TC-06 (R)

TH
6 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2021 UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW
ACADEMY
TEAM CODE:06
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDICA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.: /2021

(IN THE MATTER PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
OTT CONSORTIUM..................................................................(PETITIONER)
Versus
UNION OF INDICA.................................................................(RESPONDENT)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.: /2021

(IN THE MATTER PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
YULU…......................................................................................(PETITIONER)
Versus
UNION OF INDICA................................................................(RESPONDENT)
THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THIS PUBLIC

INTEREST LITIGATION FOR THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY UNDER ARTICLE
226 HAS NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED YET
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................5
I. STATUTES REFERRED:....................................................................................................5
II. TABLE OF CASES............................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................8
STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................................9
ISSUES RAISED.....................................................................................................................12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................14
1. THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT......................14
1.1 There has been no Violation of Fundamental Rights.................................................14
1.2 Petitioners have no Locus Standi to file PIL under Article 32...................................15
1.3 Alternative Remedy has not been exhausted..............................................................16
2. THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 3 OF

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL
MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULE, 2021, IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.......................18
2.1 Due Diligence Requirement followed by Intermediaries is in the Interest of Users. 18
2.2 Dissemination of Correct Information lies at the heart of Democratic Discourse.....21
2.3 Rationale and Justification for New Guidelines.........................................................22
2.4 New IT rules, 2021 has been framed in exercise of powers under the Information
Technology Act, 2000 and are constitutionally valid.......................................................23
2.5 Projection of Gods in a Controversial Manner Hurt Religious Sentiments................24
2.6 Imposing Reasonable Restrictions on Speech and Expression is in the Interest of

Public................................................................................................................................25
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 2|Page

2.7 There is no violation of Right to Trade and Business.................................................26
3. PETITIONER WILL BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 295A OF

INDICAN PENAL CODE.......................................................................................................27
3.1Hate Speech under Blasphemy Laws...........................................................................27
3.2 Inciting Protests in the Garb of Freedom of Speech...................................................29
3.3 The Criminalization of Hate Propaganda...................................................................29
3.4 Free Speech v. Hate Speech........................................................................................30
PRAYER..................................................................................................................................31

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Hon’ble Honorable
& And
v. Versus
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Ors. Others
IPC Indian Penal Code
SCC Supreme Court Cases
AIR All India Reporter
SCR Supreme Court Reports
Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal
Corp. Corporation
Vol. Volume
Co. Company
Pvt. Private
Ltd. Limited
Sec. Section
PIL Public Interest Litigation
IT Information Technology
IB Information Broadcasting
SC Supreme Court
MeitY Ministry of electronics and
Information Technology
cl. Clause
Etc. Et cetera
Govt. Government

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. STATUTES REFERRED:
1. The Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu

2. The Indian Penal Code- Bare Act
3. Information Technology Act 2000
4. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011
5. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code), 2021
II. TABLE OF CASES:
Cases
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27.............................................................20
2. A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1906.........................................15
3. Amitarani Khnutia v. the State of Orissa, 1996 (1) OLR (CSR)-2.................................16
4. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349................................16
5. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280..........................14
6. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery,AIR 1979 SC 1889....................15
7. Babu Rao Patel v. the State of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 763................................................28
8. Babu Rao v. State of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 402..............................................................26
9. Brij Bhushan v. the State of Delhi , AIR 1950 SC 129...................................................28
10. Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044..............................14
11. Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1990) 4 SCC
449; AIR 1990 SC 2060..................................................................................................13
12. Chintamani rao v.State Of M.P, AIR 1951 SC 118........................................................15
13. Common Cause v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 511...................................................14
14. Dr B. Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363..........................................................14
15. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, 1998 7 SCC 273......................................16
16. Gopal Vinayak Godse v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Bom 56.........................................26
17. Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136......................................................15
18. Harman Das v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1662...................................27
19. In Madras High Court W.P. No. 7224 of 2012 & M.P. Nos. 1&2 of 2012, M/S. Hindu

Dharma Sakthi v. The Government Of India..................................................................23

20. Joseph Bain D’ Souza and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1995CriLJ1316.....26
21. K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, 1971 SCR (2) 446...........................................................24
22. K.G. Zahidia v. State, 1964 All CrlR 501.......................................................................25
23. Kalicharan Sharma v. King Emperor, AIR 1927 All 649..............................................26
24. Kusum Lata v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180..........................................................14
25. L. Chandrakumar V. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC1125...............................................15
26. Minerva Talkies, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1988 S.C. 526........................24
27. Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC
353...................................................................................................................................24
28. N.R. & F. Mills v. N.T.G. Brothers, AIR 1971 S.C. 264................................................24
29. Narayan Das Indurkhya v. The State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 2086................................27
30. P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda, (1996) 6 SCC 734........................................................15
31. Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 2200............................28
32. Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, 2020 SCC OnLine Megh 167........................26
33. People’s Union for Civil Liberty v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568..........................23
34. Public prosecutor v. P Ramaswami AIR 1964 Mad 258................................................26
35. R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91..................15
36. Raj Kapoor v. State, AIR 1980 SC 258..........................................................................28
37. Ramesh s/o Chhotalal Dalal v. Union of India and Ors , 1988 SCR (2) 1011, 1022,
1023.................................................................................................................................28
38. Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, 1989 SCC 251; AIR 1989 SC 549...........15
39. Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 881.............................................18
40. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd, (1988) 4
SCC 592..........................................................................................................................23
41. Romesh Thapar v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124....................................................14
42. S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam, (1989) 2 SCC 574....................................................20
43. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 1987 AIR 1109 1987.............................16
44. Sahara Indian Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603...........................23
45. State v. Charulata Joshi, (1999) 4 SCC 65.....................................................................20
46. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. of Law, (2016) 7 SCC 221......................20
47. The State of U.P. v. Lalai Singh Yadav, AIR 1977 SC 202............................................28
48. The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalai Singh Yadav, AIR 1977 SC 202............................27
49. Varun Gandhi v. State of UP and Ors, Crim Writ Petition 4950 of 2009 All HC.........26

50. Virender v. State of Punjab, A. 1958, SC. 986...............................................................23

51. Wajih Waddin v. State of UP, AIR 1963 All 335...........................................................25
52. X v. Hospital Z, (1998) 8 SCC 296.................................................................................15

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Counsel for the petitioner hereby most humbly and respectfully submits to this hon’ble
court’s jurisdiction under article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The Respondent would like to humbly submit that this Public Interest Litigation for the
appeal is not maintainable.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:
“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Indica, a country in Southern Asia bounded to the south by the Arabian Sea, the
Laccadive Sea, and the Bay of Bengal, gained independence in 1947. The Constituent
Assembly of Indica was first convened in August 1947 and a draft Constitution was
issued in February 1948. The Constitution was ultimately ratified in 1949, and it went
into effect in January 1950.
2. The Indian Constitution recognises freedom of religion as a fundamental right, allowing

people to worship and practise their faith freely and prohibiting discrimination based on
religion. Law and tradition both established religious plurality and religious tolerance in
the country.
3. Indica has a diverse societal makeup, since several faiths developed in the nation, and a
few other religions have grown as well. At the same time, the country is home to a
number of indigenous faiths and tribal religions that have thrived despite the influence of
mainstream religions for millennia.
4. The country's regional coexistence of many religious sects makes it truly unique. Around
80% of Indicans are Sindhus, 14% are Kushlims, and the remaining 6% have followed
various religions from the dawn of humanity.
5. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19, all the cinema halls and recreational centres in every
state of Indica were shut down. Citizens of Indica in search of entertainment were not left
with any other option but to watch on Over-The-Top (OTT) platforms more specifically
the Online Curated Content Providers (OCCPs).
6. This increased popularity and viewership of content on OTT platforms registered a huge
increase in subscription by the people which encouraged such platforms to start domestic
production of original content. However, the publishing of certain content was objected to
by sections of society.
7. Yulu (Petitioner-1) published numerous teasers for a web series titled “Chandak” on its

platform on January 1, 2021, with a premiere date of February 1, 2021. The teaser drew
criticism for depicting a Kushlim man and a Sindhu lady kissing in front of a temple. In
the same scenario, the background depicted Sindhu saints in a bad light.
8. Sections of society, however, objected to the publication of some information due to

vulgarity, obscenity, nudity, and other issues. A self-regulatory rule known as The Code
of Online Curated Content Providers was adopted in order to alleviate the worries of
these parts. But, because it was tainted by profit bias, it did not prove to be a successful
model.
9. Furthermore, the scene with actors dressed as Sindhu Gods drinking and smoking drew a
lot of criticism. Yulu was also criticised by the Sikh community for injuring Sikh feelings
by showing a scene in which the lead character threw away his kada in the sea.
10. Several rallies were organised, calling on the government to adopt legislation to regulate
the material on these platforms, as well as a blanket ban on the release of Chandak and
other controversial content. However, citizens in various parts of the country rushed to
the streets to oppose the information displayed on such OCCP sites.
11. The makers issued a unconditional apology and also removed parts of the series that were
said to be objectionable however went ahead with the release of Chandak on February 1,
2021, which stirred up controversy. Multiple FIRs were filed under Sections 153A and
295A of the Indian Penal Code by those who were dissatisfied with Yulu's actions.
12. Following the occurrences described above, the Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology (MEITY) approved the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines
and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, which took effect on February 5, 2021.
13. The OTT Consortium, led by Yulu, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article
32 of the Indian Constitution, alleging that Section 3 of the Rules was worded in an
ambiguous and vague manner, and that it was being used by the ruling party to censor and
restrain the right to freedom of speech and expression.
14. The OTT Consortium's main legal concern is whether the broadcasting of material on
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 10 | P a g

such digital streaming platforms exceeds the reasonable limits set out in Article 19 further

how much intervention the Indian government may put in the way of unrestricted
business.
15. Yulu also filed a petition under 153A and 295A, claiming that the corporation could not
be held responsible for the communal disturbances that occurred in January 2021. Yulu,
according to the Respondents, was a key figure in inciting riots across Indica.

ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE PIL FILED IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDICA?
2. WHETHER THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER

SECTION 3 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY
GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULE, 2021, IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
3. CAN YULU BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 295A OF

INDICAN PENAL CODE?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE PIL FILED IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDICA?
A petition can be filed under Article 32 of the constitution only when the fundamental
right is violated. While it is the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights,
it is also a duty to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 must not be misused by
creating a bottleneck in the Superior Court preventing other genuine violations of
Fundamental Rights being considered by the court. Also, the alternative remedy has not
been exhausted. Thus, a person acting for personal gain or private profit or political
motive, or any oblique consideration has no locus standi.
2. WHETHER THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER SECTION

3 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND
DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULE, 2021, IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
The Respondent most humbly submits to the Hon’ble court that Section 3 of the
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021 has been framed in exercise of powers under section 87 (2) of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 and that it supersedes the earlier Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011. These Rules significantly empower ordinary users
of digital platforms to seek redress for their grievances and demand responsibility in the
event of an infringement of their rights, and they were made under the parent IT Act's
legality.
3. CAN YULU BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 295A OF INDICAN
PENAL CODE?
The Respondent humbly submits that Yulu is to be blamed for all the protests that
occurred and must be held liable under Section 153A and 295A of the Indican Penal
Code. Yulu (Petitioner-1) posted many teasers for a web series called Chandak on its site
on January 1, 2021, which garnered harsh criticism and was targeted for propagating
Sindhuphobic content and demeaning Sindhu Gods.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT
The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent contends that there has been no violation of a
fundamental right in the present case. Moreover, the petition has been filed prematurely. A
petition can be filed under Article 321 of the constitution only when the fundamental right is
violated. Also, the alternative remedy has not been exhausted yet. Thus, the Writ Petition is
not maintainable. While it is the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights 2, it
is also a duty to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 must not be misused by creating a
bottleneck in the Superior Court preventing other genuine violations of Fundamental Rights 3
being considered by the court.
1.1 There has been no Violation of Fundamental Rights.

1.1.1 Amongst the six fundamental rights, Article 19 (1) (g) provides all the citizens of the
country the right to practice any profession, occupation, business, or trade of their choice
subject to certain restrictions as laid down under Article 19 (6). Article 19 (1) (g) is a general
right available to all the citizens of the country to carry on any type of business, occupation,
or profession to satisfy their livelihood needs. However, this fundamental right does not
confer the right to carry on any business, trade, occupation, or profession which is unlawful
or is hindering general public interest. Thus, if the nature of any business is such that it
hinders the working of any government statutory body or prevents the enforcement of any
statutory law enacted by the government or is illegal then that person carrying on such
business is not entitled to claim his fundamental right of occupation as per Article 19 (1) (g).
1.1.2 Also, the state or any statutory body does not possess any power to impose any
restrictions or create any situations which make any business unlawful or create any
1
INDIA CONST., art 32, cl 1.
2
Article 32(1) when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as
guaranteed by Part III and, for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III.
3
Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1990) 4 SCC 449; AIR 1990 SC
2060.

circumstances to help any person procure customers for his business. A Public Interest
Litigation4 can be filed under Article 325 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental
Rights, as guaranteed by part III of the Constitution. In the present case, there has been no
violation of the fundamental rights since the Petitioner had produced content that had
instigated the people of Indica to protest and therefore was held liable for communal rights.
1.1.3 The respondents contend that there has been no violation of fundamental rights in the
present case. A petition can be filed under Article 32 of the constitution only when the
fundamental right is violated. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable.
1.2 Petitioners have no Locus Standi to file PIL under Article 32.
1.2.1 It is humbly submitted that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in
the proceedings of the Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the court under Article 32 to wipe out the violation of Fundamental Rights and
genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gains or private profits or
political motives or any oblique consideration.
1.2.2 The doctrine of locus standi, or standing, determines the competence of a plaintiff to
assert the matter of their complaint before the court. An individual lacking locus standi is an
incompetent plaintiff. In this case, the Respondent has stated that Yulu played a pivotal role
in instigating the riots all across Indica 6. When a person acquires a locus standi, he has to
have a personal or individual right that was violated or threatened to be violated. Public
interest litigation7 should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or
"politics interest litigation"; if not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes a tool in
unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well8.
1.2.3 In the instant case, the petitioner does not seek to advance any public right, rather,
invocation of the jurisdiction9 of the Supreme Court as public interest litigation10 is made
4
Kusum Lata v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180.
5
Romesh Thapar v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124.
6
Moot Prop ⁋17.
7
Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044.
8
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280.
9
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 511.
10
Dr B. Singh v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363.

keeping in background the political enmity11. Hence, the arguments made in the petition and
in the context of the case are wholly unjustified.
1.2.4 “It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court’s jurisdiction seeking a
waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in
areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic
sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing
publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause 12, he owes it
to the public as well as to the Court that he does not rush to Court without undertaking
research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue.” as validated in the case of P
Anand v. H. D. Dewe Gawde13.
1.2.5 Public interest litigation14 does not mean settling disputes between the private parties 15.
Here there is much more than what meets the eye. Hence, it is humbly pleaded that the
petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition and thus such petition filed before the court
on grounds of political enmity is liable to be rejected by the court and is not maintainable16.
1.3 Alternative Remedy has not been exhausted.

1.3.1 The tribunals are competent enough to hear this particular case by the virtue of L.
Chandrakumar V. Union of India17. An alternative remedy is a bar unless there was a
complete lack of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take action impugned18, however,
the existence of a competent body to hear this particular case questions the maintainability of
the writ petition filed.
1.3.2 It was held this Hon’ble apex court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson
Hosiery 19 where there is an alternative statutory remedy court should not interfere unless the
alternative remedy is too dilatory or cannot grant quick relief. Thus, as per curiam20
11
R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91.
12
Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136.
13
P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda, (1996) 6 SCC 734.
14
X v. Hospital Z, (1998) 8 SCC 296.
15
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, 1989 SCC 251; AIR 1989 SC 549.
16
Chintamani rao v.State Of M.P, AIR 1951 SC 118.
17
L. Chandrakumar V. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC1125.
18
A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1906.
19
Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery,AIR 1979 SC 1889.
20
A per curiam decision is a court opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than specific judges.

Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal 21, courts must restrict the free flow of cases
under the attractive name of Public Interest Litigation, otherwise, it will pose a threat to
courts and public in as much as traditional litigation will suffer and the court of law instead of
dispensing justice will have to take upon them administrative and executive function. Thus,
the respondents humbly submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the
ground that alternative remedy has not been exhausted.
1.3.3 In the Supreme Court decision of Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra22, the
Court dealt with an issue as to whether a Public Interest23 Writ Petition, at the instance of a
stranger, could be entertained by the Administrative tribunal and held that in service matter
PIL should not be entertained. Orissa Administrative Tribunal’s decision in Amitarani
Khnutia v. the State of Orissa24, the tribunal after considering the provisions of the Act held
that a private citizen or a stranger having no existing right to any post and not intrinsically
concerned with any service matter is not entitled to approach the Tribunal. Therefore, the
respondents humbly submit that the petition should not be entertained as a PIL as the writ
lacks locus standi and the alternative remedy provided has not been exhausted.
21
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 1987 AIR 1109 1987.
22
Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, 1998 7 SCC 273.
23
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349.
24
Amitarani Khnutia v. the State of Orissa, 1996 (1) OLR (CSR)-2.

THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 3 OF INFORMATION
The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent most humbly and respectfully submits to the
Hon’ble court that Section 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 has been framed in exercise of powers under Section
87(2)25 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and that it supersedes the earlier
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011. These Rules significantly
empower ordinary users of digital platforms to seek redress for their grievances and demand
responsibility in the event of an infringement of their rights, and they were made under the
legality of parent IT Act 200026.
2.1 Due Diligence Requirement followed by Intermediaries is in the Interest of Users.

2.1.1 Rule 3 of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
code) Rules, 2021 is dedicated to examining the element of due diligence that must be
performed by intermediaries. It also clarifies the scope of the safe harbour provisions, which
are outlined in section 79 of The Information Technology Act, 200027
2.1.2 The massive growth of digital platforms and social media in Indica has largely been
fuelled by a moderate regulatory framework under the IT Act and 2011 Rules, with the online
curated content space being largely unregulated. However, given the growing concerns
around the information and content available over social media and content platforms across
both, domestic, and foreign owned platforms accessible in Indica, detailed regulations for
digital media from the Government were imminent. For news publishers, OTT Platforms, and
digital media, the Rules provide a soft-touch self-regulatory architecture, a Code of Ethics,
25
Power of Central Government to make rules for the regulation of digital media – The Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette and in the Electronic Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions
of this Act.
26
Gazette of India, https://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2021/225464.pdf
27
Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases.

and a three-tier grievance redressal system.28

i. Grievance Redressal Mechanism: The Rules aim to empower users by requiring
intermediaries to set up a grievance redressal system to receive and resolve user
complaints. Intermediaries must designate a Grievance Officer to address such
complaints and provide the officer's name and contact information.29
ii. Ensuring Online Safety and Dignity of Users, especially for Women Users:
Intermediaries need to delete or block access to content that exposes people' private
body parts, shows them in full or partial nudity or engaged in sexual act, or is like,
including altered pictures, within 24 hours of receiving complaints. The individual or
someone else on his or her behalf can bring such a complaint.30
In Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra31, the Supreme Court for the first time was
called upon to lay down the test to determine obscenity. The facts were that the
appellants, a Bombay bookseller, was prosecuted under Section 292 of IPC for selling
and for keeping for sale the well known book, Lady Chatterly’s Lover written by D.H.
Lawrence. The Magistrate held that the book was obscene and sentenced the
appellant. The court held that it had the right to restrict the freedom on the grounds of
decency and morality.
iii. Giving Users an Opportunity to be Heard: Whenever intermediaries need to delete

or disable access to any information on their own, they have to notify the user who
supplied that information in advance, together with a note describing the grounds and
reasons for the action.32
iv. Removal of Unlawful Information: After receiving actual knowledge in the form of
28
Part III - Code of ethics and procedure and safeguards in relation to digital media. For ensuring observance
and adherence to the Code of Ethics by publishers operating in the territory of India, and for addressing the
grievances made in relation to publishers under this Part, there shall be a three-tier structure.
29
Rule 3(2) Grievance redressal mechanism of intermediary
30
Rule 3(2)b, the intermediary shall inform the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload,
modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information that is defamatory, obscene, pornographic,
paedophilic, invasive of another‘s privacy, including bodily privacy, insulting or harassing on the basis of
gender, libellous, racially or ethnically objectionable, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or
otherwise inconsistent with or contrary to the laws in force.
31
Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 881.
32
Rule 3(2) a (i), the Grievance Officer shall acknowledge the complaint within twenty four hours and dispose
off such complaint within a period of fifteen days from the date of its receipt.

a court order or being notified by the appropriate government or its agencies through
an authorised officer, an intermediary should not host or publish any information that
is prohibited under any law in the interest of India's sovereignty and integrity, public
order, friendly relations with foreign countries, and so on.33
2.1.3 OTT Platforms are required to classify all content such as films, web-series or other
shows based on age, themes, content, tone and impact, and target audience. Further, OTT
Platforms will need to give due consideration to issues related to discrimination, psychotropic
substances, liquor, smoking and tobacco, imitable behaviour, language, nudity, sex, and
violence, while classifying content. Going forward, apart from implementation of content
classification by OTT Platforms as per the Rules, content makers will also have to consider
such classification while producing any content and may need to choose the audience of their
films, shows or series perhaps at the development stage itself. For OTT Platforms, another
practical impact will be that content already existing on the platforms will also need to be
classified /reclassified as per the Rules.34
2.1.4 While the overall intent of the Government may not be to curtail constitutional
freedoms, the Rules are certainly a significant departure from the existing framework and
impose considerable compliances on intermediaries, OTT Platforms and News Portals – each
of which will now have to establish prescribed procedures and mechanisms to comply with
the Rules. OTT Platforms have to comply with applicable law and consider the following
aspects in respect of content - (a) sovereignty and integrity of India; (b) threatening,
endangering or jeopardising the security of the State; (c) detriment to India’s friendly
relations with foreign countries; and (d) content which is likely to incite violence or disturb
the maintenance of public order, and further, take into consideration India’s multi-racial and
religious context.35
2.1.5 With majority of the work shifting to online mode in the pandemic, it has become
obligatory for the government and organizations to keep a check on what goes up online.
33
Rule 3(1) b (viii), the intermediary shall inform the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload,
modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information that threatens the unity, integrity, defence,
security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or causes incitement to
the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting other nation.
34
MeitY Notification, New Delhi, the 25th February, 2021 [The Information Technology (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021]
35
Ibid

Social media has evolved drastically with users belonging to all groups and classes in these
past years. They too have certain policies that take down content that goes against their
community guidelines. These platforms give users the liberty to report content that is
objectionable and takes it down even if they think it has the potential to harm public
sentiments at large. Similarly, the OTT platforms that are quite similar to these social media
giants have to assess their content and check for objectionable content and take it down
before it reaches the masses and for that a regulatory body is mandatory to be set up with an
efficient mechanism. Films too are scrutinised and certified by the Censor Board. The Central
Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was set up under the Cinematograph Act of 1952. Its
purpose is to certify, by means of screening and rating, the suitability of feature films, short
films, trailers, documentaries, and theatre-based advertising for public viewing. Content
regulation has been an important aspect of screening of films since a long time and therefore
it makes it mandatory for OTT platforms to abide by the rules that follow.
Any violation or non-compliance with the Code will make OTT Platforms liable for
consequential actions under the law which has been contravened.
2.2 Dissemination of Correct Information lies at the heart of Democratic Discourse.

2.2.1 While the right to freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press, is
essential for a dynamic democracy like India, the rights of the audience who believe and act
on false information must also be considered. Citizens cannot be considered as passive
consumers with no opportunity to participate in the process of accountability for the content
they consume. In a leading case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. Of Law, 36
The Supreme court of India held that the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and
expression does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish whatever one wants and that
it is not an unrestricted licence that confers immunity and prevents punishment for abuse of
the freedom.
2.2.2 There has been considerable concern about digital content issues on both digital media
and OTT platforms. Civil society, political figures, including the Chief Ministers, trade
groups, and associations have all expressed their dissatisfaction with the material available on
OTT platforms, emphasizing the critical need for an adequate institutional structure. Many
criminal cases were filed in the Supreme Court and the High Courts, with the courts urging
36
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. of Law, (2016) 7 SCC 221.

the government to take appropriate action.37 In S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam38, the

constitutionality of censorship was also upheld and it is held that “Though movies are
protected by Article 19(1) (a), since it appeals to a large audience, but it cannot be permitted
to operate in the same free market as newspapers and magazines. “Prior restraint-based
censorship is thus not only desirable but also necessary.”
2.2.3 In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras39, Court observed "Man as rational being desires to
do many things, but in a civil society his desired have to be controlled, regulated and
reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals". The fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression granted by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, which
includes the freedom of the press, is not an absolute right," the Supreme Court also concluded
in State v. Charulata Joshi.40
2.3 Rationale and Justification for New Guidelines

2.3.1 The Rules are intended to empower everyday social media users. Victims of harassment
on social media sites should have a place to go to get their complaints heard 41. The adoption
of new IT Rules was prompted by broad worries about issues such as terrorist recruiting
through social media and digital platforms, the distribution of obscene information, the
propagation of discord, financial scams, incitement to violence, and public order, among
others.etc42. In the Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India 43, case, the Supreme Court in
2018 instructed the government to limit and prohibit the broadcast of explosive words and
films on different digital media platforms that have the potential to instigate mob violence
and lynching of any type. Again Supreme Court of Indica in two judgments — the Prajwala
case44 of 2018 and Facebook v. Union of India45 in 2019 — had instructed the government
of India to adopt appropriate rules to eradicate child pornography and associated content from
internet platforms and other apps.
37
Press Information Bureau, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1700749
38
S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam, (1989) 2 SCC 574.
39
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27.
40
State v. Charulata Joshi, (1999) 4 SCC 65.
41
Any person having a grievance regarding content published by a publisher in relation to the Code of Ethics
may furnish his grievance on the grievance mechanism established by the publisher under rule 11.
42
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1728738
43
Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016 titled Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of
India.
44
Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No. 56/2004 titled Prajwala v. Union of India and Others.
45
Supreme court of India in Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).1943-1946/2019 titled Facebook v. Union of India.

2.3.2 The Indican Parliament has frequently urged the Indican government to tighten the
legislative framework and hold social media sites responsible for Indian laws. The IT Rules
of 2021 are the law of the nation, and the Petitioner is obligated to follow them. 46 We think
that the protection granted to intermediaries under section 79(1) is conditional on the
intermediary meeting the requirements set out in sections 79(2) and 79(3). Failure to comply
with the IT rules,2021 results in the requirements of Section 79(1) of the IT Act, 2000 not
applying to such an intermediary,” as stated in Rule 747.
2.4 New IT rules, 2021 has been framed in exercise of powers under the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and are constitutionally valid.
2.4.1 “Recognition and institutionalization of media content in the digital space” is one of the
legislative goals of the IT Act. The Act's scope includes media content utilized in electronic
communications. Part III of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, is confined to "news
and current affairs content" and "online curated content," and so falls well within the Act's
purview.
2.4.2 The rules, which were notified in February 2021, were drafted using the rule-making
authority granted to the government under sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act, as referenced in
Section 87(2) (zg) and Section 79(2) of the IT Act, and supersede the Information
Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 201148. In 2018, Amendments to the 2011
rules were proposed. Following a call to attention motion in Parliament on "Misuse of Social
Media Platforms and the Spread of Fake News," the Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology (MeitY) floated the Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines
(Amendment) Rules] 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2018 draft rules"), which were
subject to public consultation.49
2.4.3 Notably, the 2018 draft rules had concerned themselves solely with the regulation of
46
Sidhartha and Pankaj Doval, ‘Rules protect rights of users, were framed because social media giants failed to
do so: IT and law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad’ The Times of India, June 1, 2021.
47
Where an intermediary fails to observe these rules, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 79 of the Act
shall not be applicable to such intermediary and the intermediary shall be liable for punishment under any law
for the time being in force including the provisions of the Act and the Indian Penal Code.
48
Govt. notifies IT rules 2021, https://www.meity.gov.in/content/notification-dated-25th-february-2021-gsr-
139e-information-technology-intermediary
49
https://www.medianama.com/2021/06/223-legality-constitutionality-of-it-rules/

‘intermediaries’ as defined within Section 2(w) of the IT Act. Finally, in February 2021, the
MeitY published the regulations under debate here, with the stated goals of “[social media]
responsibility against misuse and abuse,” as well as a “robust grievance resolution
mechanism” for “digital media and OTT.”
2.5 Projection of Gods in a Controversial Manner Hurt Religious Sentiments.

2.5.1 The rising abuse of digital media by a segment of society has presented new problems
for law enforcement authorities throughout the years. These include the propagation of
obscene information, discord, financial scams, encouragement to violence, and disorderly
public order, among others. These concerns have been expressed in a variety of settings,
including the Parliament and its committees, judicial orders, and civil society discussions in
various areas of the nation. Concerns of this nature are being expressed all over the world,
and it is becoming a global issue.50
2.5.2 The misuse of digital media for immoral purposes has become a major source of worry
for the general public and the government. The use of harsh language, libellous and obscene
information and outright contempt for religious feelings on social media platforms is on the
rise.51 The Madras High Court, in M/S Hindu Dharma Sakthi v. The Government Of
India52, held that a movie is a powerful means of communication that attracts a large
audience. It cannot allow hatred to spread among individuals from all walks of life, including
those who are religious. The authorities must exercise a certain level of restraint.
2.5.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that prior restraint on speech is
constitutionally permissible across different contexts in Sahara Indian Real Estate
Corporation v. SEBI53 and Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspapers
Bombay (P) Ltd54.
In the present instance, New IT rules specifically empower the Respondent to impose a prior
restraint on broadcasts that are likely to violate the Programme Code and cause enmity,
50
PIB India Report, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1700749
51
PIB India Report, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1700749
52
In Madras High Court W.P. No. 7224 of 2012 & M.P. Nos. 1&2 of 2012, M/S. Hindu Dharma Sakthi v. The
Government Of India.
53
Sahara Indian Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603.
54
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd, (1988) 4 SCC 592.

hatred and ill-will against inter alia religious groups.55
2.6 Imposing Reasonable Restrictions on Speech and Expression is in the Interest of

Public.
2.6.1 The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021) are fully within the limits of the Information Technology Act,
2000, and that it is does not infringe any fundamental rights and that there is little evidence to
show that they have had a chilling effect on the right to freedom of speech. In the leading
case of People’s Union for Civil Liberty v. Union of India 56, it was observed that reasonable
restrictions can be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression, in the security of the
state. In Virender v. State of Punjab57, there is no distinct protection of press freedom to
publish anything they choose under the Freedom of Speech and Expression. There is always
the possibility of acceptable limitations on viewpoints.
2.6.2 The misuse of information exchanged in the digital media domain has obvious
repercussions for people' democratic rights. Disinformation, or simply fake news, on digital
media may lead to violations of the audience's other fundamental rights, including violation
of the right to privacy through unlawful depiction in the media, and violation of the right to
life and personal liberty through disturbance of public order, among other things. In K.A.
Abbas v. Union of India58, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of film censorship for the
first time under Article 19(1) (a). The court upheld the issue of film censorship under Article
19(2), acknowledging that freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right and that
reasonable restrictions can be imposed, and thus dismissed the petition.
2.6.3 The Court remarked that in the recent case of Modern Dental College & Research
Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh59, it was held that due to the interdependence of all
rights, no constitutional right can be claimed to be absolute, and hence can be limited. When
there are conflicts between fundamental rights, the Court found that they must be balanced
against one other so that “they happily coexist with each other.”
55
Programme and Advertising Codes prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994
56
People’s Union for Civil Liberty v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568.
57
Virender v. State of Punjab, A. 1958, SC. 986.
58
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, 1971 SCR (2) 446.
59
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353.

2.7 There is no violation of Right to Trade and Business.

2.7.1 There exists no factual evidence to indicate that the obligations require any significant
diversion of resources by the publishers that may have impacted production of content. Even
after the Rules were announced, the study reveals that there was no noticeable impact on the
production of content by these entities. The production of content has grown for many firms.
In N.R. & F. Mills v. N.T.G. Brothers60, court held that the right to practice any profession,
trade and business includes that it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest
of general public and not that it adversely affects other’s business.
2.7.2 In Minerva Talkies, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka 61, a State Government Rule
stating that no licensee could exhibit more than four shows in a single day was found to be
valid as imposing a reasonable restriction on the right to carry on business in the public
interest.
2.7.3 It is respectfully submitted that the allegation of a chilling effect on press freedom or a
negative impact on the right to conduct business as a result of ostensibly onerous
requirements under the Rules is primarily an emotional appeal that is not legally tenable.
60
N.R. & F. Mills v. N.T.G. Brothers, AIR 1971 S.C. 264.
61
Minerva Talkies, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1988 S.C. 526.

PETITIONER WILL BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 295A OF INDICAN PENA
The Respondent most humbly submits that following the release of multiple teaser of web-
series, there were several protests held urging the Government to pass appropriate laws for
regulating the content on OCCP platforms to lay down a blanket ban on the release of
Chandak and any similar inflammatory content. However, in several areas of the country
citizens took to the street to protest against the content being showcased on such OCCPs
platforms. The authorities called for the disbanding of protests which in turn caused
widespread discontentment amongst the citizens which led to violence and destruction of
public property and soon communal riots spread across Indica. 62 Yulu is only the reason for
all the protests that occurred across the nation following the release of his teaser and must be
held liable under Section 153A63 and 295A64 of the Indican Penal Code.
3.1 Hate Speech under Blasphemy Laws.
3.1.1 Section 153A aims to criminalize speech which might create conflicts between various
communities. Courts have held65 that the impugned speech has to be in reference 66 to two
communities, inciting feelings of one group without reference to other groups will not attract
the provisions of this Section. In our case, the trailer came under fire for showing a Kushlim
man and a Sindhu woman kissing against the backdrop of a temple. The background of the
same scene also portrayed Sindhu saints in a controversial manner. Furthermore, the scene
showing actors in the attire of Sindhu Gods drinking and smoking was met with severe
backlash. The Sikh community also protested against Yulu for hurting Sikh sentiments by
62
Moot Prop.
63
The Indian Penal Code,1860, Act No. 45 of 1860, [6th Oct., 1860], The purpose of the Section 153 A is to
punish persons who indulge in wanton vilification or attacks upon the religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language etc of any particular group or class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion. Offence on moral
turpitude is also covered in this section.
64
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act No. 45 of 1860, [6th Oct., 1860], The object of Section 295-A is to punish
deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulating its religion or
the religious beliefs
65
Wajih Waddin v. State of UP, AIR 1963 All 335.
66
K.G. Zahidia v. State, 1964 All CrlR 501.

showcasing a scene where the lead actor throws away his Kada in the sea67.
3.1.2 In Babu Rao v. State of Delhi68 where the Court observed that S. 153 A (1) (a) is not
confined to the promotion of feelings of enmity on the grounds of religion 69 only as argued
by Shri Sen, but takes in promotion of such feelings on other grounds as well such as race,
place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. In the case of Gopal Vinayak
Godse70, the Supreme Court held that if the language of the text ‘is of a nature calculated to
promote feelings of enmity or hatred’ then it must be assumed that the person would be aware
of the consequences of their actions and the Court would presume such an intention.
3.1.3 Under Section 295A, speech that constitutes an ‘outrage’ to religious feelings have been
proscribed. In a case of the Lahore High court, popularly called the ‘Rangeela Rasool case’
the presiding judge Justice Dalip Singh held that Section 153A existed to prevent attacks on a
particular community or religion.
3.1.4 In Kalicharan Sharma v. King Emperor71, the Allahabad High Court held that
scurrilous and vituperative attacks against a religion or its Prophet would come within the
purview of 153A. Sections 295A and 153A are used together indicating that a connection is
made out between outraging religious sentiments and promoting enmity between religions.
Courts should recognize a ‘moral injury’ in cases in which only an offence under 295A is
made out. For example, in the case of Public prosecutor v. P Ramaswami72, the editor of a
Tamil magazine had criticized many practices mentioned in the Koran like the stoning to
death of individuals who had committed adultery and the practice of cutting off both hands of
a thief which he attributed to Muslims. The magazine also made derogatory comments about
Allah. The Court held that the practices mentioned in the magazine were not applicable to
Muslims of the country and the articles clearly established a deliberate and malicious
intention of the author to outrage the feelings of Muslims. While there is space for criticism 73
of religion, a malicious intention will be presumed if the language of the writing is abusive 74
after having adequately taken the context of the work into consideration.
67
Moot Prop ⁋10.
68
Babu Rao v. State of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 402
69
Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, 2020 SCC OnLine Megh 167.
70
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Bom 56.
71
Kalicharan Sharma v. King Emperor, AIR 1927 All 649.
72
Public prosecutor v. P Ramaswami AIR 1964 Mad 258.
73
Joseph Bain D’ Souza and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1995CriLJ1316.
74
Varun Gandhi v. State of UP and Ors, Crim Writ Petition 4950 of 2009 All HC.

3.2 Inciting Protests in the Garb of Freedom of Speech.
3.2.1 Article 19(1)75 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all
citizens of India. This article is subjected to certain restrictions, namely, sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an
offense.
3.2.2 The Respondents humbly put their stance before the Court that including such extreme
scenes that were bound to hurt76 the sentiments of religious groups77 was absolutely
unnecessary. Therefore, this is more than enough to assume that the petitioner has malafide
intentions of inciting protests78 and creating enmity between various religious groups of
Indica. Throwing off the Kada by the lead actor in the sea hurt the sentiments of the people
belonging to the Sikh community. This fulfills the condition defined in the Section that the
accused must do such an act with the intention of insulting the religion of any person, or with
knowledge that any class of person is likely to consider such destruction, damage, or
defilement as an insult to their religion.
3.2.3 The offense under Section 295-A is cognizable and a non-bailable and non-
compoundable offense. The police have the power to arrest a person charged under Section
295-A without a warrant. Section 295A of the IPC is a variant of ‘blasphemy law’. It allows
punishing any deliberate and malicious acts that are intended to insult the region or religious
beliefs of a certain class of citizens. The facts of our case are enough to hold Yulu liable
under Section 153A and 295A of the IPC as it has clearly instigated people to come out and
assembly unlawfully at a time of a Public Health Emergency.
3.3 The Criminalization of Hate Propaganda.
3.3.1 Hate speech can be curtailed under Article 19(2) on the grounds of public order,
incitement to offense, and security of the State. The Supreme Court in Brij Bhushan v. the
State of Delhi79 opined that public order was allied to public safety and considered
equivalent to the security of the State. This interpretation was validated by the First
75
INDIA CONST. Art. 19, cl 1
76
Harman Das v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1662.
77
Narayan Das Indurkhya v. The State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 2086.
78
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalai Singh Yadav, AIR 1977 SC 202.
79
Brij Bhushan v. the State of Delhi , AIR 1950 SC 129.

Constitutional Amendment80when public order was inserted as a ground of restriction under

19(2).
3.3.2 In Babu Rao Patel v. the State of Delhi 81, the Court held that section 153A (1) IPC is
not confined to the promotion of feelings of enmity, etc. on grounds of religion only, but
takes into account promotion of such feelings on other grounds as well, such as race, place of
birth, residence, language, caste or community. Courts have consistently upheld the
constitutional validity of hate speech provisions, including sections 153A and 295A IPC on
the basis of the public order, an exception carved out in article 19(2).
3.3.3 In the State of U.P. v. Lalai Singh Yadav82, the Supreme Court upheld “the
constitutional value of ordered security.” In this judgment, ordered security was identified as
a constitutional value that is to be safeguarded and courts should give preference to the State
if their intent is to protect safety and peace. Here the principle of ordered security is
enunciated as a positive principle, without which creativity and freedom are meaningless.
3.4 Free Speech v. Hate Speech
The right of freedom of expression has been existent 83 either directly or indirectly since times
immemorial. But we also know that censorship has also been in existence 84 for a long. Article
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has acknowledged this right, thus making it
a recognized law under international human rights. However, it also mentions the responsible
usage of the exercise85 of this right. Hence, for purposes of maintaining public order or the
protection of national security, it is important to understand that such rights are never
absolute and are always paired with a duty to be vigilant. It is of prime importance to exercise
freedom of expression in an equitable manner. It means that this knowledge and the right to
receive it should be taken into consideration while circulating information from seemingly
provocative sources. The law in our country strives to promote a balance between an
individual’s dignity and his rights. For this very purpose, freedom cannot be absolute.
80
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.
81
Babu Rao Patel v. the State of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 763.
82
The State of U.P. v. Lalai Singh Yadav, AIR 1977 SC 202.
83
Raj Kapoor v. State, AIR 1980 SC 258.
84
Ramesh s/o Chhotalal Dalal v. Union of India and Ors , 1988 SCR (2) 1011, 1022, 1023.
85
Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 2200.

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel for the Respondent humbly pray that this hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:
1. The Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica is not
maintainable.
2. Section 3 of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules, 2021 as constitutionally valid.
3. Yulu can be held liable under Section 153A and 295A of the Indican penal code.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, direction or relief that this hon’ble court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.
And for this act kindness, the Respondent shall as in duty bound, ever pray.
Sd/-
Counsel on behalf of the Respondent

TC-06 (R)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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-06 (R)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TH

6 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.: /2021

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.: /2021

THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THIS PUBLIC

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

II. TABLE OF CASES............................................................................................................5

1. THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT......................14

1.1 There has been no Violation of Fundamental Rights.................................................14

1.3 Alternative Remedy has not been exhausted..............................................................16

2. THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 3 OF

2.1 Due Diligence Requirement followed by Intermediaries is in the Interest of Users. 18

2.2 Dissemination of Correct Information lies at the heart of Democratic Discourse.....21

2.3 Rationale and Justification for New Guidelines.........................................................22

2.5 Projection of Gods in a Controversial Manner Hurt Religious Sentiments................24

2.6 Imposing Reasonable Restrictions on Speech and Expression is in the Interest of

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 2|Page

2.7 There is no violation of Right to Trade and Business.................................................26

3. PETITIONER WILL BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 295A OF

3.1Hate Speech under Blasphemy Laws...........................................................................27

3.2 Inciting Protests in the Garb of Freedom of Speech...................................................29

3.3 The Criminalization of Hate Propaganda...................................................................29

3.4 Free Speech v. Hate Speech........................................................................................30

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 3|Page

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 4|Page

1. The Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu

II. TABLE OF CASES:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 5|Page

Dharma Sakthi v. The Government Of India..................................................................23

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 6|Page

50. Virender v. State of Punjab, A. 1958, SC. 986...............................................................23

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 7|Page

Article 32 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 8|Page

2. The Indian Constitution recognises freedom of religion as a fundamental right, allowing

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 9|Page

8. Sections of society, however, objected to the publication of some information due to

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 10 | P a g

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 11 | P a g

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 12 | P a g

1. WHETHER THE PIL FILED IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

2. WHETHER THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER

3. CAN YULU BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 295A OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 13 | P a g

1. WHETHER THE PIL FILED IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

2. WHETHER THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER SECTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 14 | P a g

THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT

1.1 There has been no Violation of Fundamental Rights.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 15 | P a g

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 16 | P a g

1.3 Alternative Remedy has not been exhausted.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 17 | P a g

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 18 | P a g

THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 3 OF INFORMATION

2.1 Due Diligence Requirement followed by Intermediaries is in the Interest of Users.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 19 | P a g

and a three-tier grievance redressal system.28

iii. Giving Users an Opportunity to be Heard: Whenever intermediaries need to delete

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 20 | P a g

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE 21 | P a g

2.2 Dissemination of Correct Information lies at the heart of Democratic Discourse.