1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Abbreviations ……………………………………………………... 2

Table of Authorities ………………………………………………………… 3

Statement of Jurisdiction …………………………………………………… 5

Statement of Facts …………………………………………………………... 6

Issues Raised ………………………………………………………………... 7

Summary of Arguments …………………………………………………….. 8

Arguments Advanced ……………………………………………………… 11

Prayer ……………………………………………………………………… 25

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 2

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
AIR All India Reporter
AC Appeal Cases
ART Article
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
IPC Indian Penal Code
IT Act Information and Technlogy Act
ORS Others
S Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
UOI Union Of India
u/s Under Section

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

S. No Particulars
1 Constitutional Law of India; Dr. J.N. Pandey
2 The Constitution of India (One Hundred and Fifth
Amendment) Act, 2021 Bare Act 2022
3 The e- Laws; Aravind Menon
4 Information Technology Law; Mahatma Gandhi
University
5 Cyber Law covering The Information Technology Act,
2000 [Act 21 of 2000], Bare Act 2022

STATUTES REFERRED

S. No Particulars
1 Constitution of India
2 Information Technology Act, 2000
3 Indian Penal Code, 1860
4 Criminal Procedure Code, 1974
5 Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public
Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017

6 Protection of Human Rights, 1993

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

JOURNALS REFERRED

S. No Particulars
1 Supreme Court Cases
2 Lexology
3 India Code

CASE REFERRED

S. No Particulars
1 Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras [1950] S.C.R. 594
at 602
2 Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union Of India [1962] 3
S.C.R. 842 at 866
3 Romila Thapar Case(2018)

4 Bennet Coleman & Co. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
[1973] 2 S.C.R. 757 at 289
5 I.R. Coelho (Dead) By L.R.s v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 1

6 Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India &

Ors

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India invoking its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India for the violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in
the constitution of India.

Article 32 of Constitution of India

Remedies for enforcement of the rights conferred by this part

(1)The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for

the enforcement of 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 maybe appropriate,
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred in this Part.

(3)Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by

clause (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 exercised by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4)The right guaranteed by the article shall not be suspended except as

otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That Bal Thakarey, the founder of the Shiv Sena party died on 17th
November 2012 due to cardiac arrest which put the entire state of
Maharashtra on a halt and Bandh was declared.

2. That Shaheen Dhada, a young women posted against the Bandh

crippling life in Mumbai on Facebook which goes “People like
Thakarey are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for
that” on November 18 2012

3. That Mumbai Police took action against her under Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 which criminalised sending
“offensive” or “menacing” messages online. The section also punished
the sending of information which was “grossly offensive” or had a
“menacing character”, and Shaheen Dhada was arrested along with her
friend Rinu Shrinivasan who merely liked Shaheen’s post.

4. That Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is a breach

of the fundamental right of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
The offence under section 66A of the IT act being cognisable, law
enforcement agencies have the authority to arrest or investigate without
warrants based on charges brought under the Information Technology
Act and deleted her post under Section 69A of the Act.

5. That a writ petition was filed at the Supreme Court of India under
Article 32 of Indian Constitution to prevent the abuse and chaos caused
under Section 66A.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 7

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Section 66A and 69A of IT Act violates the fundamental right
to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) of the
Indian Constitution?

2. Whether Section 66A of the IT Act is a reasonable restriction on the

right to free speech and expression?

3. Whether section 66A of the IT Act is vague and overbroad and,

therefore, liable to be struck down?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether Section 66A and 69A of IT Act violates the fundamental

right to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19
(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution?

Section 66A and 69A of the IT Act 2000 is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of
the Indian Constitution. Every person has the Right to Freedom of Speech
and Expression.
The very basis of Section 66A, that it has given rise to new forms of crimes,
is incorrect and that Section 66B - Section 67C and various other Sections
of Indian Penal code are great enough to deal with all these crimes.
Section 66A infringes the Fundamental Right to Freedom of speech and
expression and is not saved in any of the eight subjects covered in Article
19(2).
The enforcement of Section 66A would really be an insidious form of
censorship which impairs a core value contained in Article 19(1)(a).
Section 66A has a Chilling Effect on the Freedom of Speech and
Expression.
The rights under Article 14 and Article 21 are breached inasmuch there is
no intelligible differentia between those who use the internet and those who
by works spoken or written use other mediums of communication is itself a
discriminatory object and would fall foul of Article 14 in any case.
Dissent and criticism of the government are essential ingredients of robust
public debate in a vibrant democracy. The government, through Section 66A
and 69A of the IT Act 2000, has silenced many citizen journalists and other
individuals in recent years for exposing the truth. The present case of Shreya
Singhal is also an example of the misuse of the Section by the government.
Section 66A and 69A is widely misused by the government to hide the truth
and to promote their political agenda. So the said provisions of IT Act 2000
should be declared unconstitutional and the Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression should be protected.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

2. Whether Section 66A of the IT Act is a reasonable restriction on

the right to free speech and expression?

Whether Section 66A of the IT Act is a reasonable restriction on the right to

free speech and expression?
Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act was Unconstitutional
because, It is violative of right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution of India.
Words like 'annoyance', 'inconvenience', 'danger', 'obstruction', 'insult',
'injury', 'criminal intimidation', 'enmity', 'hatred' or 'ill- will' are all outside the
purview of reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19 (2) of the
Constitution of India.
None of the terms mentioned in this section are defined. Further, they
contended that provisions of this section are vague and uncertain therefore
the innocent persons are being charged under this Section.
Enforcement of this Section would be an insidious form of censorship.
It has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, it
affects the rights of the viewer to access various points of views.
It discriminates against the users of the internet therefore; it is violative of
Article 14 and 21.
It suffers from procedural unreasonableness.
There is no intelligible differentia between the internet and other mediums of
communication (Spoken or written).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

3. Whether section 66A of the IT Act is vague and overbroad and,

therefore, liable to be struck down?

Whether section 66A of the IT Act is vague and overbroad and, therefore,
liable to be struck down?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the court is entitled to
strike down Section 66A of the IT Act as being vague and overbroad. The
terminologies used in Section 66A of the IT Act are deemed to be very
ambiguous and loose in nature. The executive authority is also not capable of
comprehending the basis for bifurcating a particular speech or expression
falling under the purview of this provision. For this reason it is tend to be
argued that what might be obnoxious to one individual might not be to the
other and this makes the provision constitutionally vague in its entirety. By
forcing people to guess what the statute meant, the law violated the
constitutional right to due process of law. A legislation having ambiguities in
its effective interpretation is declared to be void under the legal system of
India. The law was also overbroad because although it applied to behaviour
that a state can Constitutionally prohibit, the language of the law would also
criminalise Constitutionally protected conduct. Section 66A in its current
form fails to define the categories mentioned in it, which has led to
inconsistent and arbitrary use of the provision.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER Section 66A AND 69A OF IT ACT VIOLATES THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION UNDER Article 19(1)(a) OF OF THE
INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Section 66A and
Section 69A of the IT Act 2000 is unconstitutional.

Section 66A :
Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service,
etc. —Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a
communication device,—
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of
causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury,
criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of
such computer resource or a communication device; or

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing
annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or
recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, terms “electronic mail” and
“electronic mail message” means a message or information created or
transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource
or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio,
video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the
message.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Section 69A :
Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information
through any computer resource

(1)Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially

authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or
expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India,
defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of
any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the
provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by
order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for
access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any
information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any
computer resource.

(2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for
access by the public may be carried out, shall be such as may be
prescribed.

(3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under
sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Article 19(1) :
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc:
1. All citizens shall have the right
a) To freedom of speech and expression;
b) To assemble peaceably and without arms;
c) To form associations or unions;
d) To move freely throughout the territory of India;
e) To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
f) Omitted by the 44th Amendment Act
g) To practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

Article 19(2) :
2. Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any
existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the
said sub clause in the interests of the 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 offence.

Section 2(v) :
“Information" includes 7 [data, message, text,] images, sound, voice, codes,
computer programmes, software and data bases or micro film or computer
generated micro fiche.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

With the introduction of social media in the society, every individual can
bring out any happening in one corner of the world to another without any
censor or restraint. Anyone can report the happenings in society and with the
use of technology, it can be made visible to the whole world in a matter of
seconds.

There is no doubt that technology such as computers, mobile, internet, etc.,

has changed the lives of many and the way journalism used to work as well.
Citizen journalism especially in case of wars and conflicts become critical
and important because of the fact that journalists cannot be everywhere and
cannot understand the ground level realities happening in the conflict zone.
Therefore, citizen journalism has gained importance in the present conditions
of the world especially with the recent happenings in Syria, Egypt and other
countries. In recent years, citizen journalism has gained popularity in India
too. It helped us to know what is happening all over the State.

According to Collins dictionary, “citizen journalism means the involvement

of non-professionals in reporting news, especially in blogs and other
websites.” Citizen journalism is, therefore, the dissemination of
events/occurrences and viewed by an ordinary citizen unlike the traditional
journalism where several people are trained for the purpose of reporting.

The freedom of Speech and Expression is a fundamental right mentioned

under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The freedom of Press is
also included in this. The commonly used reason for censoring the media is
the ‘public interest’ and the ‘public order’. The government has been using
these words to either get the media in their favour or censor them so that
news is not published at all. The government is vastly misusing the

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 15

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Section 66A and 69A of the IT Act for hiding the truth and in promoting
their political agenda.

Dissent and criticism of the government are essential ingredients of robust

public debate in a vibrant democracy. The government, through Section 66A
and 69A of the IT Act 2000, has silenced many citizen journalists and other
individuals in recent years for exposing the truth. The present case of Shreya
Singhal is also an example of the misuse of the Section by the government.

Speech is not and cannot be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order –

it is the actions of people that are; by holding a speech to be so prejudicial,
one presupposes that autonomous, thinking individuals are bound to think
one way, and withholds from them their entitlement to ethical responsibility.
The right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is not an absolute right. It
can be suspended during emergencies. But only in the case of “emergency”.

In the case of Romesh Thapar vs the State of Madras, the court held that
“freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas,
ensured by freedom of circulation and the basis of all the democratic
organisations is the freedom of speech and expression, which is extremely
important for its proper functioning.”

In the case of Romesh Thapar v. the State of Madras, the court held that
“freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas,
ensured by freedom of circulation and the basis of all the democratic
organisations is the freedom of speech and expression, which is extremely
important for its proper functioning.”

In Sakal newspapers v. UOI, The Court held that the citizens’ rights to
propagate their ideas and to do so should be given the right of publishing and

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 16

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

disseminating, and circulate the information. The citizen can propagate either
orally or by writing and hence the right to propagate comes under the ambit
of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.

The Right to dissent is a fundamental right under the two rights granted under
the Right to freedom in Article 19.

Right to Freedom of speech and expression- The right to dissent is inherent in

this right, because expression and free speech may also be in the form of
dissent

In Romila Thapar Case(2018), Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed in his

dissenting opinion “that Individuals who dissent from the government are
entitled to the freedoms which are guaranteed by the Constitution. Dissent is
a symbol of a vibrant democracy. Voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by
persecuting those who take up unpopular causes.”

➔ Public interest refers to the obligation of civil servants to act in the best
interests of the public they serve, rather than for personal gain or the
interests of a specific group.
➔ State sovereignty is a term that refers to the legal authority and
responsibility of an independent state to govern and regulate its
political affairs without foreign interference. Sovereign states have
supreme authority over their territory. Factors of sovereignty : 1) a
defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a
capacity to enter into relations with other states.
➔ Territorial integrity is the principle under international law where
sovereign states have a right to defend their borders and all territory in
them from another state.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 17

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

➔ Incitement refers to the act of encouraging, prompting, or persuading

another person to commit an unlawful act. It does not require the act to
be completed; merely inducing the idea with an intention to cause the
action might suffice

Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 2 S.C.R.
757 at 829, that the freedom of speech and of the press is the Ark of the
Covenant of Democracy because public criticism is essential to the working
of its institutions.

● The very basis of Section 66A - that it has given rise to new forms of
crimes - is incorrect and that Section 66B - Section 67C and various
other Sections of Indian Penal code are great enough to deal with all
these crimes.

● Section 66A infringes the Fundamental Right to Freedom of speech

and expression and is not saved in any of the eight subjects covered in
Article 19(2).

● The enforcement of Section 66A would really be an insidious form of

censorship which impairs a core value contained in Article 19(1)(a).

● Section 66A has a Chilling Effect on the Freedom of Speech and

Expression.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 18

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Chilling Effect And Overbreadth

The "chilling effect" refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups
refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or
regulation. Chilling effects generally occur when a law is either too broad or
too vague. Information that may be grossly offensive or which causes
annoyance or inconvenience are undefined terms which take into the net a
very large amount of protected and innocent speech. A person may discuss or
even advocate by means of writing disseminated over the internet
information that may be a view or point of view pertaining to governmental,
literary, scientific or other matters which may be unpalatable to certain
sections of society. It is obvious that an expression of a view on any matter
may cause annoyance, inconvenience or may be grossly offensive to some. A
few examples will suffice. A certain section of a particular community may
be grossly offended or annoyed by communications over the internet by
“liberal views'' – such as the emancipation of women or the abolition of the
caste system or whether certain members of a non proselytising religion
should be allowed to bring persons within their fold who are otherwise
outside the fold. Each one of these things may be grossly offensive,
annoying, inconvenient, insulting or injurious to large sections of particular
communities and would fall within the net cast by Section 66A. In point of
fact, Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject
would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of
the day would be caught within its net. Such is the reach of the Section and if
it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech
would be total.

● The rights under Article 14 and Article 21 are breached inasmuch

there is no intelligible differentia between those who use the internet
and those who by works spoken or written use other mediums of

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 19

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

communication is itself a discriminatory object and would fall foul of

Article 14 in any case.

● There are 3 concepts which are fundamental in understanding the

reach of the most basic Human Rights - (1) Discussion (2)
Advocacy (3) Incitement.

● Section 66A and 69A is challenged on the ground that it casts the not
very wide- “all information that is discriminated against over the
internet is included within its reach. Section 2(v) of IT Act defines
Information. Two things are to be noted here. The first is that the
definition is inclusive. Second is that the definition does not refer to
what the context of information can be - In fact, it refers only to the
medium through which such information is disseminated. Therefore the
public’s Right to know is directly affected by Section 66A and 69A of
IT Act.

Incitement to an offence :
A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government,
or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite
people to violence against the Government established by law or with the
intention of creating public disorder. Section 66A has no proximate
connection with incitement to commit an offence. Firstly, the information
disseminated over the internet need not be information which "incites"
anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of
"discussion" or "advocacy" of a "particular point of view". Further, the mere
causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive
or having a menacing character are not offences under the Penal Code at all.
They may be ingredients of certain offences under the Penal Code but are not

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 20

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

offences in themselves. For these reasons, Section 66A has nothing to do

with “incitement to an offence”. As Section 66A severely curtails
information that may be sent on the internet based on whether it is grossly
offensive, annoying, inconvenient, etc. and being unrelated to any of the eight
subject matters under Article 19(2) must, therefore, fall foul of Article
19(1)(a), and not being saved under Article 19(2), should be declared as
unconstitutional.

● It is important to notice the distinction between Sections 268 and 66A.

Whereas, in Section 268 the various expressions used are ingredients
for the offence of a public nuisance, these ingredients now become
offences in themselves when it comes to Section 66A. Further, under
Section 268, the person should be guilty of an act or omission which is
illegal in nature – legal acts are not within its net. A further ingredient
is that injury, danger or annoyance must be to the public in general.
Injury, danger or annoyance are not offences by themselves howsoever
made and to whomsoever made

The expression “annoyance” appears also in Sections 294 and 510 of the
IPC:

“Section 294. Obscene acts and songs.

Whoever, to the annoyance of others,

(a)does any obscene act in any public place, or

(b)sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words, in

or near any public place,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 21

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Section 510. Misconduct in public by a drunken person.

Whoever, in a state of intoxication, appears in any public place, or in any
place which it is a trespass in him to enter, and there conducts himself in such
a manner as to cause annoyance to any person, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-four hours, or with fine
which may extend to ten rupees, or with both.”
Article 14 is also infringed in that an offence whose ingredients are vague in
nature is arbitrary and unreasonable and would result in arbitrary and
discriminatory application of the criminal law. Further, there is no intelligible
differentia between the medium of print, broadcast, and real live speech as
opposed to speech on the internet and, therefore, new categories of criminal
offences cannot be made on this ground. Similar offences which are
committed on the internet have a three year maximum sentence under
Section 66A as opposed to defamation which has a two year maximum
sentence. Also, defamation is a non-cognizable offence whereas under
Section 66A the offence is cognizable. There is no pre-decisional hearing
afforded by the Rules particularly to the “originator” of information, which is
defined under Section 2(za) of the Act to mean a person who sends,
generates, stores or transmits any electronic message; or causes any
electronic message to be sent, generated, stored or transmitted to any other
person. Further, procedural safeguards such as those which are provided
under Section 95 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not available
here. Also, the confidentiality provision was assailed stating that it affects the
fundamental rights of the petitioners.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 22

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Right to individual freedom

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines human rights as “the
rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual
guaranteed by the Constitution…” This being so, the protection of the Right
to truth is mere extension of fundamental rights protection.
In I.R. Coelho (Dead) By L.R.s v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2007) 2 SCC
1, it was emphasised that the principle of constitutionalism is now a legal
principle which requires control over the exercise of Governmental power to
ensure that it does not destroy the democratic principles upon which it is
based. The Preamble’s introductory words “We the People” highlights the
underpinning philosophy of people delegating their sovereignty. Thus, the
Constitution derives its power from the people of India and the governments
are meant to serve the same by any legal means which includes the Right to
Truth.

In exercise of its powers under Section 69A of the Act, the Government
periodically issues ‘take down’ or ‘blocking requests’ to various intermediary
platforms.
The Government issued blocking orders under Section 69A of the Act against
1,474 Twitter accounts and 175 Tweets in the period between February 2021
and February 2022. Twitter complied with the orders ‘under protest’. In the
post-decisional hearing, the government directed Twitter to comply with all
directions issued under Section 69A of the Act for blocking of the specified
accounts and tweets, and warned the tech giant of not only losing its
immunity as an intermediary under
Section 79(1) of the Act but also faces penal consequences in case of
non-compliance. The Review Committee allowed revocation of blocking
orders for only certain accounts.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 23

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

In the recent years, there were many incidents where the government had
hugely misused these two provisions of the IT Act. Starting from the present
case of Shreya Singhal where the young woman who posted her posted her
opinion about a bandh was arrested along with her friend who merely liked
her post, to banning internet in Kashmir for the longest period of time in
history which lasted months in 2019 after taking down Article 370 from the
Constitution, to taking down a large number of Tweets that supported The
2020 Farmer's Protest, to deleting the BBC documentary "India: The Modi
Question" and arresting the college students for playing it in the college
campuses, to banning Al-Jazeera news channel for reporting the Gujarat riot,
to banning internet in Manipur and hiding what was happening there,to
banning Media One news channel for reasons which the central government
is not ready to disclose (Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India
& Ors), to promoting hate between two religious communities in India by
supporting the movie KERALA STORY with the label "Based on a true
story" which was all a lie, to again promoting their political agenda by
posting the older version of the Preamble in the Instagram page handled by
the central government in which "Socialist Secular" were yet to be added, in a
time where there is a slight tension between the two religious communities in
India, and what else in the future.
It is clearly evident from the above said incidents that the Government had
without any doubt misused Section 69A of the IT Act for their own gain.
People have the Right to know. Such vast misuse of this section by the
government is violating this right of the citizen along with the right to
freedom of speech and expression. So this section should be declared
unconstitutional

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 24

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

As long as the Sections are made constitutional, the government did misuse,
is misusing and will always misuse them to hide the bitter truth about them
from the people and to promote their political agenda by violating the
freedom of speech and expression. So I humbly request the Hon'ble Court to
declare Section 66A and Section 69A of IT Act 2000 unconstitutional.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 25

PRAYER

In the light of the issue raised, arguments advanced, authorities cited and case
referred to, THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT MOST HUMBLY
AND RESPECTFULLY PRAY BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT THAT
IT MAY BE PLEASED TO,

1. Declare that the Section 66A and 69A of IT Act is violative of fundamental
right to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) of the
Constitution of India and hence unconstitutional

2. Declare that the Section 66A of the IT Act is not a reasonable restriction
on the right to free speech and expression

3. Struck down section 66A of the IT Act wholly as being vague and
overbroad

And/ Or
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and
good conscience.

Date:05/02/2024 All of which is humbly prayed,

Place:Palayad Counsels for the PETITIONER(s)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 26

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS