1

TEAM CODE :LF 48

LEGAL FOXES AND JEMTEC ,SOL IN ASSOCIATION WITH DLSA SOUTH PRESENTS 1ST VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHAWANI

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

WRIT NO ______/20____
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHAWANI

NARI RAKSHA SAMITI & ORS (PETITIONERS)

Vs.
UNION OF BHAWANI (RESPONDENTS)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF SUPREME
COURT OF BHAWANI

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No Particulars Page No.

1. Table of Abbreviations . 2

2. Index of Authorities . 3

3. Statement of Jurisdiction . 6

4. Summary of Facts . 7

5. Issues Raised . 8

6. Summary of Arguments . 9

7. Arguments Advanced . 11

8. Prayer 19

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.No ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

1. & AND

2. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

3. Annex. ANNEXURE

4. Anr. ANOTHER

5. Art. ARTICLE

6. Commr. COMMISSIONER

7. Corpn. CORPORATION

8. CA CRIMINAL APPEAL

9. Ed. EDITION
 3
10. Govt. GOVERNMENT

11. HC HIGH COURT

12. Hon’ble HONOURABLE

13. IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

14. No. NUMBER

15. Viz. NAMELY

16. Ors. OTHERS

17. ¶ PAGE

18. Pvt. Ltd. PRIVATE LIMITED

19. r/w READ WITH

20. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

21. SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER

22. Supp. SUPPLEMENT

23. SC SUPREME COURT

24. Sec SECTION

25. i.e THAT IS

26. U/S UNDER SECTION

27. UOI UNION OF INDIA

28. V./Vs. VERSUS

29. w.r.t WITH RESPECT TO

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

PARTICULARS
S.No

1. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW AND PRACTICES by VAKUL SHARMA

 4
2. JUVENILE JUSTICE IN INDIA by MALIK

3. INDIAN PENAL CODE by B.M. GANDHI

4. COMMENTARIES ON CONSTITUTION by DD BASU

STATUES REFERRED

S.No PARTICULARS

1. INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860

2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT , 2000

3. CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT ,2013

4. CONSTITUTION OF BHAWANI

5. JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015

6. POCSO ACT ,2012

JOURNALS REFERRED

S.No PARTICULARS

1. ALL INDIA REPORTER ( AIR )

WEBSITES REFERRED

S.No PARTICULARS

1. www.scconline.com

2. http://www.indiankanoon.org/

3. http://www.supremecourtonline.com/

4. http://www.advocatekhoj.com/

5. http://www.lawnotes.in/

6. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/
 5
7. https://www.casemine.com/

8. https://blog.ipleaders.in/

CASES REFERRED

S.No PARTICULARS

1. Justice K.S .Puttaswamy vs union of india (2017) 10 SCC 1

2. Ranjith D'Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra (1965) AIR 881

3. Sreeram sashena vs emperor AIR 1940

4. Sukantha Halder vs State of west bengal 1960 AIR 457, 1960 SCR (2)

5. Shreya Sighal vs Union of India (2013) 12 SCC 73

6. State of Uttar pradesh vs Aman Mittal 4 SEPTEMBER 2019

7. Sharat Babu Dig Umarthi vs Government(NCT Delhi) 2016 SCC 1464

8. Amulya Kumar Behera vs Nabhgaga Behara (1995) CriLJ

9. Raghu Bar Dayal vs Emperor AIR 1934 , 132 IND CASE 120

10. Brandenburg vs Ohio 395 US 444 SCT ,1827 ;231 ED

11. State of punjab vs Major Singh 1967 AIR 63 1966 SCR (2) 286 ACT

12. Valmiki Falerio vs Mrs. Lavinia Fernandes 2005 CriLJ 2498

13. Sewilakhya vs HM Jadurat 1986 CrLJ 736 ,1986 AIR ,266

 6
14. Palani ansari vs State of Tamil Nadu 56 IND 612

15. Vivek Goneka vs Y.R. Patil 2001(1) AID Cri 115,2000 CriLJ 2791,SC 87

16. Mukesh & Ors vs State for NCT Delhi (2017) 6 SCC 1 : (2017) 2 SCC
(Cri) 673]

17. Manjula Krippendorf vs State of NCT Delhi and Ors 146 (2008) DLT
566

18. Malan vs State of Maharashtra : (1958 ) 60 BOMLR 428,1960 CriLJ

1189.

19. Protima Dutta vs State Of West Bengal : 4th May, 2015

20. State of Maharashtra vs Pandurang Ranji 1966 AIR 424 1966 SCR (1)
702

21. Subash Chandra Bebark vs State of Orissa : 1974 CriLJ 217

22. Ashish Bhallawa vs Suresh Chawdry : 29th November, 2016

23. Union of India vs Ramesh Bisho :

24. Cohen vs California : 403 U.S. 15 - 91 S . Ct. 1780 ; 29 l. 2d 284 ; 1971

U.S. LEXIS 32.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioners have appeared before the Hon’ble Supreme court of Bhawani in response to the Writ petition filed by the .
The petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bhawani through the Writ petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Bhawani for the violation of the fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution of
Bhavani. The petitioners maintain that their violation of rights has taken place. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court has
jurisdiction in this Writ petition.
 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.Bhavani as we all know is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic” and emphasizes to secure and
promote fraternity and dignity of each and every individual of the country.
2.It is correct to say that the women have basic human rights like men and they are to be treated with equal respect
and dignity.
3. In the past few years women of Bhavani have picked up the courage to share their experiences of being
victims of sexual harassment through the #Metoo movement on various social media platforms which play a major role in
taking this to people .
4.Though considering stalking as an offence was a sluggish and gradual process, it was finally introduced in the
statute after the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013, as an offence since social media platforms had made it easy
for people to stalk women.
5.In the backdrop of all these there is this case of“Bro’s Locker-Room” in Indraprastha, the capital of Bhawani,
wherein members of the group of 16 to 18-year-old boys from posh schools of the Capital discussed methods of
sexual assault against minor girls and circulated their pictures without their consent and a series of screenshots
which were posted on social media platforms exposed the group’s chat on photogram and the list of members of
the group chat has also been released publicly.
6.The screenshots reveal chats between a group of school- going students from Class 11 and 12 sharing photos of
underage women and teenage girls, making others guess their age, followed by lurid discussions on their bodies
and objectification of their classmates and other women, some as young as 14.
7.The expletive-laden chats show the boys discussing having physical relationships with their classmates as well
as rating them on a scale of beauty vs. the size of their breasts and how the latter makes up for any supposed
deficiency in the former criteria. Another bunch of messages has the members sharing photos of teenage girls and
making others guess her age.The group was also allegedly used to share nude/morphed photographs of the women
and personal information of young girls and women.
8.As the leaked screenshots went viral and outrage over their behaviour poured out, many of the members of the
group have deactivated their social media accounts and have threatened to leak explicit photos and hack the
accounts of the women who have exposed the group chat. One of the posts states that, "Let's post nude photos of
all girls who posted stories about us. I have photos of some of them. Now they will know the result of their
shenanigans. They will shut their mouth. They want to be feminists na...they will not be able to show their face in
public".
9.An NGO named “NARI RAKSHA SAMITI”, filed a writ in the form of a PIL before the Indraprastha High
Court seeking for immediate arrest of all the members of the photogram group "Bro’s Locker-Room" and for
directions for investigation into the same through the S I T or CBI.
10.A letter was presented to the Chief Justice of Bhawani by a group of advocates including Adv. Badrinath
Bhatia to seek court's direction to appropriate authorities to register FIRs against the perpetrators and initiate
investigation in the said matter.
It was also informed that a new photogram group has come up titled 'Bro’s Locker Room 2.0', openly giving death
threats and using derogatory abusive language against women. The letter states that the said matter was also
brought up before the school authorities two months ago but no action was taken on it and so far no formal FIR
has been registered in the present matter.In view of the above horrific incident they requested that matter be taken
up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to address the multifarious issues arising therefrom which not only includes
privacy, safety and well-being of women, but also of sensitization and counselling of juveniles who are engaging
in such conduct."
11.The letter further states that photograms could cite privacy concerns being involved and use the same to delay
proceedings and believing that a timely investigation is the need of the hour, the Apex Court has been urged to
ensure the same by monitoring the probe. The incident, write the advocates, brings to light the ease with which
cyberbullying can be indulged in under the veil of anonymity, as obscene and objectionable material may be
shared comfortably and therefore requests the court to frame appropriate guidelines to curb cyber stalking and
 8
bullying and direct the Union Government to come up with an appropriate legislation for the safety of integrity
and dignity of women who fall prey to such un-noticeable act in the vacuum of appropriate Law.
12.Meanwhile, the Cyber Crime Cell of Indraprastha Police registered a case under the relevant sections of the
IPC and the IT Act and took cognizance of the matter. 22 members of that group were arrested and their names
were revealed to a news media named “ the frank owl” and later was also revealed by a newspaper named “the
mint”.
Since the news went viral people started to protest in front of the houses of the arrested juveniles and their
relations were attacked and they filed a writ petition against the two media for violating their Right To Privacy
and dignity and for disclosing the names of the juveniles contradictory to sec 74(3) of the JJ Act.
13.The petition goes on to argue that their arrest is illegal and violates their Right to Life and Personal Liberty. It
was also averred that the criminalization of such act is going overboard by forbidding speech that is within an
individual's (and maybe even a group's) realm of privacy and it is not at all justifiable to punish the group
members when it is so done by a non-member and none of the members intend to make their own conversations
(containing obscene and/or sexually explicit material) public. The petition also stated that no legal implications
follow if a person publishes on a public platform (electronic or otherwise) obscene and/or sexually explicit
conversations exchanged between two or more persons, privately & consensually and IT Act's criminalization of
certain kinds of private communications (in electronic form) is not justified as a reasonable restriction under
Article 19(2) of theConstitution in the interests of 'decency' and/or 'morality' and the right to privacy and the other
reasons which necessitated decriminalization of adult consensual homosexual acts, hold relevance in this present
case.
As all the three matters involved similar issues, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clubbed them and the Hon’ble Chief
Justice allotted the matter to a Bench for final hearing while exercising his powers under the Constitution of
Bhawani.

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: Whether the Petitions clubbed together are maintainable under the Article 32 of the Constitution of the
Bhawani.

ISSUE 2: Whether appropriate writ directing the respondents to get the Instagram group “Bro’s Locker Room”
issue investigated through SIT or CBI and Issue appropriate writ directing the Respondent to arrest all the
Instagram Group “Bros’s Locker Room” members immediately.

ISSUE 3: Whether the SC should take suo moto cognizance of the event and direct the respective police authorities
to file an FIR and furthermore frame appropriate guidelines to curb cyber stalking and bullying and direct the
Union Government to come up with an appropriate legislation for the safety of integrity and dignity of women who
fall prey to such un-noticeable act in the vacuum of appropriate Law.

ISSUE 4: Whether there has been a violation of sec.74 of the JJ Act,2015, right life and personal liberty , article
19(2) of the constitution and IT act
 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: 1.WHETHER PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 0F THE

CONSTITUTION OF BHAWANI?
The present petition is maintainable under article 32 of the Constitution as there is a violation of fundamental rights
enshrined under part 3 of the constitution . There is the violation of Article 19(2) and Article 21 of the constitution. That
the Petitioners is filling the writ petition in public interest. Petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and the
petition is not guided by self-gain or for gain of any other person/institution/body and that there is no motive other than of
public interest in filing the writ petition. . The petition, if allowed, would benefit the citizens of this country generally as
rule of law is essential for democracy and such brazen violation of law by the executive is to the detriment to citizens as a
whole. Since the issue is related to the offence committed against the girls and women by the group members of
Photogram group named as "Bro’s Locker Room'', which was created by school students mainly from the posh school of
the Capital.Hence the Petitioners herein filed this PILL. That Petitioners is a citizen of India and interested in safeguarding
the interest of public at large and ventilating the grievances of public regarding the issues of public importance.

ISSUE 2: Whether appropriate writ directing the respondents to get Photogram group “Bro’s Locker Room”
issue investigated through SIT or CBI and Issue appropriate writ directing the Respondent to arrest all the
Photogram Group “Bros’s Locker Room” members immediately.
The offense committed by these students through the photogram group is illegal and amounts to violation of various laws
of India.The obscene and objectionable pictures and vulgar comments by members of the group and once their comments
were came in light, so instead of being apologetic or fearful, they have openly threatened the girls who are calling them
out with dire consequences, which shows that these girls might face threat such as raped, gang-raped, tortured . Morphing
photos and sharing images of people’s private parts is a violation of Section 66 E and 354C of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 507 of IPC holds these students punishable for 2 years threatening a woman by any kind of anonymous
communication which is also intimidating. Further Section 509 of IPC gives punishment of 3 years imprisonment with
a fine for posting sexual pictures or remarks or videos including sexual insinuations on social media. Section 503 of
IPC states 2 years of imprisonment for threatening a woman by either alarming or malign her reputation and Section 499
of IPC

ISSUE 3:Whether the SC should take suo moto cognizance of the event and direct the respective police authorities
to file an FIR and furthermore frame appropriate guidelines to curb cyber stalking and bullying and direct the
Union Government to come up with an appropriate legislation for the safety of integrity and dignity of women who
fall prey to such un-noticeable act in the vacuum of appropriate Law.
Suo-Moto cognizance of the offence punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the
Information and Technology Act, 2008 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860
The seriousness and gravity of the illegal activities of a large group of boys discussing ways and means to rape and sexual
harass women, including minor and under-age girls via social media platforms.It has been reliably learnt that a group of
boys, allegedly , aged about 16-18 years of age, have created a group chat on a social media platform, under the name and
style of ‘Bros locker room’. The contents of the conversation and chats on the group, which have now emerged in public
domain, are extremely shocking. The content is related to obscene and lewd comments on the private body parts of the
 10
women, with further threats and offers to leak morphed nude pictures and circulate them. Private photographs of women
and girls were shared accompanied by foul and degrading comments in respect of the girls in the photos.

ISSUE 4Whether there has been a violation of sec.74 of the JJ Act,2015, right life and personal liberty , article
19(2) of the constitution and IT act
The government has clarified that identities of children who are victims of sexual offences or are accused/
convicted in criminal cases cannot be revealed even after they are dead.The development comes after the
National Commission for Protection of Child Rights had written to the Women and Child Development ministry
after complaints that police and media do not protect the identity of minors in many cases after which the views
of the law ministry was sought.The government has now made it clear that the provision of Section 74 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, he Indian Constitution provides for this freedom in
Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees right to freedom of speech and expression. It has been held that this right to
freedom also includes press freedom. It is an implied or deduced right. The economic and business aspects of
the press are regulated under Article 19(1)(g) which provides for freedom of profession , occupation, trade or
business which is restricted by Article 19(6) which includes provisions for public interest, professional and
technical qualifications and state nationalization- total or partial. Freedom granted under Article 19(1)(a) is
restricted by the limitations which are mentioned in Article 19(2) which provides that the guarantee of the
above right would not affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it is related to , or prevent the state
from making any law relating to libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter which offended
against decency or morality or which undermined the security of or which tended to overthrow the state.
 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 0F THE

CONSTITUTION OF BHAWANI?

The present petition is maintainable under article 32 of the Constitution as there is a violation of fundamental rights
enshrined under part 3 of the constitution . There is the violation of Article
19(2) and Article 21 of the constitution. That the Petitioners is filling the writ petition in public interest. Petitioner has no
personal interest in the litigation and the petition is not guided by self-gain or for gain of any other person/institution/body
and that there is no motive other than of public interest in filing the writ petition. . The petition, if allowed, would benefit
the citizens of this country generally as rule of law is essential for democracy and such brazen violation of law by the
executive is to the detriment to citizens as a whole. Since the issue is related to the offence committed against the girls and
women by the group members of Photogram group named as "Bro’s Locker Room'', which was created by school
students mainly from the posh school of the Capital.Hence the Petitioners herein filed this PIL. That Petitioners is a
citizen of India and interested in safeguarding the interest of public at large and ventilating the grievances of public
regarding the issues of public importance.

1.1 The petition has been filed in public interest litigation and hence it is maintainable.
To invoke the writ jurisdiction of the SC is not necessary that the fundamental right must have been actually infringed- a
threat to the same would be sufficient.Applying the doctrine of ‘reasonable apprehension’, this Hon’ble Court may
interfere directly in the said case. The most fundamental right of an individual is his right to life and personal liberty ; if
an action of the private body may put life at risk, the basis for the decision surely calls for the most “anxious scrutiny”
according to the principle of ‘anxious scrutiny . Thus the petition filed before this apex court is maintainable.
1.2 An Alternative Remedy NoBar
Where there is a well-founded allegation that fundamental right has been infringed, alternative remedy is no bar for
entertaining writ petition and granting relief. The mere existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot be per se
be a good and sufficient ground for throwing out a petition under Art. 32 if the existence of a fundamental right and a
breach, actual or threatened, of such right and is alleged is prima facie established on the petition. In spite of availability
of the alternative remedy, the court may exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least petitions where the petitioner seeks
enforcement of any of the fundamental rights . Thus, the petitioner humbly submits that writ petition is maintainable as
existence of alternative remedy is not a bar.

1.3 .The jurisdiction of the SC under Art. 32 of the Constitution extends to violation of the rights alleged in the
present matter

In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary1, 'Public Interest' is defined as:

“Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying
curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary
interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

1
Volume 4 (IV Edition).
 12
Public interest litigation was evolved with a view to render complete justice to the teenage girls whose nude or morphed
photos have been allegedly shared on the social media platform ,due the viral outrage of the screenshots the right to
privacy and the right to live with dignity of all the womens is been violated. In a plethora of cases, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that Courts are constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as
to direct the State to fulfil its constitutional promises.2

In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary3, the Court had considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 52 of the said
judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid down as follows:

"The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for
the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means the legal action
initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class
of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India4, it was held that when
the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the
disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability
of the petition.

In the instant case, the constitutional rights of minor girls are affected. Therefore, this clearly indicates that the public
interest litigation is maintainable as it is affecting the fundamental and human rights of the minor girls.

ISSUE 2: Whether appropriate writ directing the respondents to get Photogram group “Bro’s Locker Room”
issue investigated through SIT or CBI and Issue appropriate writ directing the Respondent to arrest all the
Photogram Group “Bros’s Locker Room” members immediately.
2.1 VIOLATIONS UNDER THE SECTIONS OF IT ACT 2000
The offense committed by these students through the photogram group is illegal and amounts to violation of various laws
of India.The obscene and objectionable pictures and vulgar comments by members of the group and once their comments
were came in light, so instead of being apologetic or fearful, they have openly threatened the girls who are calling them
out with dire consequences, which shows that these girls might face threat such as raped, gang-raped, tortured . Morphing
photos and sharing images of people’s private parts is a violation of Section 66 E and 354C of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 66(E) of the IT Act says,
“Whoever intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without
his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both”.
The relevant case laws are,
Jawaharlal Nehru University MMS scandal In a severe shock to the prestigious and renowned institute – Jawaharlal
Nehru University, a pornographic MMS clip was apparently made in the campus and transmitted outside the
university.Some media reports claimed that the two accused students initially tried to extort money from the girl in the
video but when they failed the culprits put the video out on mobile phones, on the internet and even sold it as a CD in the
blue film market.

2
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 , People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982 SCC (L&S) 262 ,
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1638.
3
(1992) 4 SCC 305
4
AIR 1963 SC 1638.
 13
Nagpur Congress leader’s son MMS scandal On January 05, 2012 Nagpur Police arrested two engineering students, one
of them a son of a Congress leader, for harassing a 16-year-old girl by circulating an MMS clip of their sexual acts.
According to the Nagpur (rural) police, the girl was in a relationship with Mithilesh Gajbhiye, 19, son of Yashodha
Dhanraj Gajbhiye, a zila parishad member and an influential Congress leader of Saoner region in Nagpur district.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 also casts an obligation of carrying out due diligence
on the intermediaries, while discharging their duties, to publish the rules and regulations, privacy policy and user
agreement for access or usage of the intermediary's computer resource by any person. These shall inform the users of the
computer resource to not host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information which is so
prohibited. The said Intermediary Guidelines were upheld by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal, subject to the same
limitations put on Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.

2.2VIOLATIONS UNDER SECTIONS OF IPC

Sikkim High Court: A Division Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ., while addressing a case
of offence under Section 354 A of Penal Code, 1860 for sexual harassment of a student by the teacher, held that,
‘“If any person uses criminal force upon any woman with the intention or knowledge that woman’s
modesty will be outraged he is to be punished”
It is further pertinent to note that the Section 507 of IPC holds these students punishable for 2 years threatening a
woman by any kind of anonymous communication which is also intimidating. Further Section 509 of IPC gives
punishment of 3 years imprisonment with a fine for posting sexual pictures or remarks or videos including sexual
insinuations on social media. Section 503 of IPC states 2 years of imprisonment for threatening a woman by either
alarming or malign her reputation and Section 499 of IPC states 2 years of imprisonment for defaming a woman online.
The action of these students shows the mindset of the young generation towards the girls and if it is not stopped at this
time and these people are not punished at this time, so it will lead to creating a lot of issues and increase of crime against
the girls and women in the future time. The entire issue needs to be investigated by the SIT or CBI as these students
belong to high profile families and there is an apprehension that the investigation or enquiry conducted by the local police
will be influenced and wrongdoers will never be arrested and punished. The crime has been conducted against the minor
girls and various group members , so these group members should be punished under the various sections of the
Protection of Children from sexualmoffence act 2012.

2.3 VIOLATIONS UNDER POCSO ACT

The use of a child for pornographic purposes – which covers photos of their sexual organs or their indecent/obscene
representation – is an offence under Section 14 of the POCSO Act. Even the storage of any pornographic material
involving a child with the intention of sharing it, is an offence under Section 15.The sharing of morphed and real images
of underage girls on the ‘BROs Locker Room’ group, would be a violation of these provisions.Rule 11 of the POCSO
Rules makes it categorically clear that an intermediary, in addition to reporting the said offence, shall also hand over the
necessary material including the source from which such material may have originated to the Special Juvenile Police Unit
or the local police, or the cyber-crime portal (cybercrime.gov.in).The report shall include the details of the device in which
such pornographic content was noticed and the suspected device from which such content was received, including the
platform on which the content was displayed.

ISSUE 3.Whether the SC should take suo moto cognizance of the event and direct the respective police authorities
to file an FIR and furthermore frame appropriate guidelines to curb cyber stalking and bullying and direct the
 14
Union Government to come up with an appropriate legislation for the safety of integrity and dignity of women who
fall prey to such un-noticeable act in the vacuum of appropriate Law.

Suo-Moto cognizance of the offence punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the
Information and Technology Act, 2008 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860
The seriousness and gravity of the illegal activities of a large group of boys discussing ways and means to rape and sexual
harass women, including minor and under-age girls via social media platforms
In 2015, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of a letter addressed to it by an NGO named Prajwala,
raising concerns about rampant circulation of videos depicting sexual violence like rape/gang rape/child pornography on
online platforms like Whatsapp, Google,Facebook etc.Thus, the Supreme Court impleaded Google, Facebook, WhatsApp,
Yahoo and Microsoft as parties and directed that a committee be constituted to advise the Court on the feasibility of
ensuring that videos depicting rape, gang rape and child pornography are not available for circulation.

3.1 THE IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

It has been reliably learnt that a group of boys, allegedly , aged about 16-18 years of age, have created a group chat on a
social media platform, under the name and style of ‘Bros locker room’. The contents of the conversation and chats on the
group, which have now emerged in public domain, are extremely shocking. The content is related to obscene and lewd
comments on the private body parts of the women, with further threats and offers to leak morphed nude pictures and
circulate them. Private photographs of women and girls were shared accompanied by foul and degrading comments in
respect of the girls in the photos. Furthermore, the conversation between the members went to the extent of making plans
to ‘gang rape’ the said minors. – “ These photographs have been taken without the consent of the depicted women/girls,
and shared amongst the groups. The comments which follow the photographs are extremely objectionable and of highly
pornographic nature. It shocks the conscience of any right-thinking member of society to see that school going boys are
indulging in border line pedophilia and misogynistic behavior and are using social media platforms to perpetrate crimes
against women and propagate rape culture. The entire chat has come within public domain as someone from within the
boys group itself, leaked screenshots of the conversation of the lewd chats and sent them to few girls who then posted the
same on their profiles, with intention to call out the illegal and abominable activities of these boys. Since then, it is
appalling to note that this incident is one of the top trending topic on qwitter, accompanied by the bois locker room It is
learnt from further content trending on the social media that members of the group have urged the co members to leave the
said group, so as to avoid being traced and make another one, which reportedly has been taken down by the social media
platform, however failing to act as a deterrent, as the perpetrators have gone ahead and reported to have made a new
photogram page ‘Bros Locker Room 2.0.’ The chats on the public domain have threatened the girls “ Lets post nude
photos of all girls who have posted stories about us .I have photos of some of them now they will know the results of
their she .Now they will know the result .and they will be taught lesson by leaking their nude photos. After the said news
came to be reported and shared on social media by various users, They really want to be feminists, they’ll know.
3.2THE ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER IPC
State of West Bengal & others v/s. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Others.

“The Supreme Court in the instant judgment held that the High Court can direct the CBI to investigate a cognizable
offense which is alleged to have taken place in the state, which is outside its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court also deals
with the issue of Federal structure doctrine, the concept of judicial review and much more.”

“Judicial review is the basic feature of the constitution. And under article 226, 32 the courts are merely discharging
their duty of judicial review and are neither upsetting any jurisdiction, nor overriding the doctrine of separation of
power.Article 226 is wide and plenary in nature as similar to article 32”

“The court can exercise its power of judicial review and can direct the CBI to take up the investigation within the
jurisdiction of the state”

They will not be able to even show their face .It is pertinent to state that as per Section 493 threatening a woman by any
kind of anonymous, makes it punishable with an imprisonment of 2 years. It is pertinent to state that as per the report
 15
published by the Mint , The police told that that they are waiting for parents to come forward with a formal complaint.
So, there’s no case registered as of now. The boys were body shaming the girls and used words like rating the girls on
scale of beauty vs the size of their breasts, Throughout the chat, girl students were shown hatred . However, on account of
inaction on part of the investigative authorities, no real punitive action came to be taken against the perpetrators of crimes.
The aforesaid activities of those involved in the group amount to commission of serious offences under various provisions
of the Prevention of Children from sexual offences Act, 2012, including Section 13 dealing with Use of Child for
pornographic purpose; Section 15 dealing with Punishment for storage of pornographic material involving child; as well
as Sections 354 (A)(1)(iv), 499, 503, 507and 509 of the IPC, and S. 66 (E) of the Information and Technology Act,
2008 [Punishment for violation of privacy]. It is necessary that urgent action be taken by the concerned police authorities
and register FIR’s against the perpetrators of the said offences. It is submitted that while virtual platforms and technology
have been a boon for enabling people to learn, share, and grow, few handful rogues cannot be permitted to dilute the
credibility and utility of the social media platforms, to perpetuate and propagate their vile and abusive behavior. The
mediums which were meant to lend voices even to the voiceless, cannot be permitted to offer its platform as a breeding
ground for misogyny and extend all the offline sexism and objectification that prevails, online. Under the POCSO Act, the
social media platforms are under obligation to report and provide information to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the
local police in regard to such content being posted and shared in its platform and the social media platform cannot stop at
simply taking down the objectionable content. These unprecedented ways of violence against women online need to be
nipped immediately as something simple as any chat have all the propensity to translate into sexual violence of great
magnitude in no time at all. Experience has shown that actions such as victim blaming, locker room banter, rape jokes, etc.
provides an impetus to rape, molestation and in some cases murder. If this incident is not taken seriously then such
normalization is likely to transform into degradation and explicit violence. . The aforesaid unfortunate incident is
diabolical in nature and invites abhorrence of the collective, it shocks the judicial conscience and impels it to react
keeping in view the collective conscience, cry of the community for justice and the intense indignation the manner in
which the crime is committed. Hence, justice demands that there needs to be punishment meted out which befits the
crime, so that it reflects public abhorrence of the crime and that too at the earliest point of time, in order to ensure that not
only should the justice be done but it must also be seen to be done. The present petition is filed by the petitioners, seeking
suo moto cognizance, since as members of the society and especially as members of the legal fraternity, we are under an
obligation not to remain silent spectators in matters of violent crime against women and leave it to the victims alone to
fight a lonely battle, in face of such open threats issued to them on the same social media platform, which have further
increased their vulnerability and left them exposed to further abuse.

ISSUE 4: Whether there has been a violation of sec.74 of the JJ Act,2015, right life and personal liberty , article
19(2) of the constitution.
4.1 VIOLATION OF SECTION 74 OF JJ ACT
The government has clarified that identities of children who are victims of sexual offences or are accused/ convicted in
criminal cases cannot be revealed even after they are dead.The development comes after the National Commission for
Protection of Child Rights had written to the Women and Child Development ministry after complaints that police and
media do not protect the identity of minors in many cases after which the views of the law ministry was sought.The
government has now made it clear that the provision of Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, which prohibits disclosure of identify of children, is also applicable in case of disclosure of identify
of a deceased minor.
Section 74 of the JJ act says that
“no report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual media or other forms of communication regarding any
inquiry or investigation or judicial procedure, shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which
may lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or
witness of a crime.”
There can, however, be an exception if a Board or a Committee, specially constituted for the purpose allows that such a
disclosure can be made.“This is an important clarification made by the government as we have seen in many cases that
 16
glaring mistakes are made by police and media houses in many cases when it comes to children involved in sensitive ca.
“It is now clear that their reputation is to be protected even if they are dead.The act also says that the violation of the
provision can lead to imprisonment of up to six months or fine which may of up to Rs 2 lakh or both.
4.2VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(2)
Freedom of expression has always been emphasized as an essential basis for the democratic functioning of a society. The
reasons for this are: the right of an individual to self-fulfillment, which right requires the communication of thought; the
importance of constantly attempting to attaint he truth, an attempt which is frustrated if information is suppressed or
comment blocked; the inherent democratic right to participate in decision-making, which obviously implies the freedom to
obtain, communicate and discuss information,; and the practical importance of maintaining the precarious balance
between healthy cleavage and the necessary consensus; "coercion of expression is likely to be ineffective (and)….
Conceals the real problems confronting a society… It is likely to result in neglect of the grievances which are the actual
basis of the unrest and thus prevent their correction" Freedom of press has always been a cherished right in all
democracies .
In words of Blackstone :
“The liberty of press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state …the only plausible argument heretofore used for
restraining the just freedom of the press , “that it was necessary to prevent the daily abuse of it “, will entirely loose its
force , when its shown …that the press cannot be abused to any bad purpose without incurring a suitable punishment :
whereas it never can be used to any good one, when under the control of an inspector”.

The Indian Constitution provides for this freedom in Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees kright to freedom of speech and
expression. It has been held that this right to freedom also includes press freedom. It is an implied or deduced right. The
economic and business aspects of the press are regulated under Article 19(1)(g) which provides for freedom of profession
, occupation, trade or business which is restricted by Article 19(6) which includes provisions for public interest,
professional and technical qualifications and state nationalization- total or partial. Freedom granted under Article 19(1)(a)
is restricted by the limitations which are mentioned in Article 19(2) which provides that the guarantee of the above right
would not affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it is related to , or prevent the state from making any law
relating to libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter which offended against decency or morality or
which undermined the security of or which tended to overthrow the state.
Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the state from making any
law , in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in
the interest of the sovereignty and integrity if India, the security of the state , friendly relations with foreign states ,public
order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."
Although Article 19 (1)(a) is limited by the above clause the courts have adopted a liberal view while deciding questions
pertaining to press freedom of constitutional validity of an impugned statute. The superior courts discharged the role of
sentinel on the 'qui vive'.
The expression means freedom from interference from authority which would have the effect of interference with the
content and circulation of newspapers . There cannot be any interference with that freedom in the name of public interest.
The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic
electorate cannot make responsible judgments. Freedom of press is a heart of social and political intercourse, It is the
primary duty of Courts to uphold the freedom of press and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere
with it contrary to the constitutional mandate."
The freedom of speech and expression under Art 19(1)(a) is a concept with diverse facets , both with regard to the content
of the speech and expression and in the means through which communication takes place. It is also a dynamic concept that
has evolved with time and advances in technology. Art 19 (1)(a) covers the right to express oneself by word of mouth,
writing , printing, picture or in any other manner. It includes the freedom of communication and the and the right to
propagate or publish one’s views. The communication of ideas may be through any medium , newspaper, magazine or
movie [6], including the electronic and audiovisual media. The right to free speech and expression includes the right not
only to publish but also to circulate information and opinion. Without the right to circulate , the right to free speech and
expression would have little meaning . the freedom of circulation has been held to be as essential as the freedom of
publication[7].
 17
Freedom of press consists of a number of rights and one such right is freedom of publication. Publication means
dis­semination and circulation. Liberty of circulation is as essen­tial to that freedom as the liberty of publication. Indeed
with­out circulation the publication would be of little value. The newspapers should have the freedom to publish any
number of pages or to circulate it to any number of persons. Right to circulation is said to be the facet of Freedom of
Speech which is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of our country under Art 19(1)(a) of our
Constitution. Attempts were made to regulate the dissemination and circulation of newspapers by the government through
legislative or executive measures. There are many case laws that bear testimony to these attempts. In Ramesh Thapar the
question was the scope of the freedom of circulation under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Con­stitution. The Supreme Court held
that the expression "public safety" ordinarily means security of the public or freedom from danger. If understood in that
sense, then anything which affects public health may be taken to be covered by the expression pub­lic safety. The restraint
on speech would not be justified in the interest of public order or public safety as they are too wide to be covered by the
narrower expression. The decision merely stated that the government was not authorized to prevent entry of matter in the
interest of public safety or in the interest of public order. The decision positively laid down that the State can impose
res­trictions on a newspaper only when it is made with a view to combat and prevent activities which may undermine or
over­throw it. In Sakal Papers v. Union Of India [8] the Supreme Court held that the state could not make laws which
directly affected the circulation of a newspaper for that would amount to a violation of freedom of speech. The right under
Art 19(1)(a) extends not only to the matter which the citizen is entitled to circulate but also to the volume of circulation.
This case arouse out of a challenge to the newsprint policy of the government which restricted the number of pages a
newspaper was entitled to print. There are many judicial decisions that has laid down that newspapers should be left free
to determine their pages and their circulation. the expression “Freedom of speech and expression” though not expressly
used in Art 19 was comprehended under Art 19(1)(a) and meant freedom from interference with the content and the
circulation of newspaper[9]” ‘Freedom of Speech and expression’ must be broadly construed to include the freedom to
circulate ones own views by word of mouth or in writing or through audio visual media . this includes the right to
propagate ones view through the print or other media.

Freedom of Press does not include :

# Immunity from general laws of the land , which are applicable to the Press, without being discriminatory. The position
would be different if the burden is imposed on the Press is excessive [16] and directly endangers its existence or
circulation.

# The press is not immune from legislations to control the economic activities of the press against monopolies / unfair
trade practices. The press is not immune from such legislation , because the press has a business aspect , which must be
subject to reasonable restrictions imposed under Art 19(6) of our Constitution . But if the legislation does not control
monopolies / unfair trade practices , it must be struck down as an unreasonable restriction under Art 19(2).

# In general law, the criminal law does not acknowledge any special immunity or protection in favor of the press.

# Immunity from the ordinary forms of taxation for the support of the government , without being especially directed
against the press. The press cannot be singled out for imposing prohibitive burdens on its right to start a newspaper or to
circulate it so that it may be driven to seek Government aid in order to survive.

# In short , the State is not debarred from exercising any of its legitimate powers , as the effect of such legislation does not
directly affect the circulation / other aspects of Freedom of Press.

4.3VIOLATION TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY

RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY
 18
Right to live with dignity is the roadmap to several other rights that have been recognised under Article 21. It was the first
right under Article 21. It was the first right under Article 21 which received supreme consideration and the Supreme Court
held for the first time that any law that deprives a person of his/her life or personal liberty must pass the test of
reasonability and the law should be just and fair and must provide for a procedure. The law must satisfy the requirements
of Article 14, Article 19 read with Article 21. The Right to live with dignity includes adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter
over the head with facilities of reading, writing and to express one self. (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India­­: AIR 1978 SC
597, Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi: AIR 1981 SC 746and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India: AIR
1984 SC 802).

“Right to livelihood”

Right to life includes right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of living. It has been held by the
Supreme Court that imposition of Tehbazari by the Municipal Corporation is in violation of rights of hawkers to carry on
the business fetching them livelihood.(Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation: AIR 1986 SC 180 and Sodan
Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation: 1989 4 SCC 155).
 19

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, the cases cited, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme court of Bhavani that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge
and declare that:
1. Petitions clubbed together are maintainable under the Article 32 of the Constitution of the Bhawani.
2. The issue must be investigated through SIT or CBI and Issue appropriate writ directing the Respondent to arrest
all the Photogram Group “Bros’s Locker Room” members immediately.
3. The Hon’ble court should take suo moto cognizance of the event and direct the respective police authorities to file
an FIR and furthermore frame appropriate guidelines to curb cyber stalking and bullying and direct the Union
Government to come up with an appropriate legislation for the safety of integrity and dignity of women who fall
prey to such un-noticeable act in the vacuum of appropriate Law.
4. There has been a violation of Sec.74 of the JJ Act,2015, Right to life and personal liberty , Article 19(2) of the
constitution.

According to what is just and good, it is an appeal of the counsel to the Hon’ble Court to adjudge the above
prayers, and grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant and is deemed fit in the
interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted
For the act of Kindness, the Petitioner shall be Duty Bound Forever