Team AL Respondent - 240124 - 130003

32 KLA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
TEAM CODE – T-Al (R)
32ND ALL INDIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT (THIRD VIRTUAL)

COMPETITION
BY KERELA LAW ACADEMY, 2023
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF UNION OF INDIA

UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION
-IN THE MATTER OF-
POSTGRAM LIMITED
(PETITIONER)
V.
UNION OF INDIA
(RESPONDENT)
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | i [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................III
TABLE OF ABBREVIATION ......................................................................... XIII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................ XIV
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................. XV
ISSUES RAISED .............................................................................................. XVII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................... XVIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................. 1
I. MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HAS THE
LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO FORMULATE THE RULE 4(2) INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS
CODE) RULES, 2021. .............................................................................................. 1
II. THERE IS PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. .................................... 3
III. THE IMPUGNED RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS IN CONSONANCE WITH
ART. 14. .................................................................................................................. 4
A. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT ACT, 2021 SATISFIES THE TWIN TEST OF REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION................................................................................................... 5
1. The classification drawn between SMI and SSMI is reasonable, just and
fair. ................................................................................................................... 5
2. There is a rational nexus sought to be achieved. ...................................... 7
B. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES IS REASONABLE IN NATURE. ........................ 10
1. 1st Proviso of Rule 4(2) is Properly Defined and Non-Ambiguous. ........ 11
2. 2nd Proviso of Rule 4(2) is Properly Defined and Non-Ambiguous. ....... 11
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | I [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

IV. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES IS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER ART.

19(2). .................................................................................................................... 12
A. RULE 4(2) TRIES TO CURB THE MENACE OF FAKE NEWS. ......................... 13
B. THE RESTRICTIONS ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT TO BE

ACHIEVED. ......................................................................................................... 16
V. RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER ART.

19(6). .................................................................................................................... 17
A. RULE 4(2) IS REASONABLE, JUST AND FAIR. ............................................. 17
B. RULE 4(2) IS IN THE INTEREST OF GENERAL PUBLIC. ................................ 20
VI. THE RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS IN CONSONANCE WITH ART. 21. .... 21
A. RESTRICTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ........................................... 22
B. RESTRICTION HAS A LEGITIMATE STATE AIM. .......................................... 23
C. RESTRICTION IS PROPORTIONAL AND HAS A RATIONAL NEXUS WITH THE
OBJECTIVE SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED. ............................................................... 23
D. THERE ARE PROPER PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT ABUSE. ..... 24
PRAYER ........................................................................................................... XVII
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | II [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDIAN CASES PAGE NO.
AIIMS Student Union v. AIIMS, (2002) 1 SCC 428 11
Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397 20
Ashok Kumar Lingala v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 1 SCC 321 18
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 361 11
Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1989 SC 25

1899
B. R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2001 SC 3435 26
Balchandra L Jarkiholi v. B.S.Yeddyurappa & Ors., (2011) 7 17, 18

SCC 1
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 26
Bhagat Ram v. State of HP, AIR 1983 SC 454 8
Canara Bank v. Shri Debasis Dass, (2003) 4 SCC 557 18, 19
Canera Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321 18
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 18
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, (1950) SCR 869 5, 25
Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145 6
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | III [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister & Ors., Civil 7
Appeal No. 3123 of 2020
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India Ors., 14

AIR 1986 SC 872
Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1995) 1 SCC 13

707
Government of NCT Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., (2018) 8 26

SCC 501
Gujarat Water Supply v. Unique Electro (Gujarat), (1989) 1 9, 20

SCC 392
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 3 SCR 13

130
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1 14
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299 22, 25
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 7, 27
Jagdambika Pal v. Union of India, (1999) 9 SCC 95 28
Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 1 17, 22
Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India, (2019) 366 ELT 238 2
Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 5
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902 6
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | IV [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, (2001) 2 SCC 259 6
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 1, 3
Kalpana Mehta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2018) 7 25

SCC 106
Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. The Hon’ble Speaker 18

Manipur Legislative Assembly, (2020) 4 SCJ 41
Kerala State Education Board v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 13

(1976) 1 SCC 466
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 19, 21, 25
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 651 15, 20
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 3127 14
M. Nagraj v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 212 7
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621 20, 26
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. State of Mysore, (2016) 2 3

SCC 556
Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1 25
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 26
1980 SC 1789
Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2016 10, 11

SC 2601
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | V [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014)11 SCC 3

415
Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed 11

Usman, AIR 1986 SC 1205
N P Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 2
Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal 28

Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1
Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, AIR 2005 SC 648 27
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 8
P.D. Agarwal v. State Bank of India, (2006) 8 SCC 776 18
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 16
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 25, 27
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1 22, 28
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, (2012) 5 SCC 1 9
Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1558 15, 16, 19
Roop Chand Adalkha v. Delhi Devlopment Authority, AIR 5

1989 SC 307
S. Nalini v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1999 SC 2640 28
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 22, 26
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | VI [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192 21, 28
Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board, (2011) 15 SCR 1057 8
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1601 19
Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Ors. v. Speaker Madhya Pradesh 26

Legislative Assembly, (2020) 5 SCJ 444
Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil and Ors. v. Hon’ble Speaker, 16, 20, 23

Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 595
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318 5
State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 114 5
State of Madras v. VG Row, (1952) SCR 597 9, 20
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592 27
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali, AIR 1952 SC 75 5, 6
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 11

(2002) 8 SCC 481
U.N.R Rao v. Smt. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002 21
Union of India v. M.V. Valliappan, (1999) 6 SCC 259 6
Union of India v. Rajendra Shah, Civil Appeal No. 9108 of 12

2014
Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary v. Gujarat Coop. Milk Mktg. 13

Federation Ltd., (2015) 8 SCC 1
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | VII [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, AIR 2016 SC 1474 3
OTHER CASES PAGE NO.
Bobb v. Manning, (2006) UKPC 22 21
Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service, [1983] 8, 28

UKHL 9
Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v. The 1

Commonwealth, (1993) 176 CLR 555
Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd. v. Commr. of State Revenue, 1

(2004) HCA 53
R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, 21

(2018) AC 61
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS PAGE NO.
INDIA CONST. ART.19(6) 9
INDIA CONST. ART. 75(1-B) 20
INDIA CONST. ART. 159 26
INDIA CONST. ART. 163 27, 28
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | VIII [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

INDIA CONST. ART. 164 20, 21, 22
INDIA CONST. ART. 199 1, 2, 3, 4
INDIA CONST. ART. 361B 20
INDIA CONST. VII SCHEDULE LIST I ENTRY 72 13
INDIA CONST. VII SCHEDULE LIST II ENTRY 37 13
BOOKS PAGE NO.
A.P. DATAR, DATAR ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 23
BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8, 11
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 13, 25, 27
DR. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTION? 16
H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 9, 27
L.M. SINGHVI, JAGDISH SWARUP, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 20
M.N. KAUL, PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 3, 4
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | IX [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW 13, 19
M.V. PYLEE, FREE SPEECH AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN 14

INDIA
MAHENDRA P SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 26
RAMANATHA AIYER, ADVANCED LAW LEXICON 5
ARTICLES PAGE NO.
Ajay K. Mehra, Review: Working of the Indian Party System 15
Arvind P. Datar, Aadhaar: The Money Bill Controversy 3
Dalip Singh, The Role of the Governor under the Constitution 29

and the Working of Coalition Governments
Kathleen Bawn, A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy 18

Demands and Nominations in American Politics
M.P. Singh, Governor’s Power to Dismiss Ministers or Council 27

of Ministers-An Empirical Study
Mahander Kumar Saini, A Study of No-Confidence Motions in 17

the Indian Parliament (1952-70)
Paras Diwan, Aya Ram Gaya Ram: The Politics Of Defection 18
Paras Diwan, Indian Political Parties in the working of 15

Parliamentary Democracy: An Analysis
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | X [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Pratap Chandra Swain, Dynamics of the Indian Party System: 15

Emergence of Competitive Multi-Party Coalitions
Rajeev Dhavan, Hung Assembly: Whom should Governor call 23

first?
Randall G. Holcombe, Political Parties and the Legislative 18

Principal-Agent Relationship
Vincent Joy, The Use and Abuse of Discretionary Powers of 28

Governor in Formation of Ministry in a State in India
OTHER AUTHORITIES PAGE NO.
COMMISSION ON CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS, Constitutional 22, 23

Governance and the Management of Centre-State Relations
COMMISSION ON CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS, Report on Local 22, 23

Self Governments And Decentralized Governance
WORLD BANK, Data Bank-Jobs 10
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, One Hundred Seventieth Report on 15

Reform of Electoral Laws
LOK SABHA, Constituent Assembly Debates 1
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS, 4

List of Major and Minor Heads of Accounts Union and States
LMMH
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | XI [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

DATA BASES REFERRED PAGE NO.
www.epw.in
www.jstor.org
www.lexisnexis.com
www.manupatra.com
www.scconline.com
www.westlawindia.com
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | XII [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION
ABBREVIATION WORDS
& And
v. Versus
§ Section
¶ Paragraph
Art. Article
Const. Constitution
DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy
E2EE End to end encryption
Govt. Government
Hon’ble Honorable
IT Information Technology
MeitY Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
SC Supreme Court
SMI Social Media Intermediary
SSMIs Significant Social Media Intermediaries
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | XIII [TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AS A RESPONSE TO PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF INDIA.
It sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case in the
jurisdiction of the Respondent.
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | XIV [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]

STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
Postgram is the most popular app among the inhabitants of Shanthisthan, which is a
state in the Indian Union with a population of 5,48,67,345. Postgram is an app that
creates a space for its users to connect by allowing people to create and share photos,
videos and stories with their friends and followers from their daily moments. 80%
of its users are youngsters of 16-30 age group.
THE STUDY
The newspaper Shanisthan Times published a news on 7-7-2022 with the title
“Postgram is the champion of fake news”. The news mentioned a study of two
researchers of University of Shanthisthan who found that false news spreads
significantly faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth, in all categories of
information on Postgram than real news.
The reason behind the same, according to the scholars was the people sharing the
inaccurate news items through Postgram. For the purpose of this study, the
researchers monitored around 14,800 news story cascades that propagated on
Postgram from 2010 to 2018. These cascades were collectively shared over 4,50,000
times by roughly 300,000 people. It was discovered that out of 14,800 cascades,
politics comprised the largest news category with around 8,500, followed by
terrorism, business, and other categories.
The scholars laid emphasis on the fact that it is likely that the same phenomenon
occurs on the other social media platforms, including Facebook which has
1,11,30000 users in the State of Shanthisthan. Following this news, Shanthisthan
Times published another news on 2-9-2022 stating that Postgram had not yet taken
any action to comply with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 issues through the Notification of the
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | XV [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated 25th February, 2021.

THE PETITION
Later on 17-10-2022, Postgram aggrieved by the formulation of news laws, filed a
petition before h Supreme Court of under Art 32 of the Constitution with a prayer to
issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order, to declare
that (i) Rule 4(2) of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 is violation of Art. 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of
the Constitution, ultra vires the IT ACT, and illegal as to end-to-end encryption
messaging services and; (ii)criminal liability may not be imposed for non-
compliance with the Impugned Rule 4(2) and any attempt to impose criminal
liability for non-compliance with impugned rule 4(2) is unconstitutional, ultra vires
the IT Act, and illegal.
GOVERNMENT’S CONTENTION
In response to the petition, the Union of India has denied all of the arguments and
stated that the Government respects the Right to Privacy and has no intention of
infringing upon it when Postgram is required to disclose the origin of a specific
message. Such a requirement is limited to cases where offences related to the
sovereignty of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states,
or public order, or of incitement to an offence related to any of those, are involved.
No Fundamental Right is absolute under Art. 21, and the proportionality standard
outlined in K.S. Puttaswamy is fully relevant.
The matter has been posted before the Supreme Court of India for hearing.
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | XVI [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

ISSUES RAISED
I. WHETHER THE MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY HAS THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO FORMULATE RULE 4(2) OF
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL
MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES 2021?
II. WHETHER RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 14?
III. WHETHER RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 19(1)(A)?
IV. WHETHER RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 19(1)(G)?
V. WHETHER RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 21?
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | XVII [ISSUES RAISED]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. THE MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HAS

THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO FORMULATE RULE 4(2) OF THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA

ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has the legislative

competency to formulate the Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 conferred by sub-section
(1), clauses (z) and (zg) of sub-section (2) of § 87, of the IT Act, 2000. Furthermore,
they also have the power to form rules, regulations etc. as they have been given
power under Allocation of Business Rules, 1961, to make the concerned rules for
the area of fields that falls under the ambit of them.
II. THERE IS PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Rule 4(2) of the
IT Rules 2021 by the Govt. of India is not in contravention with the Fundamental
rights enshrined in the Constitution. The Rule is aimed at achieving greater public
good and has the presumption of being Constitutional.

ART. 14.
The Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 is in consonance with Art. 14 on two grounds.
Firstly, the said rule satisfies the twin test of reasonable classification. Secondly,
Rule 4(2) and relevant provisions are reasonable in nature. They are aimed at
achieving greater public good and have the presumption of being constitutional.
The Act has proportionate nexus to the purpose of the Act and the provisions are
applied reasonably to control the flow of false and misleading news that is creating
serious hate crimes against humanity and needs to be catered on an immediate basis.
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | XVIII [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]

IV. THE IMPUGNED RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES 2021 IS A REASONABLE

RESTRICTION UNDER ART. 19(2).
The Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Art. 19(1)(a) is not an
unrestricted right. On the basis of the limitations outlined in Art. 19(2) of the
Constitution, it may be subject to restrictions. The restrictions are reasonable on two
grounds. Firstly, it is to curtail the spread of Fake news. Secondly, the restrictions
are proportional to the objective sought to be achieved.
V. THE IMPUGNED RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES 2021 IS A REASONABLE

RESTRICTION UNDER ART. 19(6).
Article 19(1)g provides the right to profess trade and commerce to the citizens but it
comes with reasonable restrictions which are provided under article 19(6).
Reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the State under clause (6) of Art.19, in
the interest of the general public.
The restriction imposed under Art. 19(6) should be balanced with the freedom under
Art. 19(1)(g) and such restriction should be used through the doctrine of
proportionality. The test has been fulfilled there in the present case also the Rule
4(2) is such that it needs to be curtailed and therefore it has passed the test because
for the interest of public the prohibition was necessary.
VI. THE IMPUGNED RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES 2021 IS IN CONSONANCE WITH
ART. 21.
The IT rules is in consonance with Art. 21, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
this right to privacy can be infringed when four conditions are satisfied. These
include; (i) Legality, which postulates the existence of valid law; (ii) Necessity,
defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and (iii) Proportionality, which ensures a
rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them; (iv) Law
should provide procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | XIX [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HAS THE

LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO FORMULATE THE RULE 4(2) INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE)

RULES, 2021.
¶|1|. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021(hereinafter referred as “The IT Rules 2021”),1 are within the legislative
Competency of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
(hereinafter referred as “MeitY”).
¶|2|. It is humbly submitted that in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras &
Ors.,2 the Hon’ble Supreme court laid down, ‘If any Act is legislated there is a
presumption in favor of its constitutionality, since it is done by the Government
keeping in view several stakeholders and factors such as citizenry and public interest
involved.’ Furthermore, The State’s policies and laws are crafted with utmost care
and attention to make sure they don’t have the opposite effect of the benefits they
were intended to advance.3
¶|3|. With respect to IT Rules, it is to be stated that in this case, it was vital for the
government to enact such rules to combat the fast spreading of fake news and
misinformation which is happening on a large scale on various social media
platforms.4 The main reason for the as per the report is not due to bots rather because
of people themselves spreading the fake news through Postgram.5 Thus to combat
1
Govt. of India, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, CG-DL-E-26022021-
225497 (February 25, 2021).
2
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras & Ors., AIR 1950 SC 27.
3
Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (1983) 2 SCC 442.
4
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
5
-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | 1 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

such fake news the Government had to formulate Rule 4(2).6

¶|4|. The parent statute provides the Central Government for General Rule Making
Power by virtue § 87(1). It empowers the central government to make rules to carry
out the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as
“IT Act”.7 Moreover, there are various provisions in the Parent statute which deals
with the regulation of Intermediaries, such as § 11, § 66A, § 67, § 67A, § 67B, § 69,
§ 69A, § 69B, § 79(3)(b).8 Further, with regards to § 66A it is submitted that this
provision has been declared unconstitutional by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,9
however, this does not negate the legislative intent to regulate.
¶|5|. Henceforth, the Respondents have the power which is being conferred to them
by sub-section (1), clauses (z) and (zg) of sub-section (2) of § 87,10 of the IT Act,
2000,11 to promulgate IT Rules 2021,12 and to provide necessary guidelines to the
Intermediaries. The respondents also have the power to form rules, regulations etc.
because Respondent have been given power under Allocation of Business Rules,
1961,13 to make the concerned rules for the area of fields that falls under the ambit
of them.
¶|6|. It is submitted that petitioners have challenged that the Respondent do not
have the legislative power to form rules pertaining to digital media. However, in the
IT Act the power has been delegated to MeitY to promulgate laws to regulate the
6
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021, Rule 4, cl. 2.
7
The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
8
Aditi Singh and Ujjwal Agarwal, Privacy, National Security, and Government Interest: The
many facets of End-to-End Encryption in India, 8 CMET 46 (2021).
9
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
10
Ashit Kumar, Reading Regulation as a Prohibition: A Critical Review of the New IT Rules 2021
in Relation to Social Media Networks and Messaging Application, 7 Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev. 450
(2021).
11
The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
12
225497 (February 25, 2021).
13
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961.

working of the Intermediaries.14 Therefore Postgram also being an Intermediary

comes under the definition of the Intermediaries as the scope of Intermediaries is
very wide. Furthermore, the main reason behind bringing Rule 4(2),15 is to find the
first originator of the information to curtail the spread of the fake news that is
currently happening on the platform at a wide level.16
¶|7|. In light of the aforementioned submissions, it is henceforth submitted that,
the various regulatory provisions in the IT Rules falls within the scope of parent
statute. i.e., IT Act.
¶|8|. Moreover, it does not violate the law laid down in the case P Krishnamurthy
v. State of T.N.,17 where it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that, “any sub-ordinate legislation validity must be determined by the nature, object
and scheme of the enabling act.” Hence, the MeitY had legislative competency to
promulgate the IT Rules and that, these IT Rules are intra-vires to the IT Act.
II. THERE IS PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.
¶|9|. In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras & Ors.,18 it was laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that “if any Act is passed, there is a
presumption in favor of its legality, since it is done by the Government having in
mind many stakeholders and elements, such as the populace and public interest
concerned.”
¶|10|. The State’s policies and laws are crafted with utmost care and attention to
make sure they don’t have the opposite effect of the benefits they were intended to
14
2021, Rule 4 cl. 2.
15
Urs Gasser, Don’t Panic. Making Progress on the “Going Dark”, The Berkman Klein Center
for Internet & Society at Harvard University, (1 February 2016)
https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2016/Cybersecurity/Dont_Panic.
16
17
State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517.
18
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras & Ors., AIR 1950 SC 27.

advance.19 Furthermore, since the Constitution does not establish impossibly high
requirements for establishing a law’s constitutionality, courts frequently assume that
the provision is Constitutional.20
¶|11|. Regarding IT Rules especially Rule 4(2), it should be noted that in this
instance, it was crucial for the government to enact such rules to combat the rapid
spread of false information and misinformation, taking into account the serious
repercussions that disturb public order.21
¶|12|. For instance, in more recent times, there have been rumors regarding the
ineffectiveness and risk of vaccinations, as well as assertions that the US military

brought the virus to Wuhan.22 This “fake news”, which first became a political
problem in contemporary democracies, has now moved into a new stage with broad
ramifications for the populace.23
¶|13|. Therefore, the concerned rule 4(2) is important for the general interest of the
society. The goal of the government is to keep the public safe. This is especially
important given the widespread use of social medias, whether for entertainment,
education, telemedicine, or facilitating e-commerce. The comprehensive law will
address every issue in order to fulfil the preamble commitment to provide securing
justice for all people in order to preserve each person’s dignity.

ART. 14.
¶|14|. It is humbly submitted that, Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 is in consonance with
Art. 14. The premise of the present argument is in two-folds: [A] firstly, the aforesaid
rule satisfies the twin test of reasonable classification; and [B] secondly, Rule 4(2)
19
Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (1983) 2 SCC 442.
20
Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) 1 SCR 778.
21
Moot Proposition, ¶5.
22
Amira Dhavan, Department of Telecommunications – Draft Indian Telecommunication Bill by
TRAI, LIVE LAW, https://www.livelaw.in/columns/department-of-telecommunication-
draftindiantelecommunication-bill-telecom-regulatory-authority-of-india-trai-212576.
23
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).468/2020 (SC).

is reasonable in nature.
A. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT ACT, 2021 SATISFIES THE TWIN TEST OF REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION.
¶|15|. Art. 14 of the Constitution guarantees the right to quality before the law and
the equal protection of law to every person.24 It forbids class legislation but it does
not forbid reasonable classification of person, objects and transaction by the
legislature for achieving specific ends.25 The guarantee of “equal protection of laws”
requires that, there must equality of treatment of persons who are similarly situated,
without discrimination inter se.26 It is a corollary that that persons situated
differently cannot be treated alike.27
¶|16|. A classification to be reasonable must pass the twin test laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar,28 that includes: [1] the Classification must have an Intelligible Differentia
upon which the things or persons are grouped together and others are left out of the
group29 and; [2] the Differentia must have a rational relation with the objective
sought to be achieved.30
1. The classification drawn between SMI and SSMI is reasonable, just and fair.
¶|17|. Intelligible Differentia can be interpreted as a difference which shows the
capability of being understood.31 It differentiates a state or class of persons or objects

from each other on the basis of reasonability.32 It explains all the factors on the basis
24
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1474 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths et
al eds., 9th ed. 2015).
25
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, (1950) SCR 869.
26
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 8th ed. 2017).
27
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 SCC 217.
28
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284.
29
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
30
State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011) 8 SCC 737.
31
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
32
RAMANATHA AIYER, ADVANCED LAW LEXICON 2391 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa eds.,
rd
3 ed., 2005).

of which the classification has been undertook by the authority. 33 The prominent
feature of this doctrine is that classification should not be arbitrary, artificial or
evasive.34
¶|18|. The basis of classification should have some real and substantial distinction
due to which different treatment is operated amongst two or more classes. 35 The
reasonableness of this differentiation or formation of categories depends on the
objective for which that particular classification is made.36 While adjudicating the
reasonableness of the classification, the court must look into the nature of the
classification, prevailing circumstances, purpose, its extent, involvement public
interest and the dire need of the restriction.37
¶|19|. In the present case, within the rules, the classification has been drawn between
Intermediaries as given in Part II of the Rules and Publishers of Online Curated

Content as given in Part-III of the Rules. Furthermore, classification has been made
Social Media Intermediary (hereinafter referred as ‘SMI’) and Significant Social
Media Intermediary (hereinafter referred as ‘SSMI’).38
¶|20|. An intermediary act as a third-party and has no direct role to play in the
transmission or storage of information.39 However, Publishers of Online Curated
Content play an active role in information being transmitted/published/exhibited.
Therefore, different liabilities and regulatory procedures are required for the two
different domains.40
¶|21|. Furthermore, the classification and additional responsibility on an SSMI has
been grafted primarily because the number of registered users cross the threshold of
33
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318.
34
Roop Chand Adalkha v. Delhi Devlopment Authority, AIR 1989 SC 307.
35
State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 114.
36
Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369.
37
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1950) SCR 759.
38
2021, Rule 2 cl. 1(v), 1(w).
39
The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India), § 2, cl. w.
40
2021, Rule 4, cl. 4.

50 lakh.41 Thus, the increased registered users also increase the rate at which any
information is transmitted or circulated. Any objectionable content thus, through an
SSMI will have larger tendency to hamper social structure and therefore, an SSMI
needs to adhere to additional due-diligences.42
¶|22|. Additionally, the rule clearly distinguishes between a false statement and a
mere statement.43 Only purposely false remarks that are circulated and that, if left
unchecked, would have negative impacts on the larger public and therefore, the
classification made herein, is reasonable, just and fair.
2. There is a rational nexus sought to be achieved.
¶|23|. The differentiation must be reasonable i.e., there must be a rational basis with
respect to the object which the authorities have in mind.44 For the justification of the
classification the circumstances must be of the nature that this classification sub-
serves the object sought to be achieved.45 Additionally, the classification shall be
based on the qualities and characteristics of the objective.46
¶|24|. In the present case, the rational nexus that has been sought to be achieved by
both the classification was to tackle the growing concerns of online activities as the
case is in the matter of Postgram wherein out of 14,800 cascades, politics
compromised the biggest news category with about 8,500 followed by business,
terrorism and other categories.47
¶|25|. Internet is a huge domain; therefore, we cannot legislate and control each and
every activity taking place over it.48 The reach and consequences of information
distribution are considerably amplified and occur at such a rapid pace on social
41
225497 (February 25, 2021).
42
The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India), § 87(2)(y).
43
2021, Rule 4 cl. 2.
44
K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, (2001) 2 SCC 259.
45
Akshay N. Patel v. RBI, (2022) 3 SCC 694.
46
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902.
47
48
Shri T.M. Krishna v. Union of India, W.P No. 125151 of 2021.

networking websites that distorted, erroneous, or fraudulent information acquires a

remarkable potential to produce genuine impacts, within minutes, for millions of
users.49
¶|26|. In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India,50 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that, “Internet gives an individual a platform that very little or no payment to
air his views and something posted on a website travels like lightning and can reach
to millions all over the world.” However, it becomes essential in the sovereignty and
integrity of Indica, 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 that activities taking online and parties involved in it are
regulated.51
¶|27|. According to Common Sense Media study,52 31% of youngsters aged 10 to 18
have shared at least one news report online that Respondent subsequently discovered
was wrong or phony. This circumstance presents a whole new set of worries about
digital literacy that go beyond simply being able to access and handle technology.
¶|28|. For instance, Media Vibes SNC, a Belgian company that controls more than
180 URLs dedicated to manufacturing and disseminating false news on the web and
social networks, a subversive industry of fake news has emerged as an independent
commercial potential in the news market (such as 24aktuelles.com. or
react365.com).53 All of these evidences indisputably show that social media
49
50
51
2021, Rule 4, cl.2.
52
The Common Sense Org., The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teens, 2019,
(Oct. 28, 2019), https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-
use-by-tweens-and-teens-2019.
53
Alvaro Figueiara, Luciana Oliveiria, The Current State of Fake News: challenges and
Opportunities, Science Direct, (Nov. 8-10, 2017), https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/.

intermediaries have a monopoly in the market,54 that there is no control on the

content published on the internet, and that the middleman is not liable for such
content.55
¶|29|. Moreover, according to UNICEF, one in every three internet users is a
youngster.56 In its 2019 Global Threat Assessment: Inaccessible Encrypted Services,

the WePROTECT Global Alliance, a coalition of 98 countries, 39 of the largest
companies in the global technology industry, and 41 leading civil society
organizations, emphasized the severity of the risks posed to children online by
inaccessible encrypted services.57
¶|30|. Publicly-accessible social media and communications platforms remain the
most prevalent ways for meeting and grooming minors online.58 In 2018, Facebook
Messenger was responsible for over 12 million of the 18.4 million worldwide CSAM
[child sexual abuse material reported to the US National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children (NCMEC)] Complaints.59
¶|31|. Therefore, the objective sought to be achieved by implementing the IT rules
2021 is to bring the liability on the intermediary and the person who has posted any
content of an offence related to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security
of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or of incitement
54
Pranav Chakravarty, The Menace of Social Media Monopolies, Hindustan Times, (Dec. 15,
2020) https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-menace-of-social-media-monopolies/story-
2pn88bQZ6BnjXHbzqKlokO.html.
55
The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India), § 79.
56
UNICEF, Make the digital world safer for children – while increasing online access to benefit
the most disadvantaged, (Dec. 11, 2017) https://www.unicef.org/pacificislands/press-
releases/make-digital-world-safer-children-while-increasing-online-access-benefit-
most#:~:text=SUVA%2FNEW%20YORK%2C%2011%20December%202017%20%E2%80%9
3%20Despite%20children%E2%80%99s,said%20in%20its%20annual%20flagship%20report%2
0released%20today.
57
WeProtect, Global Threat Assessment: Inaccessible Encrypted Services, (Aug. 9, 2019)
https://www.weprotect.org/wp-content/uploads/Global-Threat-Assessment-2021.pdf.
58
Social media, online gaming and keeping children safe online, Nidirect government services,
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/.
59
WeProtect, Global Threat Assessment: Inaccessible Encrypted Services, (Aug. 9, 2019)
https://www.weprotect.org/wp-content/uploads/Global-Threat-Assessment-2021.pdf.

to an offence relating to the above or in relation with rape, sexually explicit material
or child sexual abuse material. Punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less
than five years and to establish a deterrence effect on the citizens of the country in
order to ensure public order and safeguard children and women from online sexual
abuses and harassment is fulfilled by the Impugned Rule.
¶|32|. In light of the aforementioned submissions, it is henceforth submitted that,
the IT Rules are non-discriminatory, and the classifications made within the IT rules
have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.
B. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES IS REASONABLE IN NATURE.
¶ [1]. Any kind of restriction imposed by the state through any law must be
reasonable.60 It should not be arbitrary or excessive in nature.61 Mere factor that

some hardship or injustice is caused to someone is no ground to strike down the rule
altogether if otherwise the rule appears to be just, fair and reasonable and
constitutional.62 No restriction can be said to be unreasonable merely because in a
given case it operates harshly.63
¶|33|. However, in reality, it is very difficult to define the word reasonable. 64 No
standard for the test of reasonableness can be laid down and every case must be
judged on its own merit.65 While adjudging the test of reasonableness the court must
consider nature of the right infringed the circumstances of the case, purpose, extent
and the urgency of the restriction.66
¶|34|. It is submitted that the Rule 4(2) & provisos of the IT rules 2021 do not suffer
from the vice of ambiguity, rather are founded in the Constitution of India, in Indian
60
State of Madras v. VG Row, 1952 AIR SC 196.
61
Chintaman Rao v. State of MP, (1950) SCR 759.
62
AP Co-op Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd v. D. Achyuta Rao, (2007) 4 SCR 1.
63
Krishna Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala, (1996) Supp 7 SCR 487.
64
Gujarat Water Supply v. Unique Electro (Gujarat) (P), (1989) 1 SCC 392 (SC).
65
M.V. PYLEE, FREE SPEECH AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN INDIA (Pacific Affairs, 11th ed.
1962).
66
New York Times Company v. United States, 403 US 713 (1971).

Penal Code and derive its validity from the parent statute i.e., IT (Amendment) Act,
2008.
1. 1st Proviso of Rule 4(2) is Properly Defined and Non-Ambiguous.
¶|35|. First proviso of Rule 4(2) states that an order shall only be passed for the
purposes of prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of an

offence related to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or of incitement to an offence
relating to the above or in relation with rape, sexually explicit material or child
sexual abuse material.
¶|36|. It shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than five
years,67 and sub-section 2 of the Art. 19 of the Constitution.68 Moreover, the proviso
mentions “offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than five
years”,69 to specify the offences related to which the investigation can be initiated
and an order can be passed by the competent authority for information of the first
originator of the message for instance offences like murder, dacoity, rape etc. The
law narrows down the ambit of the offences by mentioning a specific margin of
punishment of the offences so as to not leave a slot for any ambiguity.70
¶|37|. In the light of the afore-mentioned arguments, it is submitted that the 1st
Proviso of the Rule 4(2) is not ambiguous of arbitrary.

2. 2nd Proviso of Rule 4(2) is Properly Defined and Non-Ambiguous.
¶|38|. Second proviso of the rule 4(2) states that no order shall be passed in cases
where ‘other less intrusive means’ are effective in identifying the originator of the
information. Wherein if the other alternatives of identifying the first originator are
67
The IT Rules, 2021, Rule 4(2) Proviso.
68
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl.2.
69
70
Aman Abhishek, The State Deputizing Citizens to Discipline Digital News Media: The Case of
the IT Rules 2021 in India, Digital
Journalism, DOI: https://doi.org/10.080/21670811.2022.213413.

available and effective then such order will not be passed and instead the traditional
investigative ways will be used in order to identify the first originator. Hence, the
rule is clear on the face of it that the information of the first originator will only be
asked upon after exhausting other alternatives and in case of necessity.
¶|39|. In light of the aforementioned submissions, it is henceforth submitted that the
rule 4(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are non-arbitrary and constitutionally valid under Art. 14
of the Constitution.
IV. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES IS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER ART.

19(2).
¶|40|. Freedom of speech and expression is the essence of parliamentary democracy,
which has been enshrined under Art. 19(1)(a),71 of the Constitution. It is humbly
submitted that the Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Art.
19(1)(a),72 is not an unrestricted right. On the basis of the limitations outlined in Art.
19(2),73 of the Constitution, it may be subject to certain restrictions.
¶|41|. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of I.R. Coelho (Dead) by
Lrs. v. The State of T.N,74 stated that Art. 19,75 forms an inherent part of the basic
structure of the Constitution. Although, this right is not absolute or unrestricted; Art.
19(2),76 includes specific grounds on which this freedom may be restricted. The
restrictions need to be reasonable and not arbitrary in nature. 77
¶|42|. However, in reality, it is very difficult to define the word reasonable. 78 No
standard for the test of reasonableness can be laid down and every case must be
71
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl.1(a).
72
73
74
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1.
75
INDIA CONST. art. 19.
76
77
Dr. Y. P. Singh and Others. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 1 SCC 39.
78
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964).

judged on its own merit.79 While adjudging the test of reasonableness the court must
consider whether the nature of the right infringed the circumstances of the case,
purpose, extent and the urgency of the restriction.80 The restrictions imposed on
freedom of speech and expression through Rule 4(2) are reasonable on two grounds:
- [A] They are imposed to curb the Menace of Fake News and [B] The restrictions
are proportional to the objective sought to be achieved.
A. RULE 4(2) TRIES TO CURB THE MENACE OF FAKE NEWS.
¶|43|. It is humbly submitted that the impugned Rules do not infringe on the
Freedom of Speech and Expression as they are imposed to curb the menace of
freedom of speech and expression as the right does not include the right to
disseminate fake or misleading information.81 In the present times, the reach of
Social Media platforms is to every nook and corner of the world.82 Moreover, a large
portion of the population believes that whatever appears on social media is true due
to which the media holds a significant amount of power in a democracy.83
¶|44|. With great power comes great responsibility and if this power is exercised by
the media without a great sense of responsibility it can weaken democracy.84

Recently, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General, WHO stated,85 “We
are not just fighting an epidemic; we are fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads
faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.” Thus, in this digital
era it becomes imperative to regulate the content on the platforms provided by
Intermediaries.86
79
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
80
State of Madras v. VG Row, (1952) SCR 597.
81
82
83
id.
84
id.
85
United Nations, UN tackles ‘infodemic’ of misinformation and cybercrime in COVID-19 crisis,
(Mar.31,2020),https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-
tackling%E2%80%98infodemic%E2%80%99-misinformation-and-cybercrime-covid-19.
86
id.

¶|45|. Furthermore, the restrictions established by the Act are justified by the
reasons outlined in Art. 19(2),87 which has a direct relationship to the purpose and
objective. With the goal of maintaining public order, restrictions may be imposed
while considering the effect of exercising the rights granted under Art. 19(1)(a).88
¶|46|. ‘Public order’ in its ambit includes public safety and peace.89 Misinformation
or falsified stories may cause violence directly, either by fanning already-existing

societal cracks or by providing information about particular people (e.g. race or
religion).90
¶|47|. Investigational authorities have highlighted that a number of violent
occurrences that have already taken place in India were either sparked by or made
worse by the disinformation campaign.91 Crimes that did not exist a few decades ago
are a constant concern in the world of cyberspace.92 These rules have been created
to address the problems associated with technological advancement.93 These rules
and regulations are supposed to inform the users not to host, display, upload, modify,
publish, transmit, update or share any information that is grossly harmful, unlawful
and something in violation to any law etc.94
¶|48|. It is submitted that in the case of Facebook Inc. v. Union of India,95 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, “on these platforms, a variety of destructive
87
88
89
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others, (1992) 2 SCC 651.
90
CITS, The Danger of fake news in inflaming or supressing Social Conflict,
https://www.cits.ucsb.edu/fake-news/danger-social.
91
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
92
Carme COLOMINA, Héctor SÁNCHEZ MARGALEF, Richard YOUNGS, The impact of
disinformation on democratic processes and human rights in the world, European Parliament,
(22 April 2021),
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/653635/EXPO_STU(2021)653635
_EN.pdf.
93
Tabrez Ahmed, Information Technology Laws: Mapping the Evolution and Impact of Social
Media Regulation in India, 4 DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 286 (2021).
94
Shipra Tiwari, Information Technology Rules 2021: Are We Heading towards a Draconian
Rule?, 8 RGNUL Fin. & Mercantile L. Rev. 247 (2021).
95
Facebook Inc. v. Union of India, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1717.

messages and information are disseminated; for example, they may instigate
violence, violate a nation’s sovereignty and integrity, or be used to perpetrate
crimes. As a result, the court only decided to divulge the first originator in these
situations.”
¶|49|. The Supreme Court in the catena of judgments has said that the freedom of
speech and expression does not guarantee the right to publish fake and manipulative
messages to create public order functions.96 By giving voters false information about
politicians’ political beliefs, records, past transgressions, and stances on significant
social problems, misinformation can affect the outcome of elections.97
¶|50|. Uninformed voters are unable to select the candidate who best reflects their
needs, which directly challenges the legitimacy of the election and the resulting
administration.98 Making matters worse, voters who lack access to a variety of
information sources are likely to be negatively affected disproportionately by
disinformation (the poor and marginalized).99
¶|51|. In the recent case of Alok Srivastava v. Union of India,100 before a two bench
Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the question of issuing directions to prevent
fake news reporting in electronic and social media was raised. The court observed
that in particular, “we expect the Media (print, electronic or social) to maintain a
strong sense of responsibility and ensure that unverified news capable of causing
panic is not disseminated.”101
¶|52|. It is humbly submitted that fake news needs to be curtailed at an early stage
as already according to researchers of University of Shantishthan fake news spread

more rapidly and according to the study conducted by Sinu Amod it has been found
out that false news stories are 70% more likely to be shared than true stories are.102
96
97
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1.
98
Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 1.
99
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.
100
101
id.
102

¶|53|. Therefore, the impugned rule is a reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(2), as
they are done to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the
State, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offense.
B. THE RESTRICTIONS ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT TO BE

ACHIEVED.
¶|54|. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishnan Kakkanth v.
Govt. of Kerala,103 it was held that, “reasonability of a restriction has to be

determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of the interest of the
general public.” These restrictions are not violative of Art. 19(1)(a), as we are not
regulating the content itself but regulating the content which is found derogatory
through reasonable restrictions.
¶|55|. It is submitted that the said Rule 4(2), limits the Right to Freedom of Speech
and Expression in a manner that is proportional to the interference caused.104 The

‘proportionality principle’ states that there must be a balance between the
restrictions imposed by the law and the fundamental right given to the citizens.105
¶|56|. As per the third Proviso to Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021,106 no order shall be
passed in cases where other less intrusive means are effective in identifying the
originator of the information. The originator of information can only be traced in a
scenario where other remedies have proven to be ineffective, making the same the
last resort.107
¶|57|. Moreover, any other content related to the first originator, or any information
103
Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala, (1997) 9 SCC 495, ¶ 27.
104
Keshab Sarkar v. The State of Tripura, (2018) 3 SCC 780.
105
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386.
106
2021, Rule 4 cl. 2. Proviso.
107

related to other users is not required to be disclosed.108 Hence, the objective of the
rule, to mitigate the spreading of fake news, is in balance with the restrictions
imposed in the aforesaid Rule.109 Thus, Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021, meets the
Proportionality test.
¶|58|. In light of all the aforesaid submissions, it is henceforth submitted that the
Impugned Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules does not infringe upon the freedom of speech
and expression and that the restrictions-imposed fall under the grounds given under
Art. 19(2).110
V. RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER ART.

19(6).
¶|59|. It is humbly submitted that the impugned rules are within the reasonable
restriction in the interest of the general public under Art. 19(6).111 The premise of
the submission is two-fold: [A] Rule 4(2) is reasonable, just and fair and; and [B]
Rule 4(2) is in the interest of the general public.
A. RULE 4(2) IS REASONABLE, JUST AND FAIR.
¶ [1]. No freedom conferred upon by the Constitution is absolute.112 Similarly the
freedom conferred upon the citizens by Art 19(1)(g) is also not absolute and is
subject to reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(6).113 Reasonable restrictions can be
imposed by State under clause (6) of the Art.19, in the interest of general public. 114
However, in reality, it is very difficult to define the word reasonable.115
108
CITS, The Danger of fake news in inflaming or supressing Social Conflict,
https://www.cits.ucsb.edu/fake-news/danger-social.
109
Tabrez Ahmed, Information Technology Laws: Mapping the Evolution and Impact of Social
Media Regulation in India, 4 DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 286 (2021).
110
111
112
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
113
H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (Universal Law Publishing Co., 4th ed. 2010).
114
INDIA CONST. art.19(6).
115
Gujarat Water Supply v. Unique Electro (Gujarat), (1989) 1 SCC 392.

¶ [2]. No standard for the test of reasonableness can be laid down and every case
must be judged on its own merit.116 While adjudging the test of reasonableness the
court must consider nature of the right infringed, the circumstances of the case,
purpose, extent and the urgency of the restriction.117
¶|60|. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Modern Dental College v.
State of Madhya Pradesh,118 held that the restriction imposed under Art. 19(6)
should be balanced with freedom under Art. 19(1)(g) and such restrictions should
be analyzed through the doctrine of proportionality.
¶|61|. It laid down a four-fold test of proportionality: first, the limitation imposed
should be designated for proper purpose; second, the measures taken to give effect
to such restriction are rationally connected to fulfillment of the purpose; third, the
measure taken was necessary and there is no other alternative to achieve the same
purpose with lesser degree of restriction; and fourth, balance should be maintained
between purpose to be achieved and restriction on constitutional rights.
¶|62|. In the present case, first test is being fulfilled as the proper purpose the
government wants to achieve is to stop spread of fake news and this is being
achieved through breaking the E2EE only on significant social media platforms as
R have more chance to influence the citizens as the reach on these platforms is more
and false stories are 70 % more likely to be shared on platforms like Postagram.119
Therefore, it is necessary to curb this menace at the initial stage itself and for that
information regarding the first originator is required.120
¶|63|. The second test talks about the measures taken to give effect to such
restriction are rationally connected to fulfillment of the purpose, the measure

adopted by the government to break the E2EE is a bit extreme but this approach has
116
State of Madras v. VG Row, (1952) SCR 597.
117
Chintaman Rao v. State of MP, (1950) SCR 759.
118
Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 2601.
119
Moot Proposition, ¶5.
120
Simerpreet Kaur, Unpacking IT Rules: Threat to Digital Rights, 2 DME Journal of Law 27
(2021).

been adopted due to the increase in the spread of fake news and the primary
investigation is not yielding the desired results to curb the spread of fake news.121
Also, in the first provision the E2EE will be only broken for the particular offenses
defined and for offenses whose imprisonment is more than 5 years. Therefore, the
measure is a balanced step required to be put in place to curb this menace.
¶|64|. Thirdly there was no other alternative but to break the E2EE because before
implementation of Rule 4 (2), the government had tried to curb the spread of fake
news through using other means like preliminary investigation and other ways but
it could not succeed. Moreover, it has been mentioned in the 2nd provision of the
Rule 4(2) of IT Rules122 that if there are other less intrusive ways to find the first
originator then that would be adopted.
¶|65|. Furthermore, according to the third provision of this rule, it has been
mentioned that only significant information will be used by the first originator only
the relevant information would be used by the first originator and relevant users.
Conclusively, the balance has been achieved between the Art. 19(1)(g) and 19(6)
has been achieved as the breaking of the E2EE is reasonable restriction that has been
imposed in the interest of the public.
¶|66|. It is humbly submitted that the impugned Rules are proportionate to restrict
the right to trade and occupation. According to the proportionality principle, there
must be a balance between the object sought to be achieved by the restriction & the
harm suffered by the individual.123 It is submitted that restrictions in Rule 4(2) are
primary responsibilities of the government. which are “prevention, detection,
investigation, prosecution or punishment of an offense.”124
¶|67|. Moreover, the contents of the first originator of the information shall not be
121
Shipra Tiwari, Information Technology Rules 2021: Are We Heading towards a Draconian
Rule?, 8 RGNUL Fin. & Mercantile L. Rev. 247 (2021).
122
123
124
2021, Rule 4 cl. 2.

used or disclosed by the intermediary to any person or in public, other than the
intended recipient of the said information, & the officials shall maintain strict
confidentiality. The private information shall not be utilized for any other purpose
except for investigation or sharing with other security agencies for investigation or
in judicial proceedings before the competent court.
¶|68|. Therefore, there are sufficient procedural safeguards available against abuse
of interference with the right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the individual.
B. RULE 4(2) IS IN THE INTEREST OF GENERAL PUBLIC.
¶ [3]. ‘General Public Interest’ under Art. 19(6) is general welfare of the people that
guarantees protection and recognition.125 The Constitution guarantees fundamental

rights to all citizens and also recognizes the importance of ‘General Public
Interest’.126 These rights are not absolute and can reasonably be restricted to create
a balance between individual’s right to claim fundamental right and societal
limitation upon that fundamental right.127
¶|69|. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Corporation of
Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usman,128 observed that the expression ‘in the
interest of general public’ is of wide import comprehending public order, public
health, public security, morals, welfare of the community and the objects mentioned
in part IV and part IV-A of the Constitution.
¶|70|. Art. 38 of the constitution states that the state shall strive to promote the
welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social

order.129 Pertinently, it has been brought to light through various connotations that
the traceability provision is the required step to stop the spread of fake news and
125
BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 791 (9th ed. 2009).
126
Atiabari Tea Co. v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 232.
127
128
Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usman, AIR 1986 SC 1205.
129
INDIA CONST. art. 38.

also illicit content which is harmful for children and women.130

¶|71|. Moreover, the traceability provision ensures that people who are only
forwarding the messages are not being punished for the crime of others.131 The
traceability requirement ensures the prosecution of creators and safeguards the
interest of distributors.132 Therefore, in the interest of the general public and to
ensure the balance between the fundamental right and DPSP’s the state shall have
the right to enable the traceability provision.
VI. THE RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS IN CONSONANCE WITH ART. 21.
¶|72|. It is submitted that Art. 21, of the constitution states that no one shall be
deprived of their life or personal freedom other than in accordance with a legal
process of which Right to Privacy is an intrinsic component. 133 It pertains to
protection against outside intrusion and autonomy, in making choices and decisions
for themselves.134 The foundation of this right is the idea that everyone has an
inherent Right to life and liberty, which is identical to the right to develop one’s
individuality.135
¶|73|. It is important to highlight that the Right to Privacy is not an absolute right,
furthermore it is subjected to authorized action necessary to prevent social disorder

and crime or to preserve public health, morals, or others’ rights and freedoms.136
¶|74|. In the case of K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.,137 the 9-
judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, “Privacy of an individual
130
Anandini Saha, Construction of Hierarchies: A Critical Analysis of the Information Technology
Rules, 2021, 5 Indian Politics & Law Review 282 (2021).
131
132
Rahul Kumar, New IT Rules, 2021 in India Privacy vs Public Safety, 5 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. &
Human. 460 (2022).
133
K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1.
134
135
Gobind v. State of M.P. & Anr., (1975) 2 SCC 148.
136
Gobind v. State of M.P. & Anr., (1975) 2 SCC 148; European Convention on Human Rights
art. 8(2), Nov. 4, 1950, E.T.S. No. 5.
137

is an essential aspect of dignity and is a constitutionally protected right in India.

The Court reasoned that privacy is an incident of fundamental freedom or liberty
guaranteed under Art. 21.”
¶|75|. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, this right to privacy can be
restricted when four conditions are satisfied.138 These include; (i) Legality, which
postulates the existence of valid law; (ii) Necessity, defined in terms of a legitimate
State aim; and (iii) Proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the
objects and the means adopted to achieve them; (iv) Law should provide procedural
guarantees against abuse of such interference.
A. RESTRICTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
¶|76|. The IT Rules 2021, have been formulated in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1), clauses (z) and (zg) of sub-section (2) of § 87 of its parent statute,
i.e., IT Act, 2000.139 In this regard, § 87(1), is the general rule making power relating
to the broader scope of the Act, and the § 87(2)(z), and 87(2)(zg),140 are specific
rule making powers in relation to blocking of content and the due diligence to be
observed by the intermediaries respectively.141
¶|77|. Therefore, in the present case, considering the wider objective and scope of
the IT Act, 2000, the Rule 4(2) is consistent with the said Act. As under this rule,
the government has the power to issue orders to identify the ‘first-originator’ of
information which adds on an additional due diligence on the part of the
intermediaries, which Respondent have to follow.142 Thus, Rule 4(2) of IT Rules
2021, meets the legality test.
138
id.
139
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, as amended on 9th November,
2020, Schedule II, Entry 22.
140
141
142

B. RESTRICTION HAS A LEGITIMATE STATE AIM.
¶|78|. The Right to Life includes the Fundamental Right to Privacy.143 However, it
is subject to reasonable limitations and is not absolute.144 Limitation on the Right to

Privacy is ‘necessary’ for the state to achieve a ‘legitimate objective’.145
¶|79|. According to Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021,146 the originator of the information
would be identified ‘only’ for reasons pertaining to the nation’s ‘integrity,

sovereignty, security, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, etc’.
Thus, Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021, meets the necessity test.
C. RESTRICTION IS PROPORTIONAL AND HAS A RATIONAL NEXUS WITH THE

OBJECTIVE SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED.
¶|80|. It is submitted that the said Rule 4(2), limits the Right to Privacy in a manner
that is proportional to the interference caused. The ‘proportionality principle’ states

that there must be a balance between the restrictions imposed by the law and the
fundamental right given to the citizens.147
¶|81|. As per the third Proviso to Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021,148 no order shall be
passed in cases where other less intrusive means are effective in identifying the
originator of the information. The originator of information can only be traced in a
scenario where other remedies have proven to be ineffective, making the same the
last resort.
¶|82|. The restrictions in Rule 4(2) are primary responsibilities of government,
which are “prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of an
143
id.
144
id.
145
id.
146
147
Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usman, AIR 1986 SC 1205.
148

offence.”149 Moreover, the state has to promote the welfare of the people.150
Unregulated data on OTT platforms can be fatalistic to an individual’s privacy.
Electronic surveillance is important because it is the only means to prevent & solve
serious crimes.151
¶|83|. Moreover, any other content related to the first originator, or any information
related to other users is not required to be disclosed.152 Hence, the objective of the
rule, to mitigate the spreading of fake news, is in balance with the restrictions
imposed in the aforesaid Rule and proportionate balance between the welfare &
privacy of people.153 Thus, Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021, meets the Proportionality
test.
D. THERE ARE PROPER PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT ABUSE.
¶|84|. Any unlawful interference with private information under Rule 4(2), is
punishable under the relevant provisions of laws for the time being in the force. 154
Moreover, the contents of the first originator of the information shall not be used or
disclosed by the intermediary to any person or in public, other than the intended
recipient of the said information, & the officials shall maintain strict
confidentiality.155
¶|85|. In addition to this, the third proviso to Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021, states that
for identification of first originator, no SSMI shall be mandated to disclose the

contents of any electronic message, any other information related to the first
149
Ministry of Home Affairs, Law & Order, MHA, https://www.mha.gov.in/commoncontent/law-
and-order.
150
Government of NCT Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., (2018) 8 SCC 501.
151
Maharshi Thakkar, The Concept of Originator in Terms of Information Technology Rules 2021
and Its Implications on the Freedom of Trade, 4 Issue 3 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 6113 (2021).
152
The IT Rules, 2021, Rule 4(2).
153
Rahul Kumar, New IT Rules, 2021 in India Privacy vs Public Safety, 5 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. &
Human. 460 (2022).
154
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and
Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009, Rule 24.
155

originator, or any information related to its other users.156

¶|86|. It is humbly submitted that the private information shall not be utilized for
any other purpose except for investigation or sharing with other security agencies
for investigation or in judicial proceedings before the competent court.157 There are
sufficient procedural safeguards available against abuse of interference with the
privacy of the individual. Therefore, Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021, do not violate the
right to privacy of the citizens of India.
¶|87|. Wherefore, in light of all the aforesaid submissions, it is henceforth, submitted
that the Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 does not violate Fundamental Rights of citizens
of India and thus, it should be held to be constitutionally valid.
156
157

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsel on behalf of the Respondent humbly prays before this
Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare that:
1. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has the legislative
competency to formulate Rule 4(2) of the Information Technology (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.
2. Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 is in consonance with Art. 14 of the Constitution
of Indian Union.
3. Rule 4(2) of the IT Rule is a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(2) of the
Constitution of Indian Union.
4. Rule 4(2) of the IT Rule is a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(6) of the
Constitution of Indian Union.
5. Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 is in consonance with Art. 21 the Constitution of
Indian Union.
6. Uphold the Validity of Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 by passing an order in
form of a declaration.
and/or
Pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the interest of
justice, equity, fairness and good conscience.
For this act of kindness of your lordship, the Respondent shall duty bound
forever pray.
Place: S/d-
Date: COUNSELS for RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS PAGE | XVII [PRAYER]

Team AL Respondent - 240124 - 130003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Team AL Respondent - 240124 - 130003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

32 KLA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

TEAM CODE – T-Al (R)

32ND ALL INDIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT (THIRD VIRTUAL)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF UNION OF INDIA

-IN THE MATTER OF-

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | i [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................III

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION ......................................................................... XIII

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................ XIV

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................. XV

ISSUES RAISED .............................................................................................. XVII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................... XVIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................. 1

I. MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HAS THE

LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO FORMULATE THE RULE 4(2) INFORMATION

II. THERE IS PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. .................................... 3

III. THE IMPUGNED RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS IN CONSONANCE WITH

ART. 14. .................................................................................................................. 4

2. There is a rational nexus sought to be achieved. ...................................... 7

B. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES IS REASONABLE IN NATURE. ........................ 10

1. 1st Proviso of Rule 4(2) is Properly Defined and Non-Ambiguous. ........ 11

2. 2nd Proviso of Rule 4(2) is Properly Defined and Non-Ambiguous. ....... 11

-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | I [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

IV. RULE 4(2) OF THE IT RULES IS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER ART.

A. RULE 4(2) TRIES TO CURB THE MENACE OF FAKE NEWS. ......................... 13

B. THE RESTRICTIONS ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT TO BE

V. RULE 4(2) OF IT RULES 2021 IS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER ART.

A. RULE 4(2) IS REASONABLE, JUST AND FAIR. ............................................. 17

B. RULE 4(2) IS IN THE INTEREST OF GENERAL PUBLIC. ................................ 20

A. RESTRICTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ........................................... 22

B. RESTRICTION HAS A LEGITIMATE STATE AIM. .......................................... 23

C. RESTRICTION IS PROPORTIONAL AND HAS A RATIONAL NEXUS WITH THE

OBJECTIVE SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED. ............................................................... 23

D. THERE ARE PROPER PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT ABUSE. ..... 24

PRAYER ........................................................................................................... XVII

-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | II [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

INDIAN CASES PAGE NO.

AIIMS Student Union v. AIIMS, (2002) 1 SCC 428 11

Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397 20

Ashok Kumar Lingala v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 1 SCC 321 18

Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 361 11

Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1989 SC 25

B. R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2001 SC 3435 26

Balchandra L Jarkiholi v. B.S.Yeddyurappa & Ors., (2011) 7 17, 18

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 26

Bhagat Ram v. State of HP, AIR 1983 SC 454 8

Canara Bank v. Shri Debasis Dass, (2003) 4 SCC 557 18, 19

Canera Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321 18

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 18

Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, (1950) SCR 869 5, 25

Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145 6

-MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT- PAGE | III [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India Ors., 14

Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1995) 1 SCC 13

Government of NCT Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., (2018) 8 26

Gujarat Water Supply v. Unique Electro (Gujarat), (1989) 1 9, 20

Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 3 SCR 13

I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1 14

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299 22, 25

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 7, 27

Jagdambika Pal v. Union of India, (1999) 9 SCC 95 28

Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 2 SCC 1 17, 22