TC - 22. Respondent

TC_22
5TH ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2021.
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF SILVIA
IN THE MATTER OF
MEDIA ASSOCIATION .…………………………….APPELLANT
VS.
UNION OF SILVIA …………………………….RESPONDENT
WP NO 100 OF 2019
CLUBBED WITH
DR SIMPARA ……………………………….APPELLANT
VS.
MEDIA ASS. OF SILVIA & UNION OF SILVIA ………………….RESPONDENT
CLUBBED WITH
MR, CAVIAR ………………………………….APPELLANT
VS.
UNION OF SILVIA ……………………………….....RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY (RESPONDENT)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS.....…………………………..…………………………………… PAGE NO.
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………….…….…2
o LEGISLATION
o CASES REFERRED
o WEBSITES
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION…………………………………………………………..4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………..6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………….7
 STATEMENTS OF ISSUES………………………………………………………...10
 ISSUE I
 WHETHER DOCTOR SIMPARA IS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY OR NOT?
 ISSUE II
 WHETHER THE GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE
CONSTITUTION EXTENDS OF ARTIFICIAL PERSONS OR NOT?
 ISSUE III
 WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT IS
CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………...........11
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………….….............13
 PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………..29

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LEGISLATION:
1. Information technology Act, 2000.

2. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
3. The Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
CASES REFERRED:
1. Anirudh Bahal v. State, AIR 2010 172, DLT 269.
2. Brij. Bhushan v. State Of Delhi, 1950 AIR 129, SCR 605.
3. Express Newspaper v. Union Of India, AIR (1997)1 SC.
4. Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) (P) Ltd. V. Union Of India, (1985)1 SCC 641
5. Kedar Nath v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India, 38 AIR 1978 SC 597 40.
7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
8. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT Of Delhi), (2010)6 SCC 1.
9. Om Kumar v. Union Of India ,AIR 2000 SC 3689.
10. Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. CTO, AIR (1994)2 SCC 434.
11. PUCL v. Union Of India, AIR 1997 SC 568.
12. Ramesh Thapar v. State Of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
13. Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court, AIR (2003) 3 SCC 427.
14. Ramgi Lal v. State Of U.P ,AIR 1957 SC 620
15. R.M Malkani v. State Of Maharshtra, 1973 AIR 157, 1973 SCR (2) 417.
16. R.K Karanjia v. Thackersey, AIR (1970), Bombay 424.
17. S. Pratap Singh v. State Of Punjab, 1964 AIR 72, SCR (4) 733

18. State Of Maharshtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, AIR 2010(6) SCC 1.
19. Subhramanian Swamy v. Union Bank Of India, AIR (2016)7 SCC 194.
BOOKS:
1) DURGA DAS BASU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 70 TO 76

(3ed, 2008).
2) 1, Dr. SUBHASH KASHYAP, CONSTITUIONAL LAW OF INDIA 625-640 (1 ed.
2008).
3) 2, DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTRY ON CONSTITUION OF INDIA 2126 (8
ed. 2007).
4) 3, DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTRY ON CONSTITUION OF INDIA 2126 (8
ed. 2008).
5) DR. ISHITA CHATTERJEE, LAW ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 98 (2 ed.
2018)
6) MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUINAL LAW 1168-1172 (7 ed. 2015).
7) P. RAMANATHA AIYER’S LAW LEXICON 1689,(2 ed.2013).
WEBSITES:
1) http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2554/Phone-Tapping-Right-To-Privacy-
Under-Article-21.html (last visited on 27/02/2020 at 12:15).
2) http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/477/Sting-Operation:-Scope-&-
Limitations.html#:~:text=Sting%20Operation%3A%20Scope
%20%26%20Limitations,individual%20such%20as%20privacy. (last visited on
01/03/2020 at 03:19).
3) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/sunday-et-all-you-wanted-to-know-about-
phone-tapping/articleshow/18882226.cms?from=mdr (last visited on 04/03/2020 at
11:45).

LIST OF ABBREVIATION
AIR All India Report
Art. Article
Anr. Anothers
Assn. Association
CTO Commission Tax Office
CJ Chief Justice
Dr. Doctor
Ed. Edition
Exp. Express
FIBS Force Intelligence Bureau Service
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
J. Justice
Ltd. Limited
Mad. Madras
Mr. Mister
NCT National Capital Territory
Ors. Others

PUCL People’s Union Of Civil Liberties
Pvt. Private
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
UP Uttar Pradesh
UOI Union Of India
V. Versus

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE HONOURABLE SUPREME

COURT OF SILVIA UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF SILVIA.
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.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Dr. Simpara, a renowned neuropsychologist is based in Genia in the democratic

republic of Silvia, who was having client including of international repute and few
nations and suspicious personality in the list.
2) On 29th of September 2019 a few state in Genia were attack by group of terrorist for
which matter was handed to FIBS found some material indicate with foreign
connection But not sufficient to indicate anyone.
3) Silvia express reputed and oldest known dailies owned by media house private ltd
started its own investigation and it was found that two suspect visited Dr. Simpara’s
clinic in Genia before 29th September 2019 and had paid visited several times in the
respective countries of the suspects during Feb to May 2019.
4) In this connection reporters of Silvia express attempted to question Dr. Simpara but he
declined to which the duo planned to conduct a sting operation on Dr. Simpara. They
found that Dr. Simpara was holding an dubious mean of identification some papers in
code term and map of cities, unconnected with medical practices. This report was
published entitled “Unholy connection of intellectual with unholy elements”,
authorized by editor in chief Mr. Petro.
5) 1st October 2019 a news channel “Truth Only” after the report of Silvia express tried
to es tablished on the basis of survey that such connection do exist by reference too
many cases from all over the world.
6) “Truth Only “ gather , published and broadcasted views expressed by different
segments of the society to which two panelist in their final arguments Ms. Glory and
Dr. Carlho emphasized that it is time to respond as there is a clear connection between
these intellectual and terror operating groups as they belong to a particular ethnic
group.
7) A survey was done during a live streaming of news where majority of audience gave
their positive response to unholy connection of intellectual with unholy elements
because of particular ethnic similarities to which time has arrived to respond.
8) Many leading media group carried news on the same subject matter in a much
distorted manner, disseminating identically false information as a result Dr. Simpara
was called abused and even threatened on social media.

9) After the news violent conflict broke out between two social groups as result security
troops were dispatched to different parts of state to maintain law and order.
10) On 4th of October 2019 government established a truth and reconciliation commission
headed by Justice Kahn (j of SC) and two high court judge to submit the line bound
report recommendation.
11) The commission after thorough investigation filed a report indication that “There is
strong protection of press freedom in the constitutional philosophy. The press must
not be used as a mean of disseminating truth, it must be transparent responsible and
accountable”.
12) The commission also referred to 200th reports of law commission of Silvia
“Trial by Media” of August 2006 which read as “Innocents may be condemned for
no reason or those who are guilty may not get a fair trial or may get a higher
sentence after than they deserved. There appears to be very little restraint in the
media in so far as the administration of criminal justice is concerned.
13) The Commission recommended that:
…journalists need to be trained in certain aspects of law relating to freedom of speech in

Article 9(1)(a) and the restrictions which are permissible under Art. 19(2) of the
Constitution, human rights, law of defamation and contempt.
14) The media association of Silvia filled written petition no. 100 of 2019 before the
honorable Supreme Court contending that any such action will be ultra vires the
constitution article 19 (1) (a).
15) The (FIBS) relied on section 69 of the Information Technology Act, and started
keeping track of the movements of Dr. Simpara as it is expedient to do on in the
interest of sovereignty or integrity of Silvia.
16) Dr. Simpara was also terminated form his services as global institute of Silvia where
he was the head and the dean in the neuropsychology department. He approached
supreme court of Silvia seeking redress for the violation of his privacy against the
editor in chief Mr. Petro, the media house pvt ltd and news channel TRUTH ONLY
against trial by media as it is not only distorted his reputation but also infringed his
right to privacy as contemplated in the constitution .

17) In a separate petition in by Mr. Caviar, a social activist the Supreme Court was
dealing with similar question in which contented that the constitution of Silvia does
not employ the term “Freedom of Press” unlike the American constitution. Freedom
of speech and express of the citizen does not confer an absolute right; it is limited and
it is restricted for press because the guarantee is not only to the natural person and not
to the artificial person. It was argued that the guarantee of Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution only affirms what already exists in the natural person with the rider that
the state can make responsible restrictions in the exercise of the rights which is right
to freedoms listed under Article 19(1). It cannot take into its ambit what did not exist
naturally. Artificial persons are out of the reach of Article 19 of the Constitution. It
further argues that though it is true that citizens only, the exercise will have to be by
individuals; A legal person created by or under law cannot exercise the freedoms
under Article (1)(a) in that artificial personality. Even the principle qui facit per
alium, facit per se will take in only natural persons for Article 19 purposes.
18) The petition also challenges the constitutional validity of section 69 of the
Information technology Act broadly on the ground that the said provision does not
satisfy the test of proportionality vis-a-via right to privacy.

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES
ISSUE I
WHETHER DOCTOR SIMPARA IS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE RIGHT TO

PRIVACY OR NOT?
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE

ISSUE III
WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT IS


SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1) WHETHER DOCTOR SIMPARA IS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE RIGHT TO

PRIVACY OR NOT?
The counsels would humbly state that right to privacy is not a fundamental right in fact it is a
multi-directional right such that when there is a matter of security then right to privacy cannot
be taken into consideration. The press also enjoys this freedom of speech and expression and
is considered an institutional medium through which people of the country can ask for their
rights. Freedom of speech plays a crucial role in the formation of public opinion on social,
political and economic matters freedom of press indicates that the press has every right of
printing and publishing.
1) WHETHER THE GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE

The council on the behalf of the respondent would like to humbly put forward that article 19
(1)(a) of the Constitution of Silvia does not extends to artificial persons.
The council humbly submits before the Hon’ble bench two contentions relevant to the
subject. Firstly, was that the provisions of the Citizenship Act were conclusive on the
question that a corporation or a company could not be a citizen of India [2.1]. In the second,
that article 19 guaranteed the rights in question only to citizens as such, and that an
association (such as a company) could not lay a claim to the fundamental rights guaranteed
by article' 19, solely on the basis of the fact that it was an aggregation of citizens [2.2].
Public interest has to be safeguard by article 19 (1) (2) which lays down reasonable
limitations to the freedom of expression in matters affecting:
 sovereignty and integrity of the state

 Security of the state

 Friendly relation with foreign culture
 Public order
 Decency and morality
 Content of court
 Defamation
 Incitement to an offence1
2) WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT IS

The counsels would like to state that the Section 69 of the Information Technology Act is
Constitutional. It is humbly submitted that section 69-A of the Information and Technology
Act, 2000 is constitutional.
Section 69 empowers the “Central Government or a state government or any of its officers
specially authorized by the Central Government or the state government, as the case may be”
to exercise powers of interception under this section. Thee counsels rely on the case of PUCL
v. Union of India2. It was held that Section 5(2) of the Act permits the interception of
messages in accordance with the provisions of the said Section. "Occurrence of any public
emergency" or "in the interest of public safety" are the sine qua non for the application of the
provisions of Section 5(2) of the Apt. Public emergency would mean the prevailing of a
sudden condition or state of affairs affecting the people at large calling for immediate action.
When either of these two conditions are in existence, the Central Government or a State
Government or the authorized officer can resort to telephone tapping if there is satisfaction
that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of Silvia
etc.
1
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/freedom-of-speech-and-expression/
2
AIR 1997 SC 568.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I. WHETHER DOCTOR SIMPARA IS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE RIGHT

TO PRIVACY OR NOT?
If the democracy has to be meaningful and function effectively, then a free press is a sine qua
non. Which is why very often the freedom of press is described as the oxygen of democracy;
and without which a democratic society cannot survive. It is visibly evident, especially since
Independence, a free and vigilant Press has acted as a vital agency to curb corruption and
injustice.
This right of freedom of expression includes the right to hold opinions to receive and impart
information either orally or in writing or in any other form through any of the agencies of the
media. Article 19 of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights 1976 also
incorporates the right of freedom of speech and expression. In India the right of freedom of
speech and expression is incorporated in 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. This right of
freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right in the Indian legal system. The right
to free press does not exist independently and is incorporated in the right of freedom of
speech and expression; and hence the right to free press is regarded as a fundamental right.
The press is regarded as the fourth pillar of democracy.
The press also acts as a means for keeping the elected officials responsible to the people who
are supposed to serve. The press not only brings to the notice of the society, the crimes,
which otherwise would have gone unnoticed; but also plays a crucial role in initiating legal
proceedings in such crimes, thereby ensuring justice 3 . The literal meaning of ‘Freedom’
means absence of control or lack of interference from any authority; so also it means no
restrictions. Here freedom of press means the right or the liberty to print, publish, or paint
without any interference from the state or any other public authority.
It is submitted that, there is no violation of privacy done to Dr. Simpara, firstly, the sting
operation conducted by the media reporters was non violative of Dr. Simpara’s privacy [1.1].
3
Infra; p. p.136-149.

Secondly, use of freedom of press was into certain limits [1.2]. Thirdly, by the phone tapping
done by FIBS and the Police was for the security of the state [1.3]. Fourthly, no harm has
been done to the reputation of Dr. Simpara [1.4].
[1.1] The sting operation conducted by the media reporters was non violative of Dr.simpara’s
privacy.
It is submitted that, In law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to

catch a person committing a crime. A typical sting will have an undercover law
enforcement officer, detective, or co-operative member of the public play a role as criminal
partner or potential victim and go along with a suspect's actions to gather evidence of the
suspect's wrongdoing. Mass media journalists occasionally resort to sting operations to record
video and broadcast to expose criminal activity.
[1.1.1] The Delhi High Court on 24/09/2010 delivered a judgment on controversial Anirrudh

Bahal v. State4, and made sting operations legal. Anirrudh Bahal and Suhasini Raj, conducted
a sting operation of some Members of Parliament, in which they were offered money for
asking questions in Parliament and the act was caught in the camera.A sting operation always
benefits into:
 They Facilitate Investigation and Increase Arrests. ...

 They Enhance Public Relations and Police Image. ...
 They Enhance Police Presence. ...
 They Improve Collaboration Between Police and Prosecutors. ...
 They Provide an Impressive Conviction Record. ...
 They May Succeed Without Convictions or Arrests.
# an operation by and online news site called Tehelka to catch to catch top politician and
army officers taking bribes from journalists posing as businessman.
[1.1.2] In the Instant case, the sting operation conducted had resulted into findings of some
papers in coded terms and the map of the cities, unconnected with medical practice, and also
Dr. Simpara was residing in Silvia on dubious means of identification. 5 This makes it very
clear that the sting operation so conducted was for the purpose of the security of the state
which resulted into findings of some evidence enough to make Dr. Simapar liable of having
4
AIR 2010 172 DLT 269
5
Page 1, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Anand Swaroop Gupta Memorial National Moot Court, 2020.

the connection with the terror attack and no infringement of privacy was done on behalf of
media to Dr. Simpara.
[1.2] The freedom of press is denoted as the backbone of the democracy.
Freedom of speech plays a critical role in the formation of public opinion on social, political
and economic matters. Similarly, the person in power should be able to keep the people
inform about their policies and projects, therefore it can be said that freedom of speech is the
matter of all other liberties. Freedom of press performs very vital functions of the society.
[1.2.1] The freedom of press is denoted as the backbone of the democracy. This is the most
basic functions performed by the freedom of press. It is because of the freedom of press that
the democracy survives. Democracy means the government of the people, by the people and
for the people. The press makes it possible for the government to know the moods and
necessities of the people. Simultaneously the press communicates to the whole society, the
intention, policy and measures of the government. 6
[1.2.2] The council humbly relies on the case of Indian express newspaper (Bombay) (p) ltd
Union of India7 (has stated freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse.
The press has now assumed the role of public educator making formal and non-formal
education possible in large scale particularly in the developing world, where telephone and
other kinds of modern communication are not still available for all section of society. The
purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and the opinion
without which a democratic electorate (government) cannot make responsible judgment.
[1.2.3] The counsels humbly cite the case of Printers (Mysore) ltd v. CTO8 the SC has
reiterated that though freedom of the press is not expressly guaranteed as a fundamental right,
it is implicated in the freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of press has rightly been
described as the truth chamber of democracy. It is primary duty of all national courts to
uphold this freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative activities which interfere with
this freedom, are contrary to the constitutional mandate9
[1.2.4] Article 19 provide that a restriction can be characterized to be reasonable if it strikes a

balance between the fundamental rights and restriction imposed thereon Om Kumar V. Union
6
38 AIR 1978 SC 597 40.
7
1985)1 SCC 641 at p. 644, para 32.
8
(1994) 2 SCC 434.
9
Indian express newspaper (Bombay) (p) ltd Union of India (1985)1 SCC 641.

of India,10Right to privacy is not a fundamental right in fact it is a multi-directional right such
that when there is a matter of security then right to privacy cannot be taken into account. In
the instant case, as the matter was of the state security so right to privacy was not taken into
consideration as many findings found were against Dr. Simpara.
[1.2.5] The counsels humbly cite the case of Ramesh Thapar v. state of Madras,11 Patanjali
Shanti, CJ, observed that“Freedom of speech and of the press lay of foundation of all
democratic organization, fort without free political discussion no public education so
essential for the proper function of the process of popular government, is possible.
[1.2.6] The counsels humbly rely on the case of Indian express newspaper (Bombay) (p) ltd
v. Union of India12, was observed that freedom of press is essential for the proper functioning
of the democratic process. 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 of public matter is absolutely essential. The question of
validity of censorship came up to consideration in the case of Brij Bhushan v state of Delhi13.
[1.3.] The phone tapping done by FIBS and the Police, was for the security of the state.
Section 5(2) of The Indian Telegraph Act states that “On the occurrence of any public
emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State
Government or any officer specially authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or a
State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct that any message or class of messages to or
from any person or class of persons, or relating to any particular subject, brought for
transmission by or transmitted or received by any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall
be intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government making the order or an
officer thereof mentioned in the order
10
AIR 2000SC 3689.
11
AIR. 1950 SC 124.
12
(1985)1 SCC 641 at p. 644,para 32.
13
1950 AIR 129 SCR 605.

[1.3.1] The council humbly rely on the case of S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab 14, the
Supreme Court permitted the recording of a intercepted telephonic conversation between the
Chief Minister’s wife and a doctor to be divulged as evidence to substantiate the evidence of
witnesses who had mentioned in his statement, that such a conversation had taken place.
[1.4] No harm has been done to the right to reputation of Dr. Simpara.
In the instant case, no harm has been caused to the reputation Dr. Simpara. The case of
defamation does not occur if it is a;
[1.4.1] Fair Comment
In R.K. Karanjia V. Thackersey 15, the defendant published an article against the ‘House of
Thackersey’ a business organization, headed by the plaintiff. The article suggested that the
plaintiff had exploited his position in increasing his wealth by unlawful and questionable
means, involving tax evasion, financial jugglery, import–export rackets by obtaining licenses
in the name of bogus firms and factories, and customs and foreign exchange violations. The
plaintiff brought an action for defamation. At the Trial Court the defences of justification, fair
comment on the matter of public interest were pleaded. All the defences were rejected and it
was held that the plaintiff had been grossly defamed, and Trial Court passed a decree of Rs 3,
00,000 with costs and also issued an injunction forbidding the publication of such articles.
However the High Court reduced the amount of compensation from Rs 3, 00,000 to Rs 1,
50,000.
Hence any statement made which is fair and in consideration with the security of the country,
then it does not amount to violation of right to reputation. Thus, on reliance of the arguments
made and the authorities cited, the counsels humbly submit that no violation to the right to
privacy has been caused as the matter was of security of people at large.
14
1964 AIR 72, SCR(4) 733.
15
A.I.R. {1970} Bombay, 424

ISSUE II.WHETHER THE GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE
The council on the behalf of the respondent would like to humbly put forward that article 19
(1) (a) of the constitution of Silvia does not extends to artificial persons.
The council humbly submits before the Hon’ble bench two contentions relevant to the
subject. The ﬁrst, was that the provisions of the Citizenship Act were conclusive on the
question that a corporation or a company could not be a citizen of India[2.1]. In the second,
that article 19 guaranteed the rights in question only to citizens as such, and that an
association (such as a company) could not lay a claim to the fundamental rights guaranteed
by article' 19, solely on the basis of the fact that it was an aggregation of citizens [2.2].
Public interest has to be safeguard by article 19 (1) (2) which lays down reasonable
limitations to the freedom of expression in matters affecting: (a) sovereignty and integrity of
the state (b) Security of the state (c) Friendly relation with foreign culture (d) Public order (e)
Decency and morality (f) Content of court (g) Defamation (h) Incitement to an offence16
[2.1] The provisions of the Citizenship Act were conclusive on the question that a corporation
or a company could not be a citizen of Silvia.
[2.1.1] It is humbly submits that Media Association being Television channels in a bit to
increase their television rating point (TRP) rating are resorting to sensanalized journalism
with a view to earn a competitive edge over the others.In Jessica Lal case17 whereby the duly
and role played by the media whole reporting a case was brought out stating that presumption
and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the proves of media trial and that
too when the investigation is pending.
[2.1.2] In Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras18 the court held that minor breaches of public
order were not considered as a ground for restricting the “Freedom of speech and expression”
16
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/freedom-of-speech-and-expression/
17
(NCT of Delhi ), (2016) 6 SCC 1.
18
AIR 1950 SC 124.

and restriction can be imposed only on the ground mentioned under article 19 (2) of the
Indian constitution. As order was incorporated in the article 19(2) 0f the constitution as a
ground of restriction.“Every institution is liable to be abuse, and every liberty, if left
unbridled, has the tendency to become a license which would lead to disorder and anarchy”.19
[2.1.3] So accordingly to media any person who is an accused on suspicion shall be declared
as convict without even letting the law take own course and at time the impatient public
blindly believe the media cacophony. Newspaper published by a company is not a citizen and
therefore cannot claim the fundamental right enumerated under article 19 being not a citizen.
Prerana Priyanshu in her speech stated that “Most of the time media fails to acknowledge the
distinction between an accused and a convict and as result it affects the principle of Audi
alteram patern”20.
[2.1.4] it is humbly submitted that Article 19(2) of the constitution provides that the
constitution provides that this regret is not absolute and reasonable restrictions may be
imposed on the exercise of the right for certain purposes. Constitution article 19(1) guarantee
right in subject to the power of the state to make a law imposing reasonable restriction on the
right in the interest of various consideration set out in article 19(2).the provisions of the
article 19 can be availed of only by citizens. The use of word “citizen” in article 19 has the
effect of leaving corporate bodies out of the scope of the article; “TRUTH ONLY” being
impersonal in character, cannot qualify for “citizenship”. The protection of article 19is, thus,
not available to them, and is confined to natural persons, on a reading of judicial
pronouncements. In the case Radha Mohan lal v. Rajasthan High Court21 “Free expression
cannot be equated or confused with a license to Make unfounded and. Responsible elegance
the judiciary”22.
[2.1.5] In case of Ramesh Thappad v. State of Madras23 the ground of security of state was
invoked along with its ally the over throned of the state by the state of madras formatting the
challenges to the constitutionality under article 19 (1) (A) of madras maintenance of public
order act 1949.
19
Express newspaper v. U.O.I (1997)1 SCC 133.
20
Media trial freedom speech V. Free trial 31JAAJS(2015)P.285.
21
AIR ( 2003) 3 SCC 427
22
AIR (2003) 3 SCC 427.
23
Supra note 01.

[2.1.6] In the case of Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar24, the court look the position that when a
provision of law is capable of two interoperation one of which makes it constitutional and
the other unconstitutional the interpretation which makes it constitutional should be
proffered. Further, in Manu Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi 201025, it was held ,”Media as the
fourth pillar of democracy should democrats its limitation and not encroached into the
territory of justice administration as was related in the final decision of Jessica lal”. In case
state of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi 26, about a girl rape attempted was made
on her the court agree that a great harm has been caused to the girl by unnecessary publicity
and taking out a much by public.
[2.1.7] The law commission acts as an advisory body on the other it criticizes the government
policies which do not benefit the public. In case of any defect in any public property, it point
out the defective part of the policy and suggest some ways to correct it. Through the
recommendation made by the commissioner do not the government. So here the media
association cannot file petition on law commissioner report.
[2.2] “Reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and
expression on association (such as a company).
Council on the behalf of the respondent humbly submits that it is necessary to maintain and
preserve freedom of speech and expression in a democracy, so also it is necessary to place
some restrictions on this freedom for the maintenance of social order because no freedom can
be absolute or completely unrestricted. Accordingly, under Article 19(2) of the Constitution
of India, the State may make a law imposing “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the
right to freedom of speech and expression “in the interest of” the public on the following
grounds: Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian constitution contains the grounds on which
restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed:-
[2.2.1] Security of State: Security of state is of vital importance and a government must have
the power to impose a restriction on the activity affecting it. Under Article 19(2) reasonable
restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of the
security of State. However, the term “security” is a very crucial one. The term “security of
24
AIR 1962 SC 955.
25
AIR 2010 (6) S.C.C.1.
26
A.I.R.1997.S.C 3986.

the state” refers only to serious and aggravated forms of public order e.g. rebellion, waging
war against the State, insurrection and not ordinary breaches of public order and public
safety, e.g. unlawful assembly, riot, affray. Thus speeches or expression on the part of an
individual, which incite to or encourage the commission of violent crimes, such as, murder
are matters, which would undermine the security of State. “Security of state” is much wider
expression and includes economic security also. The expression security of state refers to the
session and aggravated form of public disorder not ordinary law and order problem and
public safety. The speeches and impression which encourage violent crimes are related to
security of state27.
[2.2.2] Friendly relations with foreign states: In the present global world, a country has to
maintain a good and friendly relationship with other countries. Something which has the
potential to affect such relationship should be checked by the government. Keeping this thing
in mind, this ground was added by the constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The object
behind the provision is to prohibit unrestrained malicious propaganda against a foreign
friendly state, which may jeopardize the maintenance of good relations between India and
that state.
[2.2.3] No similar provision is present in any other Constitution of the world: In India, the
Foreign Relations Act, (XII of 1932) provides punishment for libel by Indian citizens against
foreign dignitaries. Interest of friendly relations with foreign States, would not justify the
suppression of fair criticism of foreign policy of the Government. However, it is interesting to
note that member of the commonwealth including Pakistan is not a “foreign state” for the
purposes of this Constitution. The result is that freedom of speech and expression cannot be
restricted on the ground that the matter is adverse to Pakistan.
[2.2.4] Public Order: Next restriction prescribed by constitution is to maintain public

order: This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. ‘Public order’ is an
expression of wide connotation and signifies “that state of tranquility which prevails among
the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the
Government which they have established .” Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras 28 and Brij
Bhushan v. Sate of Delhi29, both involved ban of newspaper or periodical under the state laws
27
Ibid.
28
Supra note 02.
29
1950 AIR 129, SCR 605.

that authorised the government to prohibit entry or circulation of written material in the invest
of public order.
Here it is pertinent to look into meaning of the word “Public order. Public order is something
more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. ‘Public order’ is synonymous with public
peace, safety and tranquility. Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public peace
disturbs public order. Thus communal disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole object
of accusing unrest among workmen are offences against public order. Public order thus
implies absence of violence and an orderly state of affairs in which citizens can peacefully
pursue their normal avocation of life. Public order also includes public safety. Thus creating
internal disorder or rebellion would affect public order and public safety. But mere criticism
of government does not necessarily disturb public order.
[2.2.5] Decency or morality: The way to express something or to say something should be a

decent one. It should not affect the morality of society adversely. Our constitution has taken
care of this view and inserted decency and morality as a ground. These sections prohibit the
sale or distribution or exhibition of obscene words, etc. in public places. No fix standard is
laid down till now as to what is moral and indecent. The standard of morality varies from
time to time and from place to place.
[2.2.6] Contempt of Court: In a democratic country Judiciary plays a very important role. In
such situation, it becomes essential to respect such an institution and its order. Thus,
restriction on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed if it exceeds the
reasonable and fair limit and amounts to contempt of court. According to Section
2 ‘Contempt of court’ may be either ‘civil contempt’ or ‘criminal contempt.’ But now, Indian
contempt law was amended in 2006 to make “truth” a defense.
[2.2.7] Defamation: Ones’ freedom, be it of any type, must not affect the reputation or status
of another person. A person is known by his reputation more than his wealth or anything else.
Constitution considers it as ground to put restriction on freedom of speech. Basically, a
statement, which injures a man’s reputation, amounts to defamation. Defamation consists in
exposing a man to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. The civil law relating to defamation is still
unmodified in India and subject to certain exceptions. .In the case Subramanian Swamy v.
Union Bank of India30, The supreme court of India dismissed challenges to the
30
AIR(2016) 7 SCC 194).

constitutionality of the criminal offence of defamation holding that it was reasonable
restriction on the right to freedom of expression; the case had been brought by annual
petitioners charged with criminal defamation. They argue that the reference of criminal
defamation inhibited the speech. The court found that there existed a constitutional duty to
respect the dignity of others.
[2.2.8] Incitement to an offense: This ground was also added by the Constitution (First

Amendment) Act, 1951. Obviously, freedom of speech and expression cannot confer a right
to incite people to commit offense. The word ‘offense’ is defined as any act or omission
made punishable by law for the time being in force.
[2.2.9] Sovereignty and integrity of silvia: To maintain the sovereignty and integrity of a state
is the prime duty of government. Taking into it into account, freedom of speech and
expression can be restricted so as not to permit anyone to challenge sovereignty or to permit
anyone to preach something which will result in threat to integrity of the country. Further, In
Ramgi Lal v. State of U.P31 The petitioner was editor, printer and publisher of a monthly
magazine “Gaurakshak” devoted to low protection. He was convicted under this provision
for publishing an article in the magazine. To regulate the freedom of speech and expression
which represents the limit of the duty of restraint on speech or expression not to utter
defamatory or libelous speech or expression. There is correlative duty not to interfere with
the liberty of others each is instituted to dignity of person and of reputation nobody has right
to designate others right to person a reputation.“A newspaper stands in matter of defamation,
in the same position as members of the public in general. The proprietor of the newspaper, its
editor and printer shall be liable”32.
It is humbly submitted that Grounds contained in Article 19(2) show that they are all
concerned with the national interest or in the interest of the society. The first set of grounds
i.e. the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States and public order are all grounds referable to national interest, whereas, the
second set of grounds i.e. decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to
an offence are all concerned with the interest of the society.
31
AIR 1957 S.C. 620.
32
Mc lead, (1880) 3 all. 342.

ISSUE III. WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted that section 69-A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 is
constitutional.
[3.1] Interception and Monitoring of Electronic Communications and Surveillance Security

of the state.
[3.1.1] Section 69 empowers the “Central Government or a state government or any of its
officers specially authorized by the Central Government or the state government, as the case
may be” to exercise powers of interception under this section.Where a state/union territory
wishes to intercept/monitor or decrypt information beyond its territory, the competent
authority for that state must make a request to the competent authority of the Central
Government to issue appropriate directions.
[3.1.2]Purposes for which interception may be directed Under section 69, the powers of
interception may be exercised by the authorized officers “when they are satisfied that it is
necessary or expedient” to do so in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, defense
of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or
preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for
investigation of any offence.
[3.1.3]Interception and Monitoring of Electronic Communications and Surveillance Security

of the citizens is very important because state is the only savior of the men and women who
get affected only because of the negligence of the state. Right to Interception in India In
India, section 69 of the IT Act, 2000 confers power on the central government or the state
government to issue direction for interception, monitoring or decryption of any information
through any computer resource to protect sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India
security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or preventing
incitement to commission of any cognizable offence or for investigation of any offence. The
subscriber or intermediary are obligated to render all assistance to the intercepting agency to
secure access to a computer generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such information

and to intercept, monitor or decrypt the information or provide information stored in
computer resource.
[3.1.4] Section 69 A confers power on the Central Government to issue directions for
blocking for public access of any information through a computer resource. Likewise, Section
69B empowers the Central Government to monitor and collect traffic data or information
through any computer. Section 69A prescribes provisions to block certain websites wherein
the content is objectionable and is justified by the grounds mentioned in section 69. These
provisions are justified as reasonable restrictions to fundamental rights guaranteed under
constitution of India. Section 69B Under section 69B central government is employed to
monitor, controlled traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in
any computer resource. The provisions obligate intermediaries to render full cooperation in
this for collection of data. Rules Passed Under Information Technology, 2000 on Interception
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring; and
Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 were passed to lay down checks and balances and
procedure to conduct interception.
[3.2] Phone tapping does not constitutes invasion of privacy.

It is further contended before the honble bench that phone tapping done by the authority like
FIBS is not infringement of right to privacy as it was done in public intrest and security of
the state as Dr. Simpara was suspect to the incident happen in the country of Silvia.
[3.2.1]The question whether phone tapping constitutes invasion of privacy was considered by
the Supreme Court in R.M. Malkani v Suite of Maharashtra 33 wherein the court held that
telephone conversations of an innocent citizen shall be protected against unlawful tapping but
the said protection is not available to a guilty citizen against law enforcement initiative
directed at preventing corruption among public officials. In the aforesaid case the court took
the view that there was no unlawful interception or irregularity in procedure adopted to obtain
tape-recordings of conversation under challenge. The precedents in India on phone tapping
indicate a trend that does not restrict government’s power to intercept but in turn place
procedural checks to check proper interception.
[3.2.2] Section 5(2) of The Indian Telegraph Act states that “On the occurrence of any public
emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State
Government or any officer specially authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or a
33
Supra note 03.

State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of Silvia, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct that any message or class of messages to or
from any person or class of persons, or relating to any particular subject, brought for
transmission by or transmitted or received by any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall
be intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government making the order or an
officer thereof mentioned in the order:
[3.2.3] Thee counsels rely on the case of PUCL v. Union of India34. It was held that
Section 5(2) of the Act permits the interception of messages in accordance with the
provisions of the said Section. "Occurrence of any public emergency" or "in the interest of
public safety" are the sine qua non for the application of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the
Apt.
Thus it is contended before the court that a situation giving rise to public emergency or public
safety which has been defined in above celebrated cases has arose and thus, the foremost
essential of Section 5(2) has been satisfied. Thus, there arises question of invoking Section
5(2) of The Indian Telegraph Act and thus phone tap laid on the petitioner was valid and
were in no violation of petitioner’s fundamental and statutory rights.
34
AIR 1997 SC 568.

PRAYER
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT HUMBLY PRAYS
THAT THE HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF SILVIA BE PLEASED:
I) DECLARE THAT TO MAINTAIN THE SOVERIGNITY AND SECURITY

OF THE STATE, RIGHT TO PRIVACY CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT.
II) DECLARE THAT THE GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE

CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXTENDS OF ARTIFICIAL PERSONS.
III) DECLARE THAT THE SECTION 69 OF THE INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
AND/OR
PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON‟BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS FOR

THE RESPONDENT AS IN DUTY BOUND
SHALL EVER PRAY.

(COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

TC - 22. Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC - 22. Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC_22

5TH ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF SILVIA

MEDIA ASSOCIATION .…………………………….APPELLANT

UNION OF SILVIA …………………………….RESPONDENT

MEDIA ASS. OF SILVIA & UNION OF SILVIA ………………….RESPONDENT

MR, CAVIAR ………………………………….APPELLANT

UNION OF SILVIA ……………………………….....RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY (RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 0

CONTENTS.....…………………………..…………………………………… PAGE NO.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 1

1. Information technology Act, 2000.

1. Anirudh Bahal v. State, AIR 2010 172, DLT 269.

2. Brij. Bhushan v. State Of Delhi, 1950 AIR 129, SCR 605.

3. Express Newspaper v. Union Of India, AIR (1997)1 SC.

5. Kedar Nath v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.

6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India, 38 AIR 1978 SC 597 40.

7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.

8. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT Of Delhi), (2010)6 SCC 1.

9. Om Kumar v. Union Of India ,AIR 2000 SC 3689.

10. Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. CTO, AIR (1994)2 SCC 434.

11. PUCL v. Union Of India, AIR 1997 SC 568.

12. Ramesh Thapar v. State Of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.

14. Ramgi Lal v. State Of U.P ,AIR 1957 SC 620

16. R.K Karanjia v. Thackersey, AIR (1970), Bombay 424.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 2

1) DURGA DAS BASU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 70 TO 76

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 3

AIR All India Report

CTO Commission Tax Office

FIBS Force Intelligence Bureau Service

NCT National Capital Territory

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 4

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

UOI Union Of India

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 5

THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE HONOURABLE SUPREME

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 6

1) Dr. Simpara, a renowned neuropsychologist is based in Genia in the democratic

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 7

…journalists need to be trained in certain aspects of law relating to freedom of speech in

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 8

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 9

WHETHER DOCTOR SIMPARA IS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE RIGHT TO

WHETHER THE GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE

WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT IS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 10

1) WHETHER DOCTOR SIMPARA IS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE RIGHT TO

1) WHETHER THE GUARANTEE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE

 sovereignty and integrity of the state

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 11

2) WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT IS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 12

ISSUE I. WHETHER DOCTOR SIMPARA IS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE RIGHT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 13

It is submitted that, In law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to

[1.1.1] The Delhi High Court on 24/09/2010 delivered a judgment on controversial Anirrudh

 They Facilitate Investigation and Increase Arrests. ...

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page | 14