprise within its ambit
25
the interests of public health and morals, economic stability 26of the country, equitable
distribution of essential commodities at fair prices 27, maintenance of purify in public life,
prevention of fraud28; amelioration of the conditions of farmers 29
or workman30;
implementation of the Directive Principles in Part IV 31.

III. WHETHER SUSPENSION OF INTERNET FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE 21

1. “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a
procedure established by law.” 32
2. Right to Life is one of the basic human rights and not even the State has the authority to
violate this right. The expression "dignity of the individual" finds specific mention in the
Preamble to the Constitution of India. Each expression used in Art. 21 enhance human
3334
dignity and values.
3. It is submitted that along with Article 19, Article 21 of the Constitution require that any
action of the State must demonstrate five essential features: (a) backing of a law', (b)
legitimacy of purpose, (c) rational connection of the act and object, (d) necessity of the
action, and (e) when the above four are established, then the test of proportionality.
4. In the case of K.S Puttaswamy v. UOI, the court had held that the proportionality of a
measure must be determined while looking at the restrictions being imposed by the State
on the fundamental rights of citizens. The learned senior Counsel pointed out that it is not
just the legal and physical restrictions that must be looked at, but also the fear that these

25
State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, AIR 1970 SC 1157.
26
Glass Chatons Importers and Users Association v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1514.
27
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 430.
28
Fedco (P) Ltd. Bilgrami,S.N., AIR 1960 SC 415.
29
Jan Md., Noor Mohammad Begam v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 385.
30
Ramdhandas v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1559.
31
Municipal Corporation v. Jan. Md. Usmanbhai, AIR 1986 SC 1205.
32
Constitution of India, 1950..
33
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
34
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 20

sorts of restrictions engender in the minds of the populace, while looking at the
proportionality of measures.35
5. As a general principle, on a challenge being made regarding the curtailment of
fundamental rights as a result of any order passed or action taken by the State which is
not easily available, the State should take a proactive approach in ensuring that all the
relevant orders are placed before the Court, unless there is some specific ground of
privilege or countervailing public interest to be balanced, which must be specifically
claimed by the State on affidavit. In such cases, the Court could determine whether, in
the facts and circumstances, the privilege or public interest claim of the State overrides
the interests of the Petitioner. Such portion of the order can be redacted or such material
can be claimed as privileged, if the State justifies such redaction on the grounds, as
allowed under the law.
6. The nature of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution is well settled. The
fundamental rights are prescribed as a negative list, so that "no person could be denied
such right until the Constitution itself prescribes such limitations". The only exception to
the aforesaid formulation is Article 21(A) of the Constitution, which is a positive right
that requires an active effort by the concerned government to ensure that the right to
education is provided to all children up to the age of 16 years but in this case because of
the internet ban various universities had to postpone their exams due to which the
children suffered losses and their fundamental right of education got hampered. 36
7. In the case of Nar Singh Pal v UOI, The Supreme Court has asserted:
“Fundamental Rights under the constitution cannot be battered away. They cannot be
compromised nor there any estoppel against the exercise of Fundamental Rights
available under the constitution.”37
8. “We have to balance liberty and security concerns so that right to life can be secured in
best possible manner.”
9. The development of the jurisprudence in protecting the medium for expression can be
traced to the case of Indian Express v. Union of India, wherein this Court had declared
that the freedom of print medium is covered under the freedom of speech and
expression38.

35 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 4161.
36
Anuradha Bhasin v. UOI, 2020 1 MLJ 574.
37
Nar Pal Singh v. UOI, AIR 2000 SC 1401.
38
Indian Express v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 21

IV. WHETHER THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.

Keeping in mind the national interest and internal security, the state shall make all endeavors to
ensure that normal life is restored in Gudigudi; people have access to healthcare facilities and
schools, colleges and other educational institutions and public transport functions and operates
normally. All forms of communication, subject to overriding consideration of national security,
shall be normalized, if required on a selective basis, particularly for healthcare facilities.

The rule of law requires that no one is to be subjected to harsh, uncivilized or discriminatory
treatment even if the objective is to the securing of the paramount of exigencies of law and
order39

Ours is an age of information. Information is knowledge. The old age that “knowledge is power”
has stark implications for the position of the individual where data is ubiquitous, an all-
encompassing presence. Technology has made life fundamentally interconnected. The internet
has become all pervasive as individuals spend more and more time online each day of their lives.
Individuals connect with others and use the internet as a means of communication. The internet
is used to carry on business and to buy goods and services. Individuals browse the web in search
of information, to send e-mails, use instant messaging services and to download movies. Online
purchases have become an efficient substitute for the daily visit to the neighboring store. Online
banking has redefined relationships between bankers and customers. Online trading has created a
new platform for the market in securities. Online music has refashioned the radio the radio.
Online book have opened up a new universe for the bibliophile. The old-fashioned travel agent
has been rendered redundant by web portals which provide everything from restaurants to rest
houses, airline tickets to art galleries, museums tickets to music shows. These are but a few of
the reasons people access the internet each day of their lives.40

39Rupinder Singh Sodhi v. UOI, AIR 1983 SC 65.

40
Julian J Robinson v.The Attorney General of Jamaica; Justice K.S Puttaswamy and Ors. V. Union of India and
Ors. AIR 2017 SC 4161.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 LATE KUSUMTAI CHAVAN 7TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPITITION, 2020 | 22

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is prayed in the light of issues raised herein above, arguments advanced and
authorities cited that the counsel here on behalf of the prosecution humbly prays before this
Hon’ble Court to kindly adjudge and be pleased to declare,

1. To declare, the orders passed by the Government contrary to the process of law, and
must be struck down.

2. To declare, allotment of required compensation to all the sufferers from the state of
Gudigudi..

AND/OR

Pass any other order, direction or relief that may deem fit best in the interest of justice, fairness,
equity and good conscience for which appellant may be duty bound forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS