TEAM CODE - O

JAMIA HAMDARD MOOT COURT

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF EDNA

Filed under Article 32 of the EDNA Constitution, 1950

In the matter of

ECTX & Anr. v Republic of Edna

Edna……………………………………………………………………...…
ALONG WITH.

PETER NAZEER V. Republic of Edna

Memorandum on Behalf of Respondent,

Counsels for the Respondent

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Referred to in

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................ 3, 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................................. 5

 TABLE OF CASES.............................................................................................................. 5

 WEB RESOURCES........................................................................................................ 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES............................................................................................................... 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...................................................................................................... 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED........................................................................................................... 10

1. Whether or not the supreme court of edna should club the two writ petitions filed by ectx and
peter nazeer?.................................................................... 10
2. Whether or not, and in which circumstances can the supreme court of edna quash an fir in a
writ petition under article 32 of the constitution of Edna? And, if so, whether or not the grounds
raised to seek quashing of the fir are sufficient to allow the said
petition................................................................................................................................ 10
3. Whether or not the provisions of the edca ban mining, generating, holding, selling, dealing in,
issuing, transferring, disposing of or using virtual currency in the territory of edna ought to be
declared unconstitutional………………………………………………………………..12

PRAYER.................................................................................................................................... 15

2|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.I.R. All India Reporter

Ant. Another

Cal Calcutta High Court

Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

E.R. England Reporter

Ed. Edition

F.I.R. First Information Report

Hon’ble Honourable

I.P.C Indian Penal Code

I.P.C. Indian Penal Code

K.B. Kings Bench

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

Mad Madras High Court

NCT National Capital Territory

OR’s. Others

3|Page
P&H Punjab & Haryana Court

Pat Patna

Raj Rajasthan High Court

S.C. Supreme Court

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter

Sec. Section

Supp. Supplementary

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

W.B. West Bengal

W.P. Writ Petition

WLR Weekly Law Reports

4|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.NO. TABLE OF CASES

1. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of U.P. & Ors, Writ Petition (Crl.) 457/2021

2. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. The Central Bureau of Investigation, Writ Petition (Crl.) 149/2012

3. Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India 2020 14 SCC 12

S.NO. WEB RESOURCES

1. www.jstor.org (JSTOR)

2. www.judis.nic.in (SUPREMECOURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)

3. www.legal.un.org (UNITED NATIONS)

4. www.manupatrafast.com (MANUPATRA)

5. www.scconline.com (SCC ONLINE)

6. www.westlaw.india.com (WEST LAW INDIA)

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION 001/2022:

Respondents are replying to the jurisdiction invoked, in the question relating to the
constitutional validity of the provisions of the Edna Official Digital Currency Act, 2021 under
Article 32 of the Constitution.

Respondents affirm the jurisdiction invoked by the Petitioners in light of determining the
vires of the Act in question.

WRIT PETITION 002/2022:

Respondents are replying to the jurisdiction invoked, in the question relating to the quashing
of the FIR filed against the Petitioner, under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The Respondents submit that the Writ Petition under Art. 32 is not maintainable on the
grounds of the availability of equally efficacious remedy before the relevant High Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Between 2013-17, Reserve Bank of Enda, issued various public notices highlighting risks
involved in virtual currencies. By in the year 2016, crypto user base in Enda started to
boom and by 2020 it had already become of the hub for crypto users accounting for 10%
of global share of users.

2. Owing to uncertainty of RBE, various VC platforms choose to Shift their bases in

Singapore and the User agreement is now governed as per Singaporean Law. ECTX one
of the other VC exchanges which shifted their base to Singapore and Modified their user
agreement as per the Law of the land.

3. During the same time period (i.e., 2016-21) various Ex-bords (Exchange Boards) were
doing aggressive marketing camping, which consequently led to creation of a perception
that their target audience was lower-middle class and these investments were safe, legal
and were very promising (of high returns) the campaign was so aggressive and tactical
that it led to the govt. Deeming the Digital currencies as “misleading youth of the country.

4. There was no special legislation for Cryptocurrencies until 2021, in the same year, Enda
bans cryptos and comes up with a digital rupee via an act “Enda official currency Act,
2021 (aka EDCA). this led to a steep downfall of the values of cryptocurrencies and
petition was filed by ECTX, but it didn’t work out.

5. ECTX, in order to refund the money of its customers, demands personal information of
users (Unique Identity Number and Income Tax Registration) so that money can be
refunded back in ENR currency. ECTX shared personal data of its users with EQPL. After
learning of this, the users file petitions U/S 72 and 72A of the IT Act, 2000.

7|Page
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF EDNA SHOULD

CLUB THE TWO WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY ECTX AND PETER
NAZEER?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER OR NOT, AND IN WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES CAN

THE SUPREME COURT OF EDNA QUASH AN FIR IN A WRIT
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
EDNA? AND, IF SO, WHETHER OR NOT THE GROUNDS RAISED
TO SEEK QUASHING OF THE FIR ARE SUFFICIENT TO
ALLOW THE SAID PETITION.

ISSUE 3

WHETHER OR NOT THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDCA BAN

MINING, GENERATING, HOLDING, SELLING, DEALING IN,
ISSUING, TRANSFERRING, DISPOSING OF OR USING
VIRTUAL CURRENCY IN THE TERRITORY OF EDNA OUGHT
TO BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

8|Page
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 - WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF EDNA SHOULD CLUB

THE TWO WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY ECTX AND PETER NAZEER?

1. It is humbly conducted before this Hon’ble court that the subject matter of the two writ
petitions which have been filed by ECTX and Peter Nazeer respectively are similar in
nature and both should be clubbed together.

ISSUE 2 - WHETHER OR NOT, AND IN WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE

SUPREME COURT OF EDNA QUASH AN FIR IN A WRIT PETITION UNDER
ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF EDNA? AND, IF SO, WHETHER OR
NOT THE GROUNDS RAISED TO SEEK QUASHING OF THE FIR ARE
SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE SAID PETITION.

2. It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that the writ petition for quashing of the FIR
against Peter Nazeer is not maintainable and is wasting court’s precious time. The petition
is not maintainable and stands liable to be dismissed. Further the apex court as in the case
of Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of U.P. & Ors1, the apex court declined to entertain
the plea and observed that a relief which can be considered by the High Court under
Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 cannot be considered by the Apex Court in the
exercise of powers under Article of the Constitution of Edna.

ISSUE 3 - WHETHER OR NOT THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDCA BAN MINING,

GENERATING, HOLDING, SELLING, DEALING IN, ISSUING, TRANSFERRING,
DISPOSING OF OR USING VIRTUAL CURRENCY IN THE TERRITORY OF EDNA
OUGHT TO BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for respondent that the provisions of the EDCA ban mining,
generating, holding, selling, dealing in, issuing, transferring, disposing of or using virtual
currency in the territory of Edna, and should not be unconstitutional owing to the reason
that it had been previously observed that these virtual currency (hereinafter VCs) platforms
are vulnerable to many sorts of hacking scams and cyber-attacks, where the assets of the
user are stolen.

1
Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of U.P. & Ors, Writ Petition (Crl.) 457/2021

9|Page
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 - WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF EDNA SHOULD CLUB THE
TWO WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY ECTX AND PETER NAZEER?

Issue 1: It is humbly conducted before this Hon’ble court that the subject matter of the two
writ petitions which have been filed by ECTX and Peter Nazeer respectively are similar in
nature and both should be clubbed together.
• Furthermore, it is Contended that both writ petitions arise from the same cause of action
(enactment of the EDCA) and henceforth should be clubbed to be Heard in the same
proceeding, this can be understood when analysing the nature of both the writ petitions as well
as the cause of action giving rise to the filing of the mentioned writs.
• The facts of the present case state that, both the writs were filed under the Article 32 of the
constitution of Edna, the first writ challenges the constitutionality of the Edna official digital
currency Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘EDCA’) provisions that been mining,
generating, holding, selling, dealing in, transferring, disposing of, or using cryptocurrency in
the territory of Edna and the second writ was filed by Peter Nazeer who wishes to quash the
FIR registered against him acting in the capacity of the promoter of ECTX.
• The initial writ petition was filed with the intent of convincing the government to reconsider
the ban on virtual currencies (hereinafter referred to as VC), following the enactment of the
EDCA in august, 2021. It can be observed that following the enactment of the EDCA and the
ban on VC, ECTX hired Edna quick process private limited (hereinafter referred to as EQPL),
a payment processing company, to the Erian users. However, on learning about this, the users
retaliated against ECTX on showing their personal data with EQPL, and filed complaints
against ECTX and Peter Nazeer all over Edna under section 72 and 72A of the Edna
information Technology Act for break of confidentiality and privacy.
• It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that in view of the aforementioned fact and
legal provisions, it can be clearly ascertained that the two writ petitions have risen from the
causes of action and the subject matter of the two writs in similar in nature and hance, the two
writs should be clubbed together.

ISSUE 2 - WHETHER OR NOT, AND IN WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE

SUPREME COURT OF EDNA QUASH AN FIR IN A WRIT PETITION UNDER
ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF EDNA? AND, IF SO, WHETHER OR NOT
THE GROUNDS RAISED TO SEEK QUASHING OF THE FIR ARE SUFFICIENT TO
ALLOW THE SAID PETITION.

Issue 2 It is humbly submitted that the relationship between constitutional law and criminal
law has always been much contested. It is an admitted position that writ petitions are an
intrinsic part of the constitutional framework which are meant for every citizen with rights in

10 | P a g e
 Edna to challenge the actions of the state in case of injustices, which cannot be restored by
any other authority or Court of law within the territory of Edna.

• In the recent years people related with any of the criminal proceedings began to approach the
apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Edna to be remedied. But in the recent
years the apex court has clarified position on the topic very briefly.

• In the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr2, the apex court observed that
“Regarding the maintainability, namely, filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, learned ASG submitted that it is only on complete examination and
appreciation of facts, materials and evidence that it can be decided as to whether these distinct
conspiracies form part of the same transaction in view of the law laid down by this Court. He
further pointed out that the CBI which is the investigating agency, after a full-fledged
investigation, came to a conclusion that the conspiracy to eliminate Tulshiram Prajapati was
a distinct and separate offence, accordingly, such disputed questions of fact are not and ought
not to be decided in a writ petition under Article 32”.

• In the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India 3 , “We hold that it would be
inappropriate for the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution for
the purpose of quashing FIR 164 of 2020 under investigation at the NM Joshi Marg Police
Station in Mumbai. In adopting this view, we are guided by the fact that the checks and
balances to ensure the protection of the petitioner’s liberty are governed by the CrPC”. The
petitioner would be at liberty to pursue such remedies as are available in law under
the CrPC before the competent forum. Any such application shall be considered on its own
merits by the competent court”.

• In the case of Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of U.P. & OR’s4, the apex court observed “we
are of the opinion that such type of Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
for the relief(s) prayed to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings/FIR ought not to have
been filed. It is not expected that the relief which can be considered by the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be considered by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India”.

So, in regard with the above cases, it is submitted before this hon’ble court to not quash FIR
against Peter Nazeer.

2
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. The Central Bureau of Investigation, Writ Petition (Crl.) 149/2012
3
Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India 2020 14 SCC 12
4
Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of U.P. & Ors, Writ Petition (Crl.) 457/2021

11 | P a g e
ISSUE 3 - WHETHER OR NOT THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDCA BAN MINING,
GENERATING, HOLDING, SELLING, DEALING IN, ISSUING, TRANSFERRING,
DISPOSING OF OR USING VIRTUAL CURRENCY IN THE TERRITORY OF EDNA
OUGHT TO BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Issue 3: Virtual currencies do not satisfy the criteria such as Store of value, medium of payment
and unit of account, required for being acknowledged as currency.
✓ Virtual currency exchanges do not have any formal or Structured mechanism for handling
consumer disputes/Grievances.
✓ Virtual currencies are capable of being used for illegal Activities due to their
anonymity/pseudo-anonymity.
✓ Increased use of virtual currencies would eventually Erode the monetary stability of the Indian
currency and the Credit system.
✓ The impugned decision of RBI is legislative in Character and is in the realm of an economic
policy Decision taken by an expert body warranting a hands-off Approach from the Court.
✓ The impugned decision is within the range of wide Powers conferred upon RBI under the
Banking Regulation.
• It is submitted by the counsel for respondent that the provisions of the EDCA ban mining,
generating, holding, selling, dealing in, issuing, transferring, disposing of or using virtual
currency in the territory of Edna, and should not be unconstitutional owing to the reason that
it had been previously observed that these virtual currency(ies) (hereinafter VCs) platforms
are vulnerable to many sorts of hacking scams and cyber-attacks, where the assets of the user
are stolen. Moreover, the practice these VC platforms are carrying out is not principled as they
are promoting & advertising (basically marketing) these platforms to provide virtual currency
services at the investment at a rate as low as Rs. 100 and therefore targeting the citizens
belonging to the lower middle class of Edna which is dangerous & misleading for the youth
as many of the lower middle-class citizens would not be able to even have their grievances
addressed if they become a victim for the hack scam that is prominent in virtual currency
exchanges. Another peril of using these currencies is that their graphs are not stable. Their
value, many a times go suddenly up and starts to catch the attention of masses like a bubble
and then immediately comes down. Due to this lack of stability, a person who isn’t rich
enough, might end up bankrupt in times of emergency. More competition means, more
instability. One just cannot expect the masses to have knowledge about finance and stock
markets, which brings me another point, unlike conventional currencies, digital currencies
cannot increase in value via trade, rather they increase only by investing in it. Do you hear
investors saying, “oh, I invested in Rupee or Dollar or Yuan, Euro etc.”? Less competition
means more stability. Hence, the counsel for respondent submits that increased use of virtual
currency will eventually erode the monetary stability of the Indian currency & the credit
system.
• The counsel for respondent submits VCE (Virtual Currency Exchange) lack any formal or
structured mechanism for handling consumer disputes/ grievances. Besides, it shall be noted

12 | P a g e
 that due to their untraceable, nature virtual currencies are capable of used for illegal activities
due to their anonymity/pseudo anonymity
• The counsel of respondent further submits that the realm of the press release was much broader
than consumer protection. RBI cautioned users, holders & traders of VCs about the potential
financial, operational, legal, customer protection and security related risks they were exposing
themselves to. If it is illegally done, the government panel recommended a punishment of
imprisonment up to 10 years on people who mine, generate, hold, sell, transfer, dispose of,
issue or deal in cryptocurrencies. The official declined to say whether the new bill includes
jail terms as well as fines, or offer further details but said the discussions were in their final
stages.
• The counsel for respondent submits that the swarm of material noticed by RBI in their reports
and the reports of the committees to which RBI was a party and also the cautions recurrently
issued by RBI over a span of half decade, reflects the wise and well thought reasoning on the
part of RBI. They also reflect that RBI did not proceed in haste but proceeded with great care
& caution. Therefore, the satisfaction arrived at by them was too loud & clear to be ignored.
The standard for considering the Circular which got challenged, is the presence of corpus per
se and not the appropriateness of such corpus.
• The counsel for respondent submits that the impugned decisions were necessitated in public
interest to protect the interest of consumers (mostly of whom are completely new to this), the
interest of the payment & settlement systems of the country & for protection of regulated
entities against exposure to high volatility of the virtual currencies. RBI is empowered & duty
bound to take such pre-emptive measures in public interest and the power to regulate includes
the power to prohibit.
• The Supreme Court ruled that as per Article – 19(1)(g) of the Constitution provides that all
Indian citizens have the freedom to carry on any trade or profession & that the circular
impinges on this right since it put many citizens who dealt in VCs or offered services relating
to VCs out business. It is replying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Md.
Yasin v. Town Area Committee & Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India the Supreme Court
observed that the measures taken by the State must be measured against the impact on
business, in effect and substance. Further, relying on its decision in Md. Faruk v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court, evaluated the April 6 Circular on the basis of-
(a) its impact on the fundamental rights of the affected citizens,
(b) the larger public interest sought to be achieved in light of the object,
(c) the necessity for restricting the fundamental right;
(d) the pernicious nature of the act prohibited which may be harmful to the public and;
(e) the possibility of achieving the same with a less drastic measure.
• The KYC rules and regulations followed by the VCE (Virtual Currency Exchange) are far
below what other participants in the payments & monetary system follow perhaps, now many
of these platforms are opting no KYC required process. Albeit, KYC norms are ineffective, as
the inherent characteristic of anonymous nature of VCs does not get compensated.

13 | P a g e
• Moreover, Cross-border nature of the trade VCs, coupled with the lack of accountability, has
the potential to destabilize payments system managed by RBI. It is believed that RBI or any
other Government authority would not be able to curtail, limit, regulate or control the
generation of VCs and their transactions, resulting in ever-present & inevitable financial risks.
• The counsel for respondent therefore urges this court of law that the ban on virtual currency
since it is not unlawful or unjust or unconstitutional but the provisions for the same under the
EDCA have been incorporated in the interest of protection of the rights of people and in the
interest of justice. Further, it would be submitting that declaring VCEs unconstitutional as it
would lead to significant monetary loss as well as the employment rates would also drop
significantly due to the reason that a large number of businesses are now indulging in VCEs.
It is counselled that pronouncing the ban on such exchanges as legalizing it would only lead
to grave injustice to all the endian users of ECTX and potential destabilization of the financial
framework and a financial partition.

14 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
The two writ petitions filed by both petitioners are fairly distinct and need not to be clubbed;
- The second writ petition filed praying for quashing of the FIR filed against the Petitioner
be rejected;
- The ban imposed by Section 3(1) of EDCA on mining, generating, holding, selling, dealing
in, issuing, transferring, disposing of, or using cryptocurrency in the territory of Edna be
declared constitutionally valid.

And/or pass any such order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice,
equity, and good conscience.

15 | P a g e