PARTICIPATION CODE – C-74

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW.

CONCOURS,2022
BEFORE,
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SATYADESH

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

CHAND NAWAB………………………………………………………… PETITIONER
v.
UNION OF SATYADESH……………………………………… RESPONDENT NO. 1
DOGE GROUP…………………………………………………… RESPONDENT NO.2

CLUBBED WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION
BABURAO GANPATRAO APTE…………………………….. PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF RIVER FRONT…………………………………….. RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 COMPENDIUM

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS-
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution- Doge Group can come under ‘other authorities’
definition of state under article 12 since it had an active participation in the State's
surveillance operations that could be deemed a State function. Like in the case of
Doge Group can be held liable since it performed a state function by playing an active role in
the surveillance activities carried out by the State that could fairly be called a State function,
and is therefore liable for the breach of the fundamental right to privacy of citizens. ; (Page
No.-13)

STATUTES-
Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951-
Section 5(2) can be resorted to in order to authorise interception of messages including
multimedia messages sent (or received) by a device to (or from) another device. It does not
envisage constant surveillance by the electronic device including of all multimedia files
which were created in the device and not sent by telegraph to anyone else, nor does it
envisage recording people's real-life interactions that take place in the vicinity of their device
but not through it. ; (Page No.-10)

Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and

Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009- Rule 2(f) of the Information Technology
(Procedure for Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information)
Rules, 2009, which were passed in furtherance of Section 69 of the IT Act which provides
power to issue directions for interception, decryption or monitoring of information.
Interception is defined to mean the acquisition of the contents of any information so as to
make the contents of the information available to any person other than the sender, recipient
or intended recipient of the communication. Thus, it is amply clear that 'interception' can only
be done of the contents of information that forms part of some 'communication' through a
computer resource, and not of actions and conversations that simply happen to be near a
computer resource.
Intercepting messages does not mean turning phones into spy-cams. In effect, interception of
messages and information under the Telegraph Act and the IT Act only applies to
'communication' made through telegraph or computer resources, which is very different from
the wide arsenal of surveillance that is offered by Omegasus once it infects a phone. ; (Page
No.-11)
CASES-
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs Union of India case (AIR 1997 SC 568)-In
the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs Union of India (1997), the
Supreme Court held that Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, an order for interception can only
be issued either on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety.
; (Page No.-10)

Jatinder Pal Singh vs CBI (Case No.: CRL MC 3118 of 2021)-The Delhi High Court in the
case of Jatinder Pal Singh vs CBI held that permitting illegally intercepted messages and
audio conversations as evidence would lead to manifest arbitrariness and promote violation of
the fundamental rights of citizens. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that as per Section
5(2) of the Telegraph Act, an order for interception can only be issued either on the
occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety, as per the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in PUCL. ; (Page No.-11)
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (AIR 2017 SC 4161)-In the case of Justice
K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, 2017 regarding Surveillance, the Supreme Court made it
clear that any invasion of privacy could only be justified if it satisfied three tests:
a. The restriction must be by law
b. It must be necessary (only if other means are not available) and proportionate (only as
much as needed)
c. It must promote a legitimate state interest (e.g., national security)
The court stated that Right to Privacy is an inherent and integral part of Part III of the
Constitution that guarantees fundamental rights. ; (Page No.-13)
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 965)- In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (oleum
gas leak case), Supreme Court granted relief to the petitioner against the violation of Article
21(Right to claim pollution-free air, water and environment) by a Company. Therefore, the
Doge Group should be held liable for infringing the Right to Privacy (Article 21). ; (Page
No.-130

State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh ((1999) 6 SCC 172)- In the case of State of Punjab v.
Baldev Singh, Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in the
Court of Law if it is obtained in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as this provision
confers procedural rights to the accused which are statutorily mandated thus are deemed to be
followed. This standing of law to exclude the illegally obtained evidence is only confined to
the provisions of the NDPS Act and does not apply to other situations. ; (Page No.-14)

State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni, ((1980) 4 SCC 669)- ; (Page No.-
14)
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 157)-
Judiciary in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni, and R.M.
Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, held that any illegally obtained evidence is admissible in the
Court of Law if it is relevant to the matter, but the value of such evidence is to be dealt with
care and caution by the Courts. ; (Page No.-14)

Katz v. U.S. (389 U.S. 347 (1967))- The scope of the exclusionary rule was also expanded by
US Supreme Court in the case of Katz v. U.S., when it was held that eavesdropping and
recording of private conversions of accused also amount to ‘unreasonable search and seizure’
and is violative of Fourth Amendment Rights. ; (Page No.-150