PRESTIGE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, INDORE

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MINDIA

PETITIONER : MR. PERK

VERSUS

RESPONDENT : UNION OF MINDIA

WITH

PETITIONER : MS. DORA

VERSUS

RESPONDENT : UNION OF MINDIA

WITH

PETITONER : MS. BROWNIE

VERSUS

RESPONDENT : UNION OF MINDIA

WITH

PETITIONER : MR. DUFFY

VERSUS

RESPONDENT : UNION OF MINDIA

WITH

PETITIONER : MS. VISHY

VERSUS

RESPONDENT : UNION OF MINDIA

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ (1)

STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................................... (2-

4)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................................................(5)

LIST OF REFERENCES AND CASES…………………………………………………………….(6-7)

STATEMENT OF ISSUES......................................................................................................................
(8)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................................................ (9)

DETAILED PLEADINGS............................................................................................................... (10-17)

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................................(18)

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 0

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR : All India Reporter

Art. : Article

Const. : Constitution

Cl : Clause

Edn. : Edition

HC : High

Court

Hon'ble : Honourable

SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

SLP : Special Leave Petition

UAPA : Unlawful Activity prevention Act NIA : National Investigation Agency

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mindia is a democratic country situated in the southern Pacific Ocean. It attained

independence of the colonial rule of Kristland in 1947. Mindia is Sovereign
Secular Socialist Democratic Republic.
2. Mindia is home to people of many religions. 74% of the population of Mindia is of
the Shinzo religion. From many years Shinzo religion has been following a caste
system based on the classification of the work carried out by a person. However,
over the years it kept transforming and became a means of discrimination.
Classification was made where people belonging to Dungeon Caste were considered
as upper caste while Geaon were considered as lower Caste.
3. People belonging to Dungeon were the ruling class having the majority wealth
and held all the important positions whereas people belonging to Geaon were
downtrodden, poor, uneducated and tortured.
4. In the year 1889, Mayanagri, a place in south of Mindia was ruled by King Chow
who belonged to Dungeon Caste. During his rule all rights of the people belonging to
Geaon Caste were taken away and even basic human rights were not granted to them.
In order to overcome their miseries, the leaders of Geaon caste approached Kristland
for help. On 21.11.1889 the troops of Kristland along with leaders of Geaon attacked
Mayanagri and successfully defeated King Chow to bring an end to the anarchical
rule of the Chow dynasty. Because of this reason on 21st November every year,
Geaon people assemble in Mayanagri to celebrate their victory over the anarchical
rule.
5. Just like every year a celebration ceremony was organized on 21st November 2017
at the Peace Ground of Mayanagri. The event was led by Mr. Perk, Ms. Dora and
Ms. Brownie. The event started at its scheduled time. However, just 30 minutes after
the start of the event, a group of people belonging to Dungeon Caste arrived at the
Peace Park with certain weapons and attacked the Geaon people present in the
celebration.
6. The violence resulted in death of 20 Geaon people whereas 64 were severely
MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 injured. This led to widespread caste based riots in the whole Country of Mindia
resulting in over 100 deaths and loss of property worth over hundred million dollars.

7. The National Investigating Agency was summoned by the Government of Mindia

to investigate into the violence. On 01.12.2017, the NIA arrested Mr. Perk, Ms.
Dora, Ms. Brownie, Mr. Duffy and Ms.Vishy under the UAPA Act.
8. The NIA alleged that Mr. Perk, Ms. Dora and Ms. Brownie had given hate speeches
and were instrumental in the violence that took place in the entire country. The
roadmap of the violence was drawn in a meeting between the three that took place
at the residence of Mr. Perk.
9. A post was also made on the Pitter (which is replica of twitter) social media handle of
Mr. Perk writing “It is time to give them back what they have given us over the
years, we need to repeat the 100 years old history. We should take inspiration from
the fighters in the war of Mayanagri and should replicate what they achieved”. The
post also accompanied a sort video of 30 seconds where scenes of some people
beating an old man can be seen, It was claimed that is video is of the incident that
took place on 21.11.2017 at the Peace Ground. His post along with the video was
widely shared.
10. It was also alleged that Ms. Dora gave a hate speech on 21.11.2017 from the stage at
Peace Ground, Mayanagri where she referred to Dungeon People as Cockroaches
and asked to treat them in similar manner like we treat cockroaches if they are
present in our bed rooms. A video where she can be seen saying the same also
surfaced on Pitter, However, the origin of the video could not be traced. Further
there were no witnesses who can corroborate the video. A similar video of Ms.
Brownie also surfaced where she can be seen comparing Dungeon people with
Leech.
11. Mr. Duffy, the CEO of Pitter was arrested for not removing the posts shared by Mr.
Perk and other controversial posts. It was also alleged that Mr. Duffy had taken
money from Mr. Perk and was influenced by him as he also belonged to Geaon
Caste. Mr. Duffy argued that the system of Pitter automatically detects any prohibited
post and such post is sent to the review committee who delete the post if they find it
to be in any ways against the policies of Pitter. He also argued that they are required
to be very careful as a balance has to be kept with the Freedom of Speech and

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 expression. He stated that the review committee did not find the post to be against the
policies of Pitter and hence the same was not removed.
12. Ms. Vishy was a journalist in a local newspaper and was arrested for publishing the
interviews of Mr. Perk, Ms. Dora and Ms. Brownie. It was alleged that the
newspaper articles by Ms. Vishy were instrumental in taking the violence to villages.

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
13. Many bail applications were filed by all the arrested people before the NIA Court
but all were rejected.
14. An SLP was filed in the Supreme Court of Mindia on 13.11.2021 for grant of bail.
15. Further the United Journalists organization approached the Supreme Court against
the imposition of UAPA against Ms. Vishy alleging the same to be unconstitutional.
16. Further an NGO named “Equal Justice” filed a petition requesting the Court to order
fresh and impartial investigation into the matter as all the people involved in
investigation from NIA belong to Dungeon Caste. It was also alleged that a total of 78
people who died in violence belonged to Geaon Caste.

4
MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court is competent to hear to the petition under art. 32 of the Constitution of Mindia. As
the matter involve determining the charges of UAPA and fundamental rights provided under
Part III of the const of Minda, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mindia constituted a
constitutional bench to hear the matter which has all the jurisdiction to hear it. The leave has
been granted by this Hon’ble Court in both matters and both the matters are to be heard by
this Hon’ble Supreme Court together. It humbly submitted to Hon’ble Supreme Court of
mindia that the Court is empowered to hear this case by the virtue of art. 136 of the
Constitution of Mindia.

5
MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 LIST OF REFERENCES AND

CASES

 Council of scientific and Industries Research v K.G.S. Bhatt,(1989)SC 1772

 Maqbool Fida Hussain v Raj Kr. Pandey,(2008)CrLJ4107

 Hindustan Times v State of Up,(2003)1 SCC591
 Re Harijai Singh,(1996)6 SCC 466(Para 10)1997 SC73
 Lachmandas v State of Bombay,(1952) SCR710(726)
 Dutta Associates pvt. Ltd.v Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd.,(1997)1 SCC 53
 Lachmandas v State of Bombay,(1952) SCR710(726)
 Zahoor Ahmed shah Watali v NIA (2018)
 Re Arundhati Roy , AIR 2002 SC 1375
 Aisha Sultana v Union territory of Lakshadweep (2020)
 Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009)
 Communication Decency Act (1996 )
 Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
 Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff & Natalie L. Reid, 1 International Criminal
Law Practitioner Library (2008).
 All India DravidaMunnetraKazhagam v. Govt. of TN, (2009)5SCC452(457)
 Re. Harijai Singh, (1996) 6SCC 466 (para 10): AIR 1997 SC 73
 Muslim Advocates v. Mark Zuckerberg
 Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354, 1357 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
 Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009)
 Ak Gopalan v state of Madras,(1950) SC 27
 EV.Chinnaiah v State of AP,(2005)1 SCC 394(Para58)
 Narendra Kumar v. union of India(1960) AIR 430, 1960 SCR (2) 375
 Indra Sawhney v UOi,(1992) 3 SCC217 and S Vinod Kumar v UOI,(1996)6 SCC 580
 Sanjoy Narayan, Hindustan Times V HC of Allahabad,(2001)13SCC 155(157)
 Re Harijan singh,(1996)6 SCC 591
 Bribhushan v state of delhi,(1950)SCR605
 Gopalan v State of Madras,(1950 )SCR 88 (253-54)

STATUTES

 Indian Penal Code, 1860

 The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
 The Constitution of India, 1949

BOOKS REFERRED

 Ratanlal&Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes – A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code,

Vol 1, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27thEdn. 2013.
 K I Vibhute, P.S.A Pillai’s Criminal Law, Lexis Nexis, 12thEdn. 2014.

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 6

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 Dr. (Sir) Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, Law Publishers (India) Pvt.
Ltd., 11thEdn. 2014.
 Basu’s Indian Penal Code (Law of Crimes), Vol I., Ashoka Law House, 11thEdn. 2011.
 DD Bhasu – Introduction to the constitution of India, 24 Edn

JOURNALS REFERRED

All India Reporter

Supreme Court Cases

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

In the present petition following issues have been raised: -

1. Whether the petitions filed are maintainable before the Court?

2. Whether bail shall be granted to the all the 5 arrested people?

3. Whether imposition of Superior Responsibility on Mr. Duffy is valid?

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the petitions filed are maintainable before the Court.

It is humbly submitted before the Supreme Court of Mindia that the Special Leave petitioned
filed by the petitioners, petition filled by United Journalist organization and the petition by
the NGO Equal Justice for fresh and impartial investigation in the matter, are not
maintainable. In order to petition maintainable under art.32 and 136 of constitution of Mindia
there must be infringement of Fundamental rights and some special circumstance arrise. Here
in the present case, no such question of law as well as special and exceptional circumstances
arises and therefore the petition are not maintable.

2. Whether the bail shall be granted to accused or not.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mindia that in this case bail to five
persons i.e., Mr. Perk, Ms. Dora, Ms. Brownie Mr. Duffy, Ms. Vishy are not maintainable. It
is evident that freedom of speech and expression cannot confer upon an individual a license
to commit illegal or immoral act or to incite others by force or unlawful means is not what is
guaranteed under the constitution of India, the fundamental rights are protected till the
time it does not infringes the provisions of law and order established by the law.

3. Whether Imposition of Superior Responsibility on Mr. Duffy Is Valid.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that imposition of superior responsibility on
Mr. Duffy is valid. As superior responsibility refers to the form of omission liability under
which the superior is responsible, here the omission of such responsibility by Mr. Duffy has
made him liable under such circumstances, where his failure of deleting the post, led to the
caste-base riot in Mayanagri.

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 DETAILED PLEADINGS

1. Whether the petitions filed are maintainable before the Court?

It is humbly submitted before the Supreme Court of Mindia that the Special Leave petitioned
filed by the petitioners, petition filled by United Journalist organization and the petition by
the NGO Equal Justice for fresh and impartial investigation in the matter ,are not
maintainable.

1.1 WHETHER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER

ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA UNDER THE
FOLLOWING CASE OR NOT.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Special Leave Petition(SLP) being
made against the order of Hon’ble NIA Court is not maintainable under Art 136 of the Const
of Mindia as SLP cannot be granted when substantial justice has been done and no
exceptional circumstances exist for case to be maintainable. Also in present case, no
substantial question of law is involved and interference is based on pure question of fact
which is entitled to be dismissed.

It is contended by the respondent that the appellant must show that exceptional and special
circumstances exist and that if there is no interference, substantial and grave injustice will
result and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision
appealed against on merit. Only then the court would exercise its overriding power under art
1361.SLP will not granted when there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is
done2.

In the present case, no exceptional and special circumstances have shown by the appellant.
Substantial Justice has already been done by the hon’ble NIA court and the appellant is
unable in presenting the flaws in the present case. This shows that the law is well-settled in
this regard and the present case is not an exception.

It is contended by the Respondent that the appeal doesn’t involve any substantial question of
law rather it involve pure question of fact and hence, not maintainable. As it was stated in the
facts that the roadmap of violence had already been drawn and the appellant can assume the
1
M.P. Jain-Indian Constitutional Law
2
Council of scientific and Industries Research v K.G. S. Bhatt,(1989)SC 1772

10

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 consequences of the violence and now the appellant is appealing before this Hon’ble court
without any stable ground for the appeal. This hasn’t been any strong substantial question of
law which might allow this appeal to be heard. It is thereby humbly submitted that this appeal
should not be maintainable in this court of justice.

1.2 Whether the petition filled by United Journalist organization is maintainable or not?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble supreme court that the petition of United Journalist
organization is not maintainable under Art 32 of the Mindia Const.

Freedom of speech is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of
freedom. It is well spring of civilization and without it liberty of thought would shrivel.
Public decency and morality it’s outside the purview of protection of free speech and
expression and thus balance should be maintained before speech and expression and public
decency morality3.

Also newspaper serve as the medium of exercise of freedom of speech but absolute4,
unlimited and unfettered freedom of press at all times and in all circumstances would lead to
disorder and anarchy. 5

In the present case , though the appellant is exercising its freedom of speech but he unable to
maintain the balance between speech and expression and public decency morality which
results in violence in village as stated in the fact. And , thus the petition of United Journalist
organization is not maintainable

1.3 Whether the petition of equal justice filed by the NGO is maintainable or not?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble supreme court that the petition of EQUAL JUSTICE
filed by the NGO is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Mindia Const.

The guarantee of equal protection applies against substantive as well as procedural laws 6. The
decision making process should be transparent, fair and open7. The cardinal principle of
governance in a civilized society based on the rule of law not only has to base on

3
Maqbool Fida Hussain v Raj Kr. Pandey,(2008)CrLJ4107
4
Hindustan Times v State of Up,(2003)1 SCC591
5
Re Harijai Singh,(1996)6 SCC 466(Para 10)1997 SC73
6
Lachmandas v State of Bombay,(1952) SCR710(726)
7
Dutta Associates pvt. Ltd.v Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd.,(1997)1 SCC 53(Para7)

M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F11
RESPONDENT
transparency but must create an impression that the decision- making was motivated on the
consideration of probity8.

Rule Of Law, is enshrined with the principle of natural justice which is bagged by the three of
its principles that is;

 Contrary to arbitrary power

 Equality before the law
 A formal ,rational Court System ; in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

Every man or woman in society is governed by using law, along with governmental officers
and regulation enforcement officials. The court can observe the doctrine of ultra vires equally
to each and every government organization and legitimate for acts that are outside the
authority conferred by law. Also, a person can solely be punished for a breach of present
regulation, and by no means for breach of a law not current at the time doing something.

Courts have to follow laws equally to all people regardless of their race, type wealth, religion,
etc. Every accused person need to be entitled to an honest trial, to be informed of the
allegations against him, have an opportunity to rebut the charge in opposition to him and to
have his conduct assessed by impartial judges.

In the present case, investigation is done , following the principle of Rule of law. And thus,
it dosen’t matter whether all or any of the people in NIA Courts belong to Dungeon caste.
Therefore, the petition of EQUAL JUSTICE filed by the NGO is not maintainable.

2. WHETHER BAIL SHALL BE GRANTED TO ALL THE 5 ARRESTED

PEOPLE
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mindia that in this case bail to five
persons i.e. Mr. Perk, Ms. Dora, Ms. Brownie Mr. Duffy, Ms. Vishy are not maintainable.
That the Petitioners are not innocent as implicated in the above said case. Nevertheless, the
Sedition is a non-bailable offence. Under this section for the determination of criminality the
court in each case has to determine whether the words in question have pernicious tendency
and whether the person uttering those words had the intention of creating public disorder or
disturbance of law and order. On the basis of these two-factor liability can be imposed.

8
DD Bhasu – introduction to constitution of law 12

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
It is evident that freedom of speech and expression cannot confer upon an individual a license
to commit illegal or immoral act or to incite others by force or unlawful means. No one can
exercise his right of speech in such a manner as to violate another man’s such right .

2.1 Maintainability of bail of Mr. Perk .

The post of Mr. perk on pitter along with the accompanied short video of 30 sec clearly
shows that the intention of Mr. pitter was to excite hatred, contempt and dissatisfaction and
thereby creating violence. Also, it was claimed that, the video of the incident that took
place on 21.11.2017 at the peace ground.

2.2 Maintainability of bail of Ms. Dora and Ms. Brownie

The hate speech given by Ms. Dora and Ms. Brownie clearly proves the prima facie evidence
to the case which were instrumental in the violence that took place. Also, when NIA
investigated into the violence it was found that the roadmap of the violence was drawn in a
meeting between the three i.e. Mr. Perk, Mr. Dora and Ms. Brownie that took place at the
residence of Mr. Perk. Thus, the test for denying bail under UAPA is that the court must be
satisfied that a ‘prima facie’ case exists against the accused.

In Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali v. NIA9 , a two-judge bench of the Delhi high court led by
justice S.Muralidhar held that trail courts must not act “merely as a post office of the
investigating agency” but should “scrutinise the material with extra care” in determining
whether a prima facie case exists.

The supreme in 2019 rejected the high court decision that the material by the investigation
agency must be carefully examined. It instead lowered the bar for courts to examine the
accuracy of agency’s case holding that bail can be denied by relying upon prosecution
documents even though they would be inadmissible in evidence during the trail.

Section 43D (5) reads: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the code , no person accused
of an offence punishable under chapters IV and VI of this act shall, if in custody, be released
on bail or on his own bond unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity of
being heard on the application for such release .

“ Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the
court , on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under the section 173 of the code is of

9
Zahoor Ahmed shah Watali v NIA (2018)
13
MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such
person is prima facie true”.10

In Balwant singh v. State of Punjab11 the hon’ble High court on noticing the facts of the
case stated that the incitement on social media platform which is accessible to the world and
not just to the limited crowd . The supreme court further stated that bail will not be granted
and the petitioner was stated to be liable under section 122 of IPC which is at par punishable
with section 121A .

2.3 Maintainability of bail of Ms. Vishy

Ms. Vishy, a journalist in local newspaper published interviews of Mr. Perk , Ms. Dora and
Ms. Brownie .It was alleged that the newspaper articles were instrumental in taking the
violence to villages.

Mainstream media often plays a significant role in validating the underline propaganda
attached to these charges. The coverage of sedition cases is more often than not done in the
context of the communal angle, intentionally crossing the boundaries of privacy by
publishing their personal details in the public domain in order to stir up controversy and
discredit the voices of dissent .

The newspaper serve as a medium of exercise of freedom of speech12 .Any expression of

opinion would not be immune from liability for exceeding the limits. If a citizen in the grab
of exercising the right of free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) tries to scandalise
the court or undermine the dignity of the court , then the court would be entitled to exercise
the power under contempt provisions.13

In Aisha Sultana v union territory of Lakshadweep14

The case explained malicious propaganda spread through main stream media , attempting to
divert public discourse from the valid concerns of the citizen of Lakshadweep by fixating
on the sedition charges against Aisha sultana.

2.4. Maintainability of Bail of Mr. Duffy.

10
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), s. 43D(5)
11
Balwant Singh v State of Punjab (1995) 3SCC 214
12
Hindustan times v. State of UP , (2003) 1 SCC 591
13
Re Arundhati Roy , AIR 2002 SC 1375
14
Aisha Sultana v Union territory of Lakshadweep (2020)
14
MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
Mr. Duffy the CEO of pitter has not removed the posts shared by Mr. perk and other
controversial posts. Also Mr. Duffy has taken money from Mr. perk and was influenced by
him as he also belong to Geaon caste.

In Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc.,15570 F.3d 1096, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) concluded that Yahoo could
be liable in contract for breaking its “promise to take down third-party content from its
website” even if Section 230 of CDA16 act precluded liability for failing to take down the
same content.

In Klayman v. Zuckerberg17emphasises that a suit is clearly barred by Section 230 “is a

defamation action founded on the hosting of defamatory third-party content”. By
immunizing internet platforms from liability for their users’ defamatory statements. But the
statute was not designed as a general grant of immunity for companies like Facebook.

3. Whether imposition of Superior Responsibility on Mr. Duffy is valid?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that imposition of superior responsibility on
Mr. Duffy is valid. The posts on Pitter by Mr. Perk, Ms. Dora and Ms. Brownie which led to
violence in Mayanagri was because Mr. Duffy failed to delete the controversial posts.

Superior responsibility is a form of omission liability: the superior is responsible for failing to
prevent or punish crimes committed by his subordinates, as opposed to crimes he has in fact
committed, planned, ordered, instigated, or otherwise aided and abetted. Criminal
responsibility for omissions exists where there is a lawful duty to act and the superior fails to
do so.18

Following requirements have been identified for the doctrine of superior responsibility under
customary international law:

(i) A relationship of superior-subordinate linking the accused and those who

committed the underlying offences at the time of the commission of the crime;

15
Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009)
16
Communication Decency Act (1996 )
17
Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
18
Gideon Boas, James L. Bischoff & Natalie L. Reid, 1 International Criminal Law Practitioner Library (2008).
15
MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
(ii) The knowledge on the part of the superior that his subordinates have committed or
taken a culpable part in the commission of a crime or are about to do so; and

(iii) A failure on the part of the superior to take necessary and reasonable measures to
prevent or to punish those crimes.19

The dignity of the court and the people’s faith in administration must not be tarnished
because of biased and unverified reporting. In order to avoid such biased reporting, one must
be careful to verify the facts and do some research on the subject being reported before a
publication is brought out.20

Freedom of expression is not absolute freedom and is subjected to the limitation contained in
clause(2) of Article 19, laws may be passed by the state imposing reasonable restrictions on
the freedom of the press in the interest of the security of the State, the sovereignty and the
integrity of , friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or for
the prevention of the contempt court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Absolute,
unlimited and unfettered freedom of press at all times and in all circumstances would lead to
disorder and anarchy.21

Here, although Mr. Duffy argued that he needs to balance freedom of speech and
expression22, but as according to the Constitution of Mindia, the freedom is restricted to
certain restrictions. The posts on Pitter actually misused the Freedom of speech and
expression which leads to violence and threat to nation’s integrity.

The negligence caused by Mr. Duffy makes him liable, as in the case of Muslim Advocates v.
Mark Zuckerberg23; CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg was sued for controversial posts
against Muslim Community.

The CEO will be liable as the publisher or speaker of that information.24

19
GuenaelMettraux, The Doctrine of
Superior/CommandResponsibility,https://www.peaceandjusticeinitiative.org/implementation-
resources/command-responsibility
20
All India DravidaMunnetraKazhagam v. Govt. of TN, (2009)5SCC452(457)
21
Re. Harijai Singh, (1996) 6SCC 466 (para 10): AIR 1997 SC 73
22
Fact sheet, Para 11, Line 7.
23
Muslim Advocates v. Mark Zuckerberg
24
Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354, 1357 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
16
MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
In Barnes v. Yahoo it was concluded that Yahoo could be liable in contract for breaking its
“promise to take down third-party content from its website” even if Section 230 precluded
liability for failing to take down the same content).25

Thus, Mr. Duffy should be held liable.

17
MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT
 PRAYER

The humble prayer of petitioner in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments
advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to adjudge and declare:

 That the writs are not maintainable.

 The bail shall not be granted to all the 5 arrested people

 That the superior responsibility on Mr. Duffy is valid.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

18

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFRESPONDENT