TEAM CODE: TN 406

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BROOMLAND

IN THE PROCEEDING BETWEEN

LADY UNNAMED & NEUTRAL SINDHIA .…PETITIONER(s)
V.
FUNBOOK PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS .…RESPONDENT(s)

WRIT PETITIONER(s) (CIVIL) NO(s)./2008

ON SUBMISSION TO THE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BROOMLAND

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF SINDHIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(s)

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(s)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF rESPONDENT

[COMPANY NAME] [Company address]
 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

CONTENTS

LIST OF AABBREVATIONS………………………………………………………………… 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………….
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………
ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………………………..
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………………
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………………
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………….

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1

 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

LIST OF AABBREVIATIONS

% Percentage

& And

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Report

Anr. Another

Govt. Government

Hon‟ble Honorable

i.e. That is

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 2

 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

SCC Supreme Court Cases

U.O.I. Union of India

v. Versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 3

4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 4

 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Broomland has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 226 of the
Constitution of Sindhia, 19501

1
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part
III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government
or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is
made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;
and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such
order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel
of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it
is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High
Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as
the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 5

 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

Statement of Facts

1.The country of Republic of Sindhia, having diversity of religions of which Sindhuism

(approximately 84%) is majority religion following Sindhian culture and history and entwined
with the concept of its nationalism.
2.Sindhia is a secular and democratic nation. But due to difference in the culture of Sindhuism
and Jeruslam (which is largest minority religion approximately 12% of the total population) create
several conflicts which have led to massive riot and mass-violence in the past across Sindhia.
3.Sindhia undergo digital revolution, as a result of number of users of internet and Social Media
have increased exponentially. However social media platforms are being misused by politically
motivated and rightwing groups, having started spreading hate speech and blasphemous contents
to instigate/trigger riots and violence between the Sindhus and Jeruslam.
4.A migrant worker named Frazil of Jeruslam was hacked to death in the state of Broomland (a
territory of Sindhia) with a meat cleaver and his body was then burnt at the scene of crime
5.Videotaped of entire attacked of Frazil was uploaded on a popular social media platform in
Sindhia called “Funbook” owned by “Funbook Private Limited” along with a sermon against the
Jeruslam captioning it “Go to Jerustan” and “Jhanda Ucha Rehe” (flag should fly high) [video 1].
Also this video became viral on Funbook own messaging application called “ChatOn” which used
end-to-end encryption technique to transmit messaging
6.Despite repeated petition and complaints being made by the citizen of Sindhia to the Ministry of
Home Affairs of Sindhia to curb the spread of the hate videos, the said Ministry took no
cognizance of the matter. The government of Sindhia blamed the end-to-end encryption
technology used by ChatOn and said that because of this technology they are unable to trace the
origin of the dissemination of Video 1 and thus, they cannot take action against the perpetrator.
Further, the Government accused Funbook of refusing to co-operate with them and provide them
with data regarding the spreading of Video 1 through ChatOn and Funbook on the grounds that
the privacy of their users was of utmost importance to them. Funbook further contended that they
would not breach the trust of their users by decrypting the materials shared on its platform as the
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 6
 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

USP of Funbook and ChatOn was their end-to-end encryption technology that guaranteed the
privacy of contents shared by users.
7.ChatOn and Funbook revised the user policy where under 50 or more user complain about the
content of any post uploaded or shared on such social media, the same will be immediately
removed also ensured that any video which has graphic content was blurred and an express
consent from the user is taken before such video is played.
8.Post this incident, a video of a Sindhu women being raped by a group of man wearing religious
Jeruslam lockets went viral on Funbook and ChatOn (video 2) with “Sindhia belongs to Jerustan”
this create riots and violence in the state of Broomland.
9.Lady unnamed and Neutral Sindhia (the “Petitioners”) made a written request to the Grievance
officer of Funbook stating that the said videos should be urgently taken down and any further
parts pertaining to the same should be automatically blocked. Also, that the user account posting
the same should be deactivated as this fall under the category of hate speech and violate the right
of privacy of lady unnamed. However, despite repeated request from the petitioners Funbook
declined to take down the said videos and related contents because as per Funbook policy 50
people had to complain for Funbook to take down any content from its platform. Also provided
documentary evidence of the fact that they have complied with all the legal requirements under
the Information Technology Act 2000 and have processed her complaint.
10.“Department of Information Technology”, State of Broomland (DIT) refused to entertain the
request of the Petitioners to blacklist Funbook and ChatOn on the ground that it did not have
enough information, however issued a show caused notice to Funbook demanding detailed report
of the incident.
11.DIT said that any form of the regulation of the contents of the Funbook and ChatOn without
reasonable justification would tantamount to violation of freedom of speech of the citizen of
Sindhia. Thus, the Petitioner have approaches the Hon’ble High Court of Broomland with its
petition against Funbook Private Limited i.e., “Respondent 1” and DIT i.e., “Respondent 2”

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 7

 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

Issues Raised

The respondent has placed before this Hon’ble Court the following issues for
consideration:

Issue 1

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY UNNAMED LADY & NEUTRAL

SINDHIA IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BROOMLAND IS MAINTAINABLE?

Issue 2

WHETHER DECRYPTING THE MATERIALS ON PLATFORM SUCH AS FUNBOOK

AND CHATON WOULD AMOUNT TO BREACH THE TRUST OF ITS USER?

Issue 3

WHETHER THE REGULATION OF THE CONTENTS OF FUNBOOK AND CHATON

WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF THE
CITIZEN OF SINDHIA?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 8

 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

Summary of Arguments

1. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

BROOMLAND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Firstly, the existence of an
efficacious alternative remedy in claiming relief under private law would oust the petitioner from
filing the writ petition. Secondly, no fundamental right was infringed and therefore the writ will
not be maintainable on this regard and hence writ cannot be issued.
2. DECRYPTING THE MATERIALS ON PLATFORM SUCH AS FUNBOOK AND
CHATON WOULD AMOUNT TO BREACH THE TRUST OF ITS USER.
3. REGULATION OF THE CONTENTS OF FUNBOOK AND CHATON WOULD NOT
VIOLATE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF THE CITIZEN OF SINDHIA.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 9

 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

Advance Arguments

1. THE WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH

COURT OF BROOMLAND.
The writ petition filed by the Petitioner is maintainable,
[A] Existence of an efficacious alternative remedy would bar the institution of the writ.
[B] Further, no fundamental rights was infringed.
[A] Existence of an efficacious alternative remedy would bar the institution of the writ
It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that a HC does not ordinarily issue a writ when an
alternative efficacious remedy is available.2 Under article 226, the HC does not decide disputes
for which remedy is available under general law. The principle has been stated by SC as
follows;3
“It is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant,
he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the HC to
issue a prerogative writ. The existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into
consideration in the matter of granting writs…”
Furthermore, it is submitted that when a right or liability is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that
particular statutory remedy and not the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution.4 In the case of Madhya Pradesh v. Income Tax Officer5 the Supreme Court has held
that, when there existed an adequate alternative remedy, then the writ petition would be
dismissed by the court in limine. The petitioners, in the case at hand, did not exercise the proper
course of action provided by the alternative remedies before filing the writ petition.
[B] Further, no fundamental rights was infringed.
It is humbly submitted by the respondent that the writ filed by the petitioner is not maintainable
as there is no violation of any fundamental right in the action taken by the respondent 1 & 2. As,
respondent 1 merely cannot breach the privacy policy of its users by decrypting the materials
shared on its platform as the USP of Funbook and ChatOn was protected by end-to-end
encryption technology guaranteed the privacy of the contents shared by the users. This policy
dissuade the ‘Funbook Private Limited’ to decrypting the materials as it would infringed the
fundamental rights which is enshrined under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution i.e., freedom of
speech and expression of the users.
However, ChatOn and Funbook had took an action and revised its user policy for the
convenience of its user whereunder if 50 or more users complain about the content of any post
2
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 412(7th ed., 2014).
3
Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882.
4
Seth Chand Ratan v. Pandit Durga Prasad, (2003) 5 SCC 399.
5
Madhya Pradesh v. Income Tax Officer, (1965) 57 ITR 637 SC

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 10

 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

uploaded or shared on such social media, the same will be immediately removed, but no such
user complaint is been come under the notice of respondent 1. Therefore, the video was not been
removed and there is no violation of Fundamental Rights. In this current case, it is humbly
submitted that there is no direct and definite relation between the cause of action and the locus
standi and hence it is humbly submitted that the writ petition to this regard is not maintainable.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 11

 4TH SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2019

2. DECRYPTING THE MATERIALS ON PLATFORM SUCH AS FUNBOOK AND

CHATON WOULD AMOUNT TO BREACH THE TRUST OF ITS USER.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 12