Petitioner

Issue 1

1. Do you think taking any of the alternatives you have just mentioned the
exact same goal could be achieved?

-Much obliged Your Lordships.

Your lordship the petitioner would like to draw your kind attention to paragraph
number 13 of the agreed fact sheet, according to which individuals were still able
access the platform using VPN, thus the intention the respondent is pleading in their
memorial is not achieved but your lordships if the government had taken those
alternatives, it would have been much more efficient as no one would have been able
to access the information once it has been removed.

2. Why should government take the alternatives you have presented?

Your lordships, the reasons petitioner is pleading is one, the alternatives can provide
more efficient result and secondly, In the case of Baba Khalil Ahamad Vs the State
of UP, the Supreme court of UP decided to forfeit six books for hurting religious
sentiment. The government banned those contents as the contents were proved to be
offensive towards a certain community or religion.

 Any statutory provision

Your lordships, petitioner would like to humbly refer Section 8 of the Digital
Security Act, where it is suggested that government officials or law enforcement
authorities do have the right to remove or block any content that is offensive or
immoral. In the case of Bluebird, even if those contents were to be found offensive the
government is to ban those said contents, by doing so the government would have
attained much more efficient result.
 3. Were the contents actually offensive?

Your Lordships, firstly it was not yet proved in a court of law that the contents were
offensive. May I draw your kind attention to Paragraph No 5 of the agreed fact sheet,
where from the very beginning Riverines were demanding a law to ban blasphemy, in
the light of this ongoing debate Peter and Theon simply expressed their opinions.

4. What do you mean by a pressing need?

-Much obliged Your Lordships.

Your lordships in the light of the case of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and others
'Pressing Need' means a need arising from unforeseen causes outside the state’s
control.

 Relevancy:

And in this case, the ban on BlueBird was not justified by a Pressing-Need as
according to paragraph number 13 of agreed fact sheet, the actual reason behind
banning BlueBird was their refusal to cooperate with the prosecutor’s office.

5. Govt. has the authority to limit or restrict any hateful contents, what are
the standards of detecting hateful contents?

your lordships according to section 8(2) of the digital security act 2018, If it appears to
the law that any content published in digital media hampers the religious values or
public order of the country or spread hatred then the government has the authority to
limit or restrict those hateful contents.

But your lordship, in our case in the light of the situation peter and Theon simply
expressed their opinion.
 6. Govt. has the authority over a private company?

Your lordships, although there is government authority over private companies but
the government cannot ban a platform because of the act of any individuals as the
doctrine of safe harbor and limited liability dictates that government should provide a
notice to private companies to act against a wrongful activity in its platforms and only
when the company refused to act accordingly the government can impose a ban upon
serving a notice of such ban. But your lordships in this case no such request or notice
have been served from the government.

7. DSA says if any help is need for investigation, investigation officer can ask
for anyone’s help, so why they did not cooperate?

Your Lordships, May I draw your kind attention to the para no 13 of the agreed fact
sheets, the government prosecutors’ officer while asking for assistance, did not follow
the due process prescribed in Section 46 of Digital Security Act. According to which
a prosecution officer cannot practice the powers of an investigation officer.

 If we consider prosecutor officer as police or investigation officer-

Your lordships, even if we consider that the prosecution officer can act as an
investigation officer without any judicial interference, the Bluebird authorities could
not have cooperated with them as it is affiliated with the privacy of its clients.
Moreover, there is a question of client’s data security. As per standard privacy policy
BlueBird is not bound to share the private information of their clients as per the
request of government officials. (Article 43)

Privacy Policy: Privacy policy is a statement or legal document that discloses some
or all of the ways a party gathers, uses, discloses, and manages a customer or client's
data.

Personal Information: Personal information can be anything that can be used to

identify an individual, not limited to the person's name, address, date of birth, marital
status, contact information, ID issue, and expiry date, financial records, credit
information, medical history, where one travels, and intentions to acquire goods and
services.

8. Grounds are imposed must be constitutional, doesn’t the videos violate the
public order? So, isn’t it constitutional?

Your lordships, much obliged, but the counsel would like to humbly plead that, it
was the Ulthas who created a disturbance in the state by wearing that rock band which
clearly intends to humiliate the Revarine belief, and furthermore they by wearing that
rock band is disturbing the secular atmosphere of Westeros as per the case of Leyla
Sahin v Turkey, because such sign or symbol represents an extreme religious
movement that is a threat to the ideology of secularism. (Dahlab v Switzerland), Peter
and Theon were simply providing their point of view regarding this entire chaos.

9. Don’t you think, infringement of individual right is enough for the govt. to
take action?

Your lordships, if there is an infringement to one’s individual right then the

government should act, but such act must be legal and reasonable in nature,
furthermore, the question arises that, does the prosecution office has the authority to
restrict the freedom of expression of the mass people without any proper investigation
or any judicial review or interference.

Issue 2

1. They have malicious intention?

Your lordships, the counsel would like to plead that, peter and theon due to tensed
situation in Westeros acted recklessly, they did not intend the consequences of their
action, there is not enough evidence in the fact sheet to determine that they knew the
result of their actions with certainty, and chose to act in the way they did regardless.
Therefore, the petitioner would humbly plead that no they did not have any malicious
intention.
 2. How can you say they don’t have the intention?
Your lordships, may I draw your kind attention to the paragraph no 8 line no 3 where
it is stated that the holy river is under threat since many are now turning away to the
mountain. The video was only addressing towards the believers of River, to ask them
not to turn away from their faith, to conclude it is evident that there is no malicious
intention behind their statements. Furthermore, they didn’t ask anyone to do
something which might hurt the religious sentiments of another.

 Will face the rage of river…how do you define such threat?

Your lordships, the petitioner humbly submits that, this particular line is not
threatening in nature, rather is a figure of speech. Your lordships, their statement
mentoned in paragraph 8 was directed towards the fellow Reverines, where they
suggested that those who will walk way from the god will face the rage of God, your
lordships, such use of expression is quite common among the religious preachers, they
are harmless in nature and cannot be considered as a threat.

3. If the people convert in free will, do they have a say?

Your lordships, here the context plays a vital role, one can give his mere opinion as
long as such opinion is not interfering in nature, which is the case regarding peter and
theon, their statements were merely an opinion and were not intended to hurt the
religious sentiment of others.

4. Can they hurt any particular community/religion while professing their

religion?
Your Lordship By professing their religion, peter and theon didn't hurt anyone's
religious sentiments. Rather it was the Ulthas who were insulting the Reverine faith by
wearing the rock band because such sign or symbol represents an extreme religious
movement that is a threat to the ideology of secularism and should be prohibited in a
secular country as per Leyla Sahin v Turkey.
 5. Were their movement to pass a law justified?
Your Lordship, the petitioner would like to humbly submit that such movement is
justified, the reason being the Ulthas were insulting the Reverine faith by wearing the
rock band because such sign or symbol represents an extreme religious movement that
is a threat to the ideology of secularism and should be prohibited in a secular country
as per Leyla Sahin v Turkey and Dahlab v Switzerland

6. Are we bound to follow serious crime act?

Your lordships, as the criteria of incitement is not provided in any of the statutory
provisions of Westeros. Therefore, in order to clarify the legal term which has
relevancy in our case, the Council is referring the provisions of serious crime act of
USA.

 Follow up ques,
The prosecution would like to refer the Grundnorm Theory (theory of pure law) of
Kelson, which suggests that all the laws originate from one fundamental law, and thus
is interconnected with each other irrespective of any border, and by that logic the
provisions of serious crime act of USA have relevancy in Westeros in absence of a
statutory provision which would have dealt with the same matter.

7. Standards of mere expression?

Your lordships the term expression means, giving own point of view, appraisal, or
opinion about a particular matter. Section 44 and 45 of serious crime act.

Assertion: Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt

at proof.
 8. You are suggesting that there was no malicious intention, so what other
intentions they had?
Your lordships May I draw your kind attention to Para No 5 of the agreed fact sheet,
where from the very beginning they were demanding a law to ban blasphemy in
relation to the riverna faith and the river. Your Lordship, their intention was to protect
their religion, and create a mass movement to pass the Blasphemy law. According to
Article 41 of the Constitution, they have the right to do so.

9. In evidence of the respondent, Petyr thanked the viewers, isn’t the

intentions are clear?
Your lordships May I draw your kind attention to Para No 10 of the agreed fact sheet,
where petyr just thanked the faithful followers of riverine for taking the message of
Holy River to the streets of Westeros. They conveyed his message to everyone, so he
thanked Riverna's faithful followers.

Message: para no 9 of the agreed fact sheets, immediately go and help them believe in
the strength of river who have accepted the mightiness of mountains.