6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TEAM CODE: ZL-49

IN THE MATTERS OF

TAVERN COMPANY PVT.

LTD.

(PLAINTIFF)

Republic of SCHITT’S CREEK, 26 December 2021 V.

FARMWARE COMPANY
BEFORE PVT. LTD. (DEFENDANT)

SUBMITTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ROSEBUD, REPUBLIC OF SCHITT’S CREEK TO THE
CIVIL COURT OF RA-
WRIT PETITION NO. - __/2021 DHAPUR, TROMBAI

ON BEHALF OF THE
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION PLAINTIFF

Stevie …. PETITIONER
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
ON BEHALF OF THE
VERSUS PLAINTIFF

INSTABOOK INC. COUNSEL APPEARING

…. RESPONDENT
ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFF

4TH ZEAL MOOT COURT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPETITION
COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ROSEBUD

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

[MEMORIAL FOR PLAINTIFF]

I
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………… (III)

I. TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………...(III)
II. BOOKS…………………………………………………………………….(IV)
III. STATUTES………………………………………………………………...(IV)
IV. LEGAL DATABASE……………………………………………..………...(V)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………… (V)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………. (VI)

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………… (VII)

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………... (VIII)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………… (IX)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE ................................................................................................. (X)

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTABLE? ................................................. (X)

[1.1] Is Instabook INC. a state? …………………………………………….……………… (XI)

[1.2] Whether there has been violation of fundamental rights? ........................................... (XII)

[1.3] Did Stevie & viewers of her Instabook story practiced fundamental rights? ............ (XIII)

2.IS THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH INSTABOOK

CONTRACTUALLY INVAILD?..................................................................................... (XIII)

[2.1] Whether the NDA was restraining the right of legal proceedings from plaintiff? ….. (XIV)

3. THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT REQUIRED STEVIE TO WAIVE HER

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL
IMPERMISSIBLE. …………………………………………………………………...…. (XV)
[3.1] Whether the right to freedom of speech and expression was infringed? ………..… (XVI)
[3.2] Whether the waiver of a fundamental right was permissible under the Consti.……. (XVII)
[3.3] Whether the plaintiff's act resulted in the breach of any clause under NDA? .……(XVIII)
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………..(XX)

II
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

S.NO. CASE NAME

1. Dr.S.K.C Charan v. Ashwin M. Singh & Ors. (2007) 1 ADJ 391
2. S.C. Sharma vs Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1970.
3. Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta vs V.R. Rudani & Ors, (1989) AIR 1607, 2
SCR 697
4. G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute, (2003) 4 SCC 225.
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621
6. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574.
7. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1962) 3 SCR 842.
8. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788: (1973) 2 SCR 757.
9. Ministry of I&B, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161.
10. Raj rani v. Prem Adib, (1949) 51 BOMLR 256.
11. Srinivas v. State of Madras, (1955) 2 SCR 907.
12. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, (1950) SC 124.
13. Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 US 404 (1937).
14. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCR 365.
15. A.K. Subbaiah v. B.N. Garudachar, (1987) 4 SCC 557.
16. K.V Ramanaiah v. Special Public Prosecutor, (1961) AP 190.
17. Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi & Rajasthan & An-
other, (1959) SC 149.

18. Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. State of Bombay, (1955) SC 123.

19. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation,, (1986) AIR 180.
20. Sakal Papers v. Union of India, (1962) SC 305.
21. The Superintendent, Central ... v. Ram Manohar Lohia, (1960) SC 633.

22. Ramji Lal Modi vs The State of U.P, (1957) SCC 620.
23. Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1951) SCC 118.
24. Rekha v. Vinodan T.S., (2009) 3 KHC 477.

III
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

BOOKS

S No. BOOK NAME

1. Avtar Singh, Contracts and Specific relief, (12th Ed.) 2017
2. Professor K.D. Gauries, Commentary On The Indian Penal Code, (2nd Ed.)2016.
3. Mani Kant, Supreme Court Digest On Indian Penal Code 1860 (1999-2014), 2017.
4. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 32nd Enlarged edition 2011.
5. Salmond, Law of Torts, 16th Edition 1973.

STATUTES

S No. Name of the Statutes

1. The Indian Contract act, 1872
2. The Constitution of India 1950
3. The Registration act, 1908
4. The Indian Penal Code,1860

LEGAL DATABASES

S No. LEGAL DATABASES

1. SCC Online
2. Manupatra
3. LexisNexis
4. JSTOR
5. Heinonline
6. Westlaw

IV
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.no Abbreviation Definition

1. § Section
2. & And
3. SCC The Supreme Court Cases
4. v. Versus
5. Ors. Others
6. art. Article
7. AIR All India Reporter
8. SC The Supreme Court of India
9. no. Number
10. cl. Clause
11. NDA Non-Disclosure Agreement
12. HC High Court
13. DUF Dravidian United Front
14. Sc Schitt’s Creek
15. ScPC Schitt’s Creek Penal Code

V
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The learned High Court of the State Rosebud exercises Jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the
present suit under Article 226 of the Constitution. The plaintiff has approached the honorable
HC with a writ petition.

The provision under which the Plaintiff has approached this HC and to which the Plaintiff
humbly submit is read herein under as: Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

Article 226(1) of the Constitution says “Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High
Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction,
to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within
those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.1”

1
The Indian Constitution, art. 226.

VI
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Instabook INC. is a social media company, of Schitt’s Creek which has headquarter at Rose-
bud. Stevie is studying journalism and media communication at university of Elmdale in
Rosebud. She is interning in Instabook INC. from 2nd August 2021 to January 2022, a period
of 6 months. The Non- Disclosure Agreement was signed by her legal guardian, i.e., her fa-
ther. On 6th October 2021, she turned 18. The leader of DUF, Mr. Mullens visited the head-
quarters of the platform at Rosebud on 30th October 2021 to discuss advertising and market-
ing strategies.

SITUATION THEREAFTER

Mr. Mullens had a discussion with Mr. Patrick Brewer, Instabook’s head of marketing. On the
same day, in an attempt to prevent unjustifiable consequences that could tarnish the democratic
fabric of Schitt’s Creek, Stevie posted a story on Instabook

CAUSE OF ACTION

Instabook filed a civil suit against Stevie, aggrieved by her conduct and its disastrous conse-
quences which had violated the confidentiality of the company’s information. The company
sought an unconditional public apology from Stevie on Instabook and before the media. On 8th
November 2021, Stevie flied the writ petition against Instabook before the HC of Rosebud.

CLAIMS

The Stevie respectfully claimed that the writ petition against Instabook is maintainable on ac-
count of violation of her fundamental right to free speech and expression. Secondly, the NDA
entered into with Instabook is contractually invalid. Thirdly, the NDA require Stevie to waive
her right to freedom of speech and expression which is constitutionally impermissible.

PETITION

The appeal filed by the Stevie is registered in the HC of Rosebud. The court directed for the
first hearing on the 26th of December 2021

VII
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Is the petition on account of violation of fundamental right to free speech and expression
maintainable?

2. Is the Non-Disclosure Agreement entered into with Instabook contractually invalid?

3. Does the non-disclosure agreement required her to waive her right to freedom of speech
and expression which is constitutionally impermissible?

VIII
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

The present case is maintainable because the writ petition filed by the petitioner is valid ac-
cording to Article 226 of the Constitution of SC. On 8th November 2021, a writ petition was
filed against Instabook before the High Court of Rosebud. The present case is maintainable as
there was an infringement of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression un-
der Article 19(a) of the Constitution of SC. The Non-Disclosure Agreement entered into with
Instabook is contractually invalid. It also required the petitioner to waive her right to freedom
of speech and expression, which is constitutionally impermissible. The writ petition is main-
tainable as the case relates to the restriction of fundamental rights, which is considered objec-
tionable in a democratic country like the Republic Of Schitt’s Creek.

2. IS THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH INSTA-

BOOK CONTRACTUALLY INVAILD?

The NDA penetrated with Instabook INC. is contractually invalid as it is mentioned in art. 28
of Sc Contract Act, 1872. As the contract was between the legal guardian of the minor and
the Instabook INC. had no consideration and thus, the contact is void in the eyes of law.

3. THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT REQUIRED HER TO WAIVE HER

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION WHICH IS CONSTITU-
TIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE.
The NDA between the Instabook and Stevie restricted her fundamental Right of Speech and
Expression, which is not permitted under the constitution of the Republic of Sc. In a Democ-
racy, the people enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to secure their
rights by the courts. An independent and powerful judicial system is provided for protecting
the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people. But in the present case, the petitioner's right
was violated due to the NDA. The points or clauses mentioned in the NDA were restricting her
fundamental right. It bound her not to do things that provide her the right under the law.

IX
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTABLE?

I would like to draw some light on article 226 of the constitution in which it allows the HC to
give directions, orders, or writs to anybody or any authority, including the government. Art 226
of the Schitt’s Creek Constitution gives the HC this ability to enforce any of the fundamental
rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution or for any other reason.

The judgments of Dr.S.K.C Charan v. Ashwin M. Singh & Ors. 2 establish that the writ ex-
tends to private bodies that perform public functions. As a result, as it is important to determine
the nature of public obligation in this case. According to us, the nature and character of a private
body's obligation determines whether it is performing a public or private duty. Social media is
a robust revolution that has altered every aspect of our lives; it has altered the way we socialize,
conduct business, involve in politics, develop professions, and set job recruiting. It affects so-
ciety at large and accordingly it owes some public duty towards the people of the country.

Secondly, in S.C. Sharma vs Union of India and Ors3., it was said that Writ petition under Ar-
ticle 226 is maintainable against any person and it is not necessary that the said person should
be exercising sovereign public functions or should be a governmental authority. Writ petition
under Art 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for any purpose without any limita-
tion or restriction. Article states that every HC has jurisdiction to issue appropriate writs
against any authority for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III or for 'any other purpose'.
The said Article also states that writs can be issued to 'any person'. The expressions 'any person'
and 'for any other purpose' have been explained and elucidated upon by the Supreme Court.

In Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta vs V.R. Rudani & Ors 4 Art 226 confers wide powers
on the HC to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs. Under Art 226, writs can be issued
to "any person or authority". It can be issued "for the enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights and for any other purpose."

2
Dr.S.K.C Charan v. Ashwin M. Singh & Ors, (2007) 1 ADJ 391.
3
S.C. Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors, AIR 1970.
4
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta vs V.R. Rudani & Ors, (1989) AIR 1607, 2 SCR 697.

X
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

[1.1] Is Instabook INC. is a state?

Instabook comes under the ministry of broadcasting and information. Social media that affects
society at large, so the state also has to ensure free and fair business ethics. It raised the duty
of the ministry for this conduct of Instabook. Ministry time to time release guidelines and rules
for social media that lead the duty of social media hubs to work according to laws. Legal duties
are the laws that a company, a government organization or the member of particular profession
must follow; The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for identifying include any stat-
utory duties imposed upon the corporation is said to be under State. It is well established that
any action taken by the state or one of its instrumentalities in the exercise of its executive power
must be justified. In relevant instances, arbitrary actions may be challenged in proceedings
under Art 226 or Art 32 of the Constitution. In G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research
Institute5 In terms of the HC’s jurisdiction, the court stated that "a writ under Article 226 can
lie against a 'person' if it is a statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a public
or statutory duty," and because ICRISAT was not established by statute and its activities were
not statutorily regulated, the Court held that the HC was correct in dismissing the writ petition.

Schitt’s Creek Constitution has, with some exceptions, adopted the state action doctrine devel-
oped by the US Supreme court in the Civil Rights cases, according to which constitutional
guarantees are enforceable only against the State and not against private actors. However, there
have been many instances where the court has made fundamental rights enforceable even
against private actors by declaring them as State through an expansive interpretation of ‘other
authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. Adv. Sanjay Hegde, in his writ petition, calls
for according the same treatment to social media platforms like Twitter considering the public
nature of the function that they perform. However, an analysis of case laws reveals that courts
have so far not declared any private entity as State just because they perform a public function.
Instabook is constitutional character of the State because by giving the public a platform for
speech it performs what is a ‘public function’, and therefore, is constitutionally liable for over-
broad censorship and Instabook comes under state as it has statutory duties as it works in given
guidelines of govt.

5
G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute, (2003) 4 SCC 225.
XI
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

[1.2] Whether there has been violation of fundamental rights?

Freedom of speech and expression is a crucial right, and it was said in the well-known case of
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India6 that "Democracy is built largely on free debate and open
discussion, for it is the only corrective of government action under a democratic set up." When
we examine this right closely, we can see that it has many elements, one of which is Freedom
of Expression through the use of an internet network. In today's age of globalization, the de-
velopment in the use of social media has been unprecedented, and people use a variety of social
platforms to express their sentiments and express their thoughts. Not only that, but when we
discuss freedom of expression, we must also include the concept of online media, online enter-
tainment content, and so on. The prohibition under Art 19(1)(2) that was previously mentioned
applies to all of these aspects as well. Stevie as a citizen have right to freedom of speech and
expression. She shared her views as an expression for democracy and one cannot be guilty for
stating the truth.

Instabook removed the stories of Stevie and of those accounts who posted it on their social
media by the means of violation of their policies. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram7 It was
held that freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) involves the right to express one's view-
point orally, in writing, in pictures, or in any other way. It would thus encompass their freedom
of communication as well as their right to spread or publish their opinions. Ideas can be com-
municated through any medium, such as a newspaper, magazine, or film. However, as set out
in Article 19(2), this freedom is subject to reasonable constraints in the wider interests of the
community and the country . These constraints are meant to achieve a reasonable balance be-
tween the individual liberty and the social goals outlined in Article 19. (2).

"Freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount importance under a democratic

Constitution which envisages changes in the composition of legislatures and governments and
must be preserved." [Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India8]

6
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621.
7
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574.
8
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1962) 3 SCR 842.
XII
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

[1.3] Did Stevie and viewers of her Instabook story practiced fundamental rights?

Stevie criticized what bad for society is and made people aware of wrong consequences of the
mal practice of political party in democracy. "Freedom of the press is the Ark of the Covenant
of Democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of its institutions. Never has
criticism been more necessary than today, when the weapons of propaganda are so strong and
so subtle. But, like other liberties, this also must be limited." [Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union
of India9]

Stevie gave a tale about her point of view, and every citizen has the right to express themselves,
and with the right of speech and expression comes the right of the viewers, which is crucial in
a country like ours. [Ministry of I&B, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal10]

Sc is one of those few countries on the planet where you can speak your mind without fear of
being shot, or at least it was until recently. Even if citizens’ condition is far better than that of
their counterparts in other countries, the picture is no longer calming or hypnotic to them. This
statement is made in reference to the enjoyment of the right to free expression and communi-
cation in the context of social media, as well as the challenges provided by the arbitrary appli-
cation of the country's so-called cyber laws. A moral duty arises by the ethics of society, Stevie
tried to explain her opinion to the society, what she feels essential for free and fair elections as
democracy strong pillar of the society. "It is indisputable that by freedom of the press is meant
the right of all citizens to speak, publish and express their views. The freedom of the press
embodies the right of the people to read. The freedom of the press is not antithetical to the right
of the people to speak and express." [Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India]

2. IS THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH INSTA-

BOOK CONTRACTUALLY INVAILD?

The NDA was signed by Stieve's father on August 2, 2021, when she was 17 years old (minor,
according to the Indian majority act), under the Registration Act 1908, and, as in the case of
Raj rani v. Prem Adib11 the defendant, a film producer, assigned the plaintiff, a minor, the role
of an actress in a particular film. The plaintiff and the defendant reached an agreement. Her
father and defendent came to another deal. But later, the defendant gave the role to another

9
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788: (1973) 2 SCR 757.
10
Ministry of I&B, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161.
11
Raj rani v. Prem Adib, (1949) 51 BOMLR 256

XIII
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

actress. the defendant, a film producer, assigned the plaintiff, a minor, the role of an actress in
a particular film. The plaintiff and defendant came to an arrangement. Her father and the de-
fendant reached a different agreement. However, the defendant then cast another actress in the
part. Both the father and the daughter were unable to sue the defendant. Because the contract
was with the father, it was without consideration and hence void. This contract was void and
invalid in the eyes of the daughter since she was a minor. This case was handled by the Bombay
High Court.

The arrangement with the plaintiff was lawful, although it concerned a juvenile. As a result,
the agreement was null and void. There was no thought put into the deal with father. The fa-
ther's pledge was that his minor daughter would act, and the small girl was not legally able to
promise. As a result, it was likewise void. Court ordered that it was held that neither the minor
nor her father could sue on the promise. The agreement with the minor is null and void. If the
contract was with the father, it was without consideration and thus, void. It was clarified that
the promise of a minor to serve was not enforceable against her.

In the present issue, Stevie was also a minor and the contract was signed by her father without
consideration so the NDA is contractually invalid under section 10 of Sc Contract Act,12which
states that-“All agreements are contracts if they are created by the free consent of parties ca-
pable of contracting for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object. They are not as a
result of this expressly expressed to be void.”

[2.1] Whether the NDA was restraining the right of legal proceedings from plaintiff?

The council on the behalf of petitioner humbly submits that the writ petition is maintainable
under article 226 in the honourable HC. In the present case, Stevie, in her social media account,
shared her opinion as a citizen of what she felt to be practiced as a democracy, what she felt
essential in a free and fair election. As democracy is the strongest pillar of society which should
not endorse, influence people of the community with unfair means by any social media plat-
form.

As mentioned in section 28 of Sc Contract Act – “Agreements in restraint of legal proceed-

ings, void.-2[Every agreement, (a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from

12
The Indian Contract Act 1872, § 10.
XIV
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the
ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or
(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from
any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to
restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to that extent.]”13
Here, Stevie’s right was also infringed due to the clauses mentioned in NDA. It was restrain-
ing her legal rights. So, the NDA is contractually invalid.

3] THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT REQUIRED HER TO WAIVE HER

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION WHICH IS CONSTITU-
TIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE.
The counsel pleads in front of the Court of law that there has been a violation of the fundamen-
tal right of Art19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which states that "all citizens shall have the right
to freedom of speech and expression."14 The NDA required Stevie's right to be waived which
the law doesn't guarantee.

One of the essential components of a healthy democracy is the fundamental right of free speech
and expression. It enables its residents to engage fully and effectively in the country's social
and political processes. In fact, freedom of speech and expression broadens and deepens a per-
son's citizenship, elevating it beyond the level of fundamental existence and granting the indi-
vidual a political and social life.

Here, Stevie's right was violated due to the NDA. The points or clauses mentioned in the NDA
were restricting her fundamental right. It bound her not to do things that provide her the right
under the law.

[3.1] Whether the right to freedom of speech and expression was infringed?
The plaintiff's attorney claims that Stevie's fundamental right was violated when her right to
tell the truth was disputed. The goal of Stevie's storey was to inform citizens about the right
to information, which is a basic right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Stevie shared a

13
The Indian Contract Act 1872, § 28.
14
The Indian Constitution, art 19

XV
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

tale on Instagram on the perils of a partnership between a social media company and a politi-
cal party. Freedom of Speech, which was challenged in the Non-Disclosure Agreement, is the
ability or right to express one's thoughts without censure, restraint, or legal penalty. As a re-
sult, one's opinions can be represented verbally, in writing, in printing, in drawings, or in any
other way. This freedom includes the right to spread or publish other people's ideas. [Srinivas
v. State of Madras]15

In a leading case, Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras16, While quoting the US Supreme
Court's decision in Lovell v. City of Griffin, the apex court stated that the right to communicate
and express one's beliefs through word of mouth, writing, printing, photographs, or any other
means is guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a). It is the unfettered expression of one's convictions,
opinions, or ideas through any communication medium or visible representation, such as ges-
tures, signs, and so on. This independence is required for the democratic process to function
properly.

In S.P. Gupta v. Union of Schitt's Creek17, "No democratic government can survive without
accountability," the Court stated, "and the basic assumption of accountability is that citizens
should have information about how the government works." Furthermore, the Bench stated that
the concept of open government is a direct emanation of the right to know, which is implied in
the right to freedom of speech and expression provided by Schitt's Creek Constitution Article
19(1)(a). As a result, transparency in government operations must be the rule, with secrecy
justified only when the strictest need of public interest requires it.

A.K. Subbaiah V. B.N. Garudachar 18is a case which involves article 19(1) (a) of the Consti-
tution. A similar question arose in K.V Ramanaiah v. Special Public Prosecutor19. The Andhra
Pradesh HC has stated as: "It is thus untenable to accept the Learned Counsel for the revision
petitioners' contention that freedom of expression in Article 19(1) must be interpreted to entail
unlimited freedom to say or write whatever a person chooses recklessly and without regard to
any individual's honour and reputation." It is important to remember that the right granted by
the Constitution applies to all citizens equally. The right in one has a corresponding duty in the

15 Srinivas v. State of Madras, (1955) 2 SCR 907.

16 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, (1950) SC 124.
17
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCR 365.
18
A.K. Subbaiah v. B.N. Garudachar, (1987) 4 SCC 557.
19
K.V Ramanaiah v. Special Public Prosecutor, (1961) AP 190.
XVI
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

other, and when considered in that light, the right provided cannot but be qualified. The right
does, in fact, have its own natural limits. It is an inestimable privilege even if it is reasonably
limited. Without such constraints, it is doomed to be a blight on the Republic.

Here in the present case, Stevie’s fundamental right does not regard to any intentional harm
but merely an opinion in regard to the public interest which her right given to every citizen in
Republic of Schitt’s Creek.

[3.2] Whether the waiver of a fundamental right was permissible under the constitution?
The Fundamental Rights are enshrined in the Constitution not only for the benefit of individ-
uals, but also as a matter of public policy. Rights protected by public policy cannot be waived.
Furthermore, the Constitution requires the state to preserve fundamental rights. The leading
case on the Doctrine of Waiver to date is Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income
Tax Delhi & Rajasthan & Another20. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a person's
fundamental rights cannot be waived. Fundamental rights cannot be waived until the whole
Apex Court order is overturned. The Court cited the case of Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v.
State of Bombay21, in which the topic of whether a fundamental right might be waived was
raised The controversy revolved around the legal ramifications of a statute being deemed un-
constitutional. According to the Constitution, the State is prohibited from enacting any law that
violates the rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution.
Further in Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation 22 There can be no estoppel against
the Constitution, according to the court. According to the Preamble to the Constitution, India
is a democratic republic, and no citizen may trade away fundamental rights.
In Sakal Papers v. Union of India 23 The Supreme Court has ruled that even indirect impedi-
ments to the right to free speech and expression are prohibited. Every democratic state's ulti-
mate purpose is that "no idea should go unheard." So, in this scenario, the Republic of Schitt's
Creek, as a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, and Republic, should not violate funda-
mental rights such as the right to free speech and expression.

20
Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi & Rajasthan & Another, (1959) SC 149.
21
Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. State of Bombay, (1955) SC 123.
22
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1986) AIR 180.
23
Sakal Papers v. Union of India, (1962) SC 305.

XVII
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

The Superintendent, Central v. Ram Manohar Lohia24 was a case in which the HC concluded that a
reasonable restriction must have a reasonable relationship to the goal of the legislation and must not
go beyond it. Restrictions intended to be in the interest of public order that have no proximate rela-
tionship with it but can only be hypothetically related with it, thus, cannot be fair under Art. 19 (2) of
the Constitution. Ramji Lal Modi V.The State of U.P on 5 April25 and Chintaman Rao v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh26 are other cases where the question of reasonable restrictions on freedom of
speech and expression arouses.

[3.3] Whether the plaintiff's act resulted in the breach of any clause under NDA?
Truth is considered a defence against Defamation, but the defence would help only if the state-
ment were made 'for the public good.'
Also, Plaintiff was unaware of the contract since Stevie was a minor at the time the deal was
executed, and the NDA was signed by her legal guardian, i.e., her father. Stevie's storey does
not constitute a breach of contract because the contract is null and invalid.
There must be knowledge or reason to believe that the act will undoubtedly result in the defa-
mation of the person's character. It means that the person's mens rea, that is, the person's desire
to injure the reputation of the other person, is present. Stevie, as an intern at Instagram, has no
malevolent intentions toward the corporation and bears no liability for defamation.
There are exceptions provided in Section 499 first out of ten reads as Truth for Public Good:
which provides that if any information which is true and for the good of the public at large,
then that is not covered under the act of defamation27.

In Rekha v. Vinodan T.S.28, stated that in order to commit an offence under Section 499 ScPC,
there must be an allegation that the remarks uttered or published were made with the intent to
hurt, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, such person's
reputation. The ingredients are not specified in Ste-story. vie's

Things to keep in mind here are that the information must be true. Second, the information
should be of such a nature that it benefits the general population. It is also required to publicise

24
The Superintendent, Central ... v. Ram Manohar Lohia, (1960) SC 633.
25
Ramji Lal Modi vs The State of U.P, (1957) SCC 620.
26
Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1951) SCC 118.
27
The Indian Penal Code, § 499.
28
Rekha v. Vinodan T.S., (2009) 3 KHC 477.

XVIII
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

that information. Stevie met all of the requirements, thus her purpose was not to tarnish Insta-
book's reputation.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Honourable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

(1) That the present writ petition is maintainable.

(2) That the NDA entered into with Instabook contractually invalid
(3) That the NDA required Stevie to waive her right to freedom of speech and expression
which is constitutionally impermissible

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

XIX
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]
 6TH ZEAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall remain duty bound forever.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

XX
[MEMORIAL OF PLAINTIFF]