RCL Petitioner FINAL

TC- 11
11TH RCL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023
11th RCL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COMPETITION, 2023
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARAT
Writ Petition No…………………. of 2023
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Ms. Priya Khanna…………………………………………………..Petitioner
V.
BHARAT………………………………………………………………Respondent
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.
1. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 5
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 7
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 9
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 10
5. ISSUES RAISED 12
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 13
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the removal of Ms. Priya 15-19

Khanna's post by Social Media Giant
constitutes an infringement upon her
freedom of expression.
1.1: Did SMG’s removal of the post violate

its own community guidelines or terms of
service?
1.2: Did the removal of the post stifle a

legitimate exercise of free speech under the
Constitution of Bharat?
1.3: Was the post a form of political

expression, given its critique of a
government policy?
2
2. Whether the data collection and content 20-28

delivery practices of Social Media Giant
violate Ms. Khanna's right to privacy.
2.1 Right to life

2.2 Right to personal liberty
2.3 Govt step to protect privacy
2.4 International Concepts of Privacy
2.5 The Privacy Bill, 2011
2.6.1 Did Ms. Khanna consent to these

practices when she signed up for the
platform?
2.6.2 Did SMG's data practices infringe

upon her autonomy over her personal
information?
3. Whether the actions of Social Media

Giant (SMG) in taking down Ms. Priya
Khanna's post and enforcing its
community guidelines infringe upon the 29-31
principles of net neutrality and fair
access to digital platforms.
3.1 Did SMG's takedown of the post

impact fair access to the platform and
limit diverse voices?
3
4. Whether the application of automated

content moderation algorithms by
Social Media Giant (SMG) to determine
the removal of user-generated content 32-35
violates principles of accountability,
transparency, and due process.
4.1.1 Were the algorithms transparent

and accountable in their decision-
making process?
4.1.2 Was there an opportunity for due

process and human review before
content removal?
4.1.3 Did the automated moderation

inadvertently lead to the removal of
legitimate content, causing harm to
users?
8. PRAYER 36
4
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
ABBREVATIONS EXPANSION
AIR ALL INDIA REPOTED
ANR ANOTHER
ART ARTICLE
ASSOC ASSOCIATION
& AND
AP ANDHRA PRADESH
CONSTI CONSTITUTION
DPDPB DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL
DPDPA DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT
ECHR EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN

RIGHTS
FCC FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
GDPR GENERAL DATA PERSONAL REGULATION
GOVT GOVERNMENT
HON’BLE HONORABLE
ICCPR INTERNATIONAL CONVENANT OF CIVIL AND

POLITICAL RIGHTS
IT ACT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT
ISP INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER

5
NET NETWORK
ORS OTHERS
RETD RETIRED
SC SUPREME COURT
SMG SOCIAL MEDIA GIANT
UOI UNION OF INDIA
UP UTTAR PRADESH
UDHR UNIVERAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
6
INDEX OF AUTHOROITIES
SNO NAME OF THE CASE CITATION
1. Maneka Gandhi v. union AIR 1978 SC 597

of India
2. Shreya singhal v. union of AIR 2015 SC 1523

India
3. State of UP v. Raj Narain 1975 AIR 865 1975 SCR(3)

333 1975 SCC (4) 428
4. Secretary, Ministry of
information and
1995 AIR 1236
broadcasting, govt of India
v. cricket association of 1995 SCC (2) 161
Bengal
5. Mahesh Bhatt v union of AIR 2009

India &Anr
6. Rajat Prakash v. Instagram
7. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy v. (2017) 10 SCC 1 AIR 2017

union of India SC 4161
8. Unni Krishnan v. state of 1993 AIR 217

AP
9. Kharak singh v state of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295
10. A.K.Gopalan v state of 1950 AIR 27
7
madras
11. Anuradha Bhasin v. union AIR 2020 SC 1308

of India
12. Sakal Papers v. UOI (1962) 3 SCR 842
FOREIGN CASES
1. Verizon v. FCC 535 U.S 467(2002)
2. DPC V Facebook 2020/2789 (RSP)

Ireland limited &
schrems
3. New York times v. 376 U.S 254(1964)

Sullivan
8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of Bharat under Article 32 of Bharat .
______________________________________________
Article 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 the 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.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution. This article provides individuals with the right to directly approach
the Supreme Court to enforce their fundamental rights and grants the Supreme Court the
power to issue various types of writs to protect these rights. It is a fundamental provision in
the Indian Constitution for the protection of citizens' rights.
9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Ms. Priya Khanna is a well-known writer and social

activist in Bharat, with a significant online following.
Her platform, which she uses for critique of economic,
political, and social issues, has garnered a large and
engaged audience.
1. On July 24, 2023, Ms. Khanna posted a critique of

a major government policy, the "Gender Equity
and Inclusion Act," on her Social Media Giant
(SMG) profile. Her post quickly gained popularity,
becoming the fifth trending topic on SMG's
platform.
2. However, just two days later, on July 26, 2023,
SMG removed her post, citing a violation of their
community guidelines. This removal ignited a
massive online debate about free speech and
privacy.
3. Ms. Khanna, in an interview with ADP News on
July 29, 2023, expressed her disapproval of her
post's removal. She contended that her critique of
the policy was well within the bounds of
constructive criticism and public discourse,
exercising her constitutionally protected freedom
of expression.
4. Ms. Khanna also raised concerns about her data
privacy rights, accusing SMG of collecting and
using her personal data without her informed
consent. She argued that SMG's practices violated
10
her right to privacy and autonomy over her

personal information.
5. Furthermore, Ms. Khanna pointed out that this
wasn't the first time SMG had faced controversies.
The company had been previously embroiled in
issues related to data privacy practices in other
countries, casting doubts on the platform's
commitment to user privacy and raising concerns
about the unchecked power of social media
platforms.
6. The "Gender Equity and Inclusion Act" aimed to
address systemic gender disparities across various
sectors, including education, employment, and
social services. It proposed measures to empower
women, promote gender-balanced representation,
and eliminate discriminatory practices. However,
the policy's specifics and potential consequences
were subjects of intense discussion, which Ms.
Khanna sought to contribute to with her candid
critique on the SMG platform.
11
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1: Whether the removal of Ms. Priya Khanna's

post by Social Media Giant constitutes an infringement
upon her freedom of expression.
ISSUE 2: Whether the data collection and content

delivery practices of Social Media Giant violate Ms.
Khanna's right to privacy.
ISSURE 3: Whether the actions of Social Media Giant

(SMG) in taking down Ms. Priya Khanna's post and
enforcing its community guidelines infringe upon the
principles of net neutrality and fair access to digital
platforms.
ISSURE 4: Whether the application of automated

content moderation algorithms by Social Media Giant
(SMG) to determine the removal of user-generated
content violates principles of accountability,
transparency, and due process
12
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Issue 1: Whether the removal of Ms. Priya Khanna's

post by Social Media Giant constitutes an infringement
upon her freedom of expression.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that

Social Media Giant by removing the post of Ms. Priya
Khanna infringement her right to freedom of speech
and expression as ‘freedom of speech and expression’
has a wide connotation. It includes the freedom of the
propagation of ideas, their publication and circulation.
Every citizen has right to hold an opinion.
Issue 2: Whether the data collection and content

delivery practices of SMG violate Ms. Khanna's right to
privacy.
The RTP is a fundamental right in Bharat and includes

the protection of personal data and the autonomy to
control one's information. Hence by collection of data
and content delivery practices of Social Media Giant
violated right to privacy of Ms. Priya.
13
Issue 3: Whether the actions of SMG in taking down

Ms. Priya Khanna's post and enforcing its community
guidelines infringe upon the principles of Net neutrality
and fair access to digital platforms.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that

SMG’s action in taking down the post infringe upon the
principle of net neutrality and fair access to digital
platform as Net neutrality principles aim to ensure
equal access and treatment of content and services on
the internet.
Issue 4: Whether the application of automated content

moderation algorithms by Social Media Giant (SMG) to
determine the removal of user-generated content
violates principles of accountability, transparency, and
due process.
14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCE
ARGUMENT ADVANCE
Issue 1 whether the removal of Ms. Priya Khanna's post

by Social Media Giant constitutes an infringement upon
her freedom of expression.
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court of SC

that the removal of Ms. Priya Khanna’s post by social
media giant constitutes an infringement upon her
FOSE as art 19 provides that Provides freedom of
speech which is the right to express one’s opinion freely
without any fear through
oral/written/electronic/broadcasting/press. Freedom of
expression includes Freedom of Press. It covers the
blogs and websites too.
Every citizen has a right to hold an opinion and to be

able to express it, including the right to receive and
impart information. The expression ‘freedom of speech
and expression’ has a wide connotation. It includes the
freedom of the propagation of ideas, their publication
and circulation.
15
Maneka Gandhi v.UOI1: Freedom of speech and

expression has no geographical limitation and it carries
with it the right of a citizen to gather information and
to exchange thought with others not only in India but
abroad also.
Sakal Papers v. UOI2 - This case emphasized the

importance of free speech and a diverse range of
opinions in a democracy, setting a precedent for
protecting the right to express dissenting views.
In the case of Shreya Singhal v.UOI3, the Indian

Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and
expression includes the right to express one's opinions
and ideas without the fear of censorship. The removal
of her post is in direct conflict with this principle.
In State of UP v. Raj Narain4, the Supreme Court

concluded that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
bestows upon every citizen the right to indulge in free
speech, as well as the right to receive and spread
information on topics of public importance.
he freedom to collect and communicate information is

included in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,
according to Secretary, Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assoc. of Bengal
5. For each person, the print media is a strong
1
AIR 1978 SC 597
2
(1962) 3SCR 842
3
AIR 2015
4
AIR 865 1975 SCR\
5
1995 AIR 1236
16
instrument for disseminating and receiving

information.
The Supreme Court decided in Mahesh Bhatt v. UOI &

Anr6. that free speech is one of the foundations of the
Indian Constitution and that it upholds it. The right to
free speech and expression is a crucial component of a
democratic framework. In order to maintain a
functioning democracy, citizens must be informed and
educated. Any incursions against free speech, as well as
opposing and divergent views of expression, as well as
any laws enacted in the manner of putting restrictions,
will lead to curbing on free speech.
1.1: Did SMG’s removal of the post violate its own

community guidelines or terms of service?
In this case, Ms. Khanna contends that SMG's removal

of her post violated its own community guidelines or
terms of service. In the case of Rajat Prakash v.
Instagram7 , it was established that social media
platforms are expected to adhere to their own policies
and guidelines when taking action against user-
generated content. If SMG's removal was not consistent
with its guidelines, this could be considered a breach of
contract and an infringement on Ms. Khanna's freedom
of expression.
6
2009
7
2020
17
- Ms. Priya Khanna's freedom of expression is protected

under the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Consti
of Bharat. The freedom of expression is a cornerstone of
democracy, allowing citizens to express their views and
opinions, especially on matters of public concern. This
includes the right to critique government policies.
- In this case, SMG's decision to remove Ms. Khanna's

post, which critiqued the "Gender Equity and Inclusion
Act," raises concerns about potential infringement on
her freedom of expression. While SMG is a private
company, it operates in a space where it serves as a
public forum for discussions and opinions.
1.2: Did the removal of the post stifle a legitimate

exercise of free speech under the Constitution of
Bharat?
^: The removal of Ms. Khanna's post stifled a legitimate

exercise of free speech, which is essential for democratic
discourse and the free exchange of ideas.
^: The Constitution of Bharat protects not only popular

or majority opinions but also dissenting and minority
views. Such diversity of expression is vital for the
democratic fabric of the nation.
18
Sakal Papers v. UOI8- In this case, the Supreme Court

upheld the importance of diverse and dissenting
opinions as an integral part of democratic expression.
1.3: Was the post a form of political expression, given

its critique of a government policy?
^: The post in question was indeed a form of political

expression, given its critique of the "Gender Equity and
Inclusion Act." Ms. Khanna's intention was to
contribute to political discourse and raise awareness
about the policy's implications.
^: Political expression includes any form of expression

related to government policies and political issues. Ms.
Khanna's post was a direct critique of a government
policy, making it a form of political expression.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan9- In this landmark case

from the United States, the court recognized the
importance of political expression and the need for
robust debate on public issues.
8
(1962) 3 SCR 842
9
1964
19
Issue 2 whether the data collection and content delivery

practices of Social Media Giant Violate Ms. Khanna's
right to privacy.
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that

the data collection and content delivery practice of
social media giant violates Ms. Khanna’s RTP. Privacy
right is subset of right to life and personal liberty.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs UOI10
The court expanded the purview of Art 21 and said that

the Right to Life and personal Liberty, as stated in Art
21, also included the right to privacy. Since Art 21 falls
under Part III of the Indian Consti, which deals with
fundamental rights, the right to privacy thus
automatically became a fundamental right after the
judgement. Since then, the right to privacy has been a
fundamental right in India.
Art 21 states 2 rights
a. Right to life
b. Right to personal liberty
10
2019 1 SCC1
20
2.1 Right to life
Art 6 of the ICCPR provides that “every human being

has the inherent right to life. This right ought to be
protected by the law and no one shall be deprived of his
life arbitrarily.” this right seeks to protect the unjust
deprivation of human life by the state. It prescribes
that no one can be deprived of his/her life, except as per
the law.
In India, the right to life has been granted a very broad
connotation. As per Art 21 and its judicial
interpretations, ‘life’ is not simply just the physical act
of breathing. It extends beyond mere animal existence
and includes a canopy of other elements as well. It
includes the right to live with dignity, right to health,
right to livelihood, right to privacy, and a bundle of
other similar rights.
Cases related to right to life

Unni Krishnan vs. State of AP 11: In this case, the
SC upheld the expanded interpretation of the right
to life.
In Kharak Singh v sate of UP12 it is clearly

explain and states the meaning of life that is isn’t
merely animal existence. It is branch that extends
to all the facilities that is needed in order to enjoy
life.
11
1993
12
AIR 1963 SC 1295
21
2.2 Right to personal liberty
Art 21 of the Indian Consti covers the arena of

protection of human life and liberty. It prescribes that
“no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by
law.”
India, the concept of personal liberty came into the
limelight with the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras13 the case was about the detention of a
communist leader who claimed that the detention was
illegal and breached his personal liberty under Art 21.
The Court described the ambit of personal liberty as
including the liberty of the physical body, and even the
right to sleep, eat, etc. Again in Kharak Singh v. State
of U.P. and Ors.14 , it was outlined that personal liberty
not only contained the right to be free from restrictions
on one’s movements but also from restrictions placed on
our private life.
2.3 Govt step to protect privacy
Privacy in the modern context is more about the privacy

in electronic communications and the ensuing personal
data generated through such activities. The PDPB,
13
1950 SC 27
14
1962
22
2019 now the DPDP Act 2023 aims to localize the data
processing activities of the internet platforms.
• Draft PDPB regulates how govt and private

organizations in India and overseas process the
personal data of individuals. If the individual gives
consent, or if there is a medical emergency, or if
the state is giving benefits, the processing is
permitted.
• Committee chaired by B. N. Srikrishna: Under the
chairmanship of Justice B. N. Srikrishna, the govt
created a committee of experts on data protection,
which submitted its report in July 2018.
• The IT Act, 2000 establishes protections against
certain data breaches from computer systems. It
includes precautions to prevent unwanted access
to computer systems and data stored on them.
• On August 2023 after Indian President Droupadi
Murmu granted assent to DPDPB
2.4 International Concepts of Privacy
Article 12 of UDHR15 states that “No one shall be

subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence or to attack upon his
honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to
protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.”
15
1948
23
Art 17 of ICCPR16 (to which India is a party)
States “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or

unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home
and correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his
honor and reputation”
Art 8 of ECHR17
states “Everyone has the right to respect for his private

and family life, his home and his correspondence; there
shall be no interference by a public authority except
such as is in accordance with law and is necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security,
public safety or the economic well-being of the country,
for the protection of health or morals or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
2.5 The Privacy Bill, 2011
The bill says,
“every individual shall have a right to his privacy —

confidentiality of communication made to, or, by him —
including his personal correspondence, telephone
conversations, telegraph messages, postal, electronic
16
1966
17
1950
24
mail and other modes of communication; confidentiality

of his private or his family life; protection of his honor
and good name; protection from search, detention or
exposure of lawful communication between and among
individuals; privacy from surveillance; confidentiality of
his banking and financial transactions, medical and
legal information and protection of data relating to
individual.
As per the bill, no person who has a place of business in

India but has data using equipment located in India,
shall collect or processor use or disclose any data
relating to individual to any person without consent of
such individual.
2.6.1: Did Ms. Khanna consent to these practices when

she signed up for the platform?
Ms. Khanna claims a violation of her right to privacy.

The case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. UOI
recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right
under the Indian Constitution. Data collection practices
that infringe upon an individual's autonomy over their
personal information can be seen as a breach of this
right.
25
To address the sub-issue of consent, in the case of K.S.

Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. UOI, the Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of informed consent in data
collection. If Ms. Khanna did not explicitly consent to
the data collection practices employed by SMG, her
right to privacy is potentially violated.
The right to privacy is another fundamental right

protected under the Consti of Bharat. This right
includes autonomy over one's personal information and
control over how it is collected and used.
- Ms. Khanna alleges that SMG collected and utilized

her personal data for targeted content delivery without
her explicit consent. The issue of consent is crucial. If
Ms. Khanna agreed to these practices when signing up
for the platform, it could impact her claim that her
privacy rights were violated. Therefore, the terms &
conditions and privacy policy of SMG need to be
examined to ascertain whether users provide informed
consent.
26
- Additionally, the transparency of SMG's data

collection practices is relevant. If these practices were
not adequately disclosed to users, it could strengthen
Ms. Khanna's argument.
2.6.2: Did SMG's data practices infringe upon her

autonomy over her personal information?
^:SMG's data practices infringed upon Ms. Khanna's

autonomy over her personal information by collecting
and utilizing her data without her clear and informed
consent.
^: Data privacy laws and principles emphasize user

autonomy over personal information. Users should have
the choice to control how their data is collected and
used.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - The

GDPR is an international standard that emphasizes
user consent and transparency in data collection and
processing, supporting Ms. Khanna's claim.
The “Schrems II” case “Data protection commissioner

vs. Facebook Ireland limited, Maximillian schrems”18 is
one of the significant GDPR-related cases that pertains
to privacy law and data protection
In July 2020, the European Court of Justice (ECJ)

invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework,
18
2020
27
which had previously allowed the transfer of data from

the EU to certified U.S. companies. The court cited
concerns about U.S. government surveillance practices
and the lack of adequate data protection for EU
citizens’ data in the United States. This ruling had
significant implications for data transfers between the
EU and the U.S. and highlighted the importance of
protecting the privacy rights of European citizens under
GDPR when their data is transferred internationally.
28
Issue 3: Whether the actions of Social Media Giant

(SMG) in taking down Ms. Priya Khanna's post and
enforcing its community guidelines infringe upon the
principles of net neutrality and fair access to digital
platforms.
Net neutrality principles ensure that all data on the

internet is treated equally without discrimination.
While the removal of a specific post does not directly
relate to net neutrality, it raises questions about how
content moderate ion practices are applied.
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service

providers (ISPs) should treat all data on the Internet
equally. It means that ISPs should not discriminate or
charge differently based on user, content, website,

platform, or application. Net neutrality ensures that
users have equal access to all types of content without
any restrictions or preferential treatment.
Here are some key principles of net neutrality:
29
1. Equal Treatment: All data on the Internet should

be treated the same, regardless of its source or
destination. ISPs should not block or throttle (slow
down) access to specific websites or services.
2. No Paid Prioritization: ISPs should not create

“fast lanes” or prioritize certain content or services in
exchange for payment. In other words, they should not
give preferential treatment to data from companies that
pay extra.
3. Transparency: ISPs should be transparent

about their network management practices, allowing
users to understand how their data is being treated.
4. No Content-Based Discrimination: ISPs

should not discriminate against content based on its
type or source. This means they should not favor their
own content or services over those of competitors.
In the context of the case, issue three raises questions

about whether SMG’s actions, including the removal of
Ms. Khanna’s post and enforcement of community
guidelines, comply with these principles of net
neutrality.
It’s important to examine whether SMG treated Ms.

Khanna’s content differently from other users’ content
based on the nature of the content or the viewpoint
expressed.
30
Verizon v FCC19- this US case upheld net neutrality

principles and the rights of private platform to enforce
content policies transparently.
The court ruled that the FCC had overstepped its authority in attempting
to enforce network neutrality rules on broadband providers under the
legal framework it had chosen at that time. This decision had significant
implications and led to changes in the FCC’s approach to regulating net
neutrality.
3.1: Did SMG's takedown of the post impact fair access

to the platform and limit diverse voices?
^: SMG's takedown of Ms. Khanna's post impacted fair

access to the platform by potentially limiting diverse
voices. The removal of popular post sparked debates
about free speech and privacy, showing its significant
impact on public discourse.
^: Fair access to digital platforms includes the right to

engage in public discourse and express diverse
viewpoints. SMG's actions have the potential to hinder
the diversity of voices on its platform.
Principles
PrinciplesofofNet
NetNeutrality
NeutralityininBharat
Bharat- -While
Whilethere
there
might notnot
might be be
direct case
direct law,
case thethe
law, principles of net
principles of net
neutrality
neutrality are
are rooted
rooted in
in ensuring
ensuring equal
equal and
and fair
fair access
access
to digital platforms.
to digital platforms.
19
2014 US case
31
Issue 4: Whether the application of automated content

moderation algorithms by Social Media Giant (SMG) to
determine the removal of user-generated content
violates principles of accountability, transparency, and
due process.
• Automated content moderation algorithms are

commonly used by social media platforms for
efficiency. However, they must be transparent,
accountable, & provide due process for users.
• The transparency of SMG's algorithms is a crucial
factor. Users should be aware of how these
algorithms work, and if they are not, it could raise
concerns about accountability.
• Due process means that users should have an
opportunity to appeal decisions and have their
content reviewed by humans. If SMG's automated
algorithms did not allow for such appeals or human
reviews, it could be seen as a violation of due
process.
The case of Anuradha Bhasin v. UOI 20
Highlighted the importance of accountability and

transparency in content moderation practices. Social
media platforms should have mechanisms in place to
allow users to understand and challenge decisions
20
2020
32
regarding the removal of their content. If SMG's

automated content moderation algorithms lack
transparency and do not provide users with an
opportunity for appeal or human review, this could be
seen as a violation of principles of accountability,
4.1.1 Were the algorithms transparent and accountable

in their decision-making process?
^: SMG's automated content moderation algorithms

lacked transparency and accountability, making it
difficult for users to understand how content decisions
were reached.
^: Transparency in automated content moderation is

essential for users to have confidence in the platform's
decision-making. When the process is opaque, users
cannot assess whether the removal of their content was
justified.
Principles of Transparency in Content Moderation -

Transparency are recognized as a critical principle in content
moderation, as it helps ensure the fairness of decisions.
4.1.2: Was there an opportunity for due process and

human review before content removal?
^: SMG's content moderation procedures did not

provide users with an opportunity for due process and
human review before their content was removed.
33
^: Due process allows users to challenge content

removals and have their cases reviewed by human
moderators who can consider context and intent. The
absence of due process can lead to arbitrary and unjust
content removals.
Rights to Due Process in Digital Content Removal -

Due process is considered a fundamental right in
digital content moderation to ensure fairness.
4.1.3: Did the automated moderation inadvertently lead

to the removal of legitimate content, causing harm to
users?
^: The automated moderation implemented by SMG

inadvertently led to the removal of legitimate content,
causing harm to users' ability to express them freely.
^: Automated moderation systems, while efficient, can

misinterpret content, leading to the removal of content
that should be protected under free speech principles.
This harms users and limits their ability to engage in
meaningful discourse.
Unintended Consequences of Automated Content

Unintended
Moderation -Consequences
Research andof Automated
studies Content
have shown that
Moderation - Research and
automated moderation studies have
can sometimes shown that
remove
automated moderation
legitimate content, can sometimes
causing remove
harm to users.
legitimate content, causing harm to users.
34
In summary, Ms. Priya Khanna's case is grounded in

her fundamental rights, including freedom of
expression and the right to privacy, as recognized by
the Indian Supreme Court. Her claims are supported by
relevant case laws that emphasize the importance of
transparency, accountability, and informed consent in
the context of digital platforms. These legal arguments
form the basis for her petition before the Supreme
Court.
35
PRAYER
In light of the foregoing arguments and citations, the appellant, Ms.

Priya Khanna, respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court:
▪ Declare that the removal of her post by Social Media Giant

constitutes an infringement upon her freedom of expression.
▪ Declare that the data collection and content delivery practices of
Social Media Giant violate Ms. Khanna's right to privacy.
▪ Declare that the actions of Social Media Giant (SMG) in taking
down Ms. Priya Khanna's post and enforcing its community
guidelines infringe upon the principles of net neutrality and fair
access to digital platforms.
▪ Declare that the application of automated content moderation
algorithms by Social Media Giant (SMG) to determine the removal
of user-generated content violates principles of accountability,
▪ Mandate SMG to cease data collection and content delivery
practices that infringe upon Ms. Khanna's data privacy rights and
privacy autonomy.
AND/OR
Award costs and any other relief deemed just and equitable by this
Hon'ble Court.
36

RCL Petitioner FINAL

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

RCL Petitioner FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC- 11

11TH RCL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023

11th RCL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARAT

Writ Petition No…………………. of 2023

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Ms. Priya Khanna…………………………………………………..Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE

1. Whether the removal of Ms. Priya 15-19

1.1: Did SMG’s removal of the post violate

1.2: Did the removal of the post stifle a

1.3: Was the post a form of political

2. Whether the data collection and content 20-28

2.1 Right to life

2.6.1 Did Ms. Khanna consent to these

2.6.2 Did SMG's data practices infringe

3. Whether the actions of Social Media

3.1 Did SMG's takedown of the post

4. Whether the application of automated

4.1.1 Were the algorithms transparent

4.1.2 Was there an opportunity for due

4.1.3 Did the automated moderation

AIR ALL INDIA REPOTED

DPDPB DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL

DPDPA DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT

ECHR EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN

FCC FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

GDPR GENERAL DATA PERSONAL REGULATION

ICCPR INTERNATIONAL CONVENANT OF CIVIL AND

IT ACT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT

ISP INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER

SMG SOCIAL MEDIA GIANT

UOI UNION OF INDIA

UDHR UNIVERAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SNO NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

1. Maneka Gandhi v. union AIR 1978 SC 597

2. Shreya singhal v. union of AIR 2015 SC 1523

3. State of UP v. Raj Narain 1975 AIR 865 1975 SCR(3)

5. Mahesh Bhatt v union of AIR 2009

6. Rajat Prakash v. Instagram

7. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy v. (2017) 10 SCC 1 AIR 2017

8. Unni Krishnan v. state of 1993 AIR 217

9. Kharak singh v state of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295

10. A.K.Gopalan v state of 1950 AIR 27

11. Anuradha Bhasin v. union AIR 2020 SC 1308

12. Sakal Papers v. UOI (1962) 3 SCR 842

1. Verizon v. FCC 535 U.S 467(2002)

2. DPC V Facebook 2020/2789 (RSP)

3. New York times v. 376 U.S 254(1964)

The petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme

Ms. Priya Khanna is a well-known writer and social

1. On July 24, 2023, Ms. Khanna posted a critique of

her right to privacy and autonomy over her

ISSUE 1: Whether the removal of Ms. Priya Khanna's

ISSUE 2: Whether the data collection and content

ISSURE 3: Whether the actions of Social Media Giant

ISSURE 4: Whether the application of automated

Issue 1: Whether the removal of Ms. Priya Khanna's

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that

Issue 2: Whether the data collection and content

The RTP is a fundamental right in Bharat and includes

Issue 3: Whether the actions of SMG in taking down

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that