P27 With Comments

TEAMCODE: M-
--2 CNLU CYBER LAW NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

ND
108--
TEAMCODE: P27
3RD AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2ND CNLU CYBER LAW NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INTIA

W.P. No.__ / 2018
W.P. No.__ / 2022

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN …………..Petitioner 1
versus
j UNION OF INDIA ..………….Respondent
MR. HARRY & MS. HERMOINE ………..Petitioner

W.P. No.__/ 2018
versus
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD …………..Petitioner 2
versus
UNION OF INTIA .………….Respondent
UNION OF INDIA ...…………Respondent
As Submitted to the Chief Justice & Other Companion Judges of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana.
-WRITTENSUBMISSIONS
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSON
ONBEHALF
BEHALFOF
OFTHE
THEPETITIONERS-
PETITIONER-
--2ND CNLU CYBER LAW NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023--
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... I
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... VII
ISSUES RAISED .................................................................................................................. VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................IX
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 1
1. WHETHER THE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32 ARE MAINTAINABLE ............ 1
1.1 The Power Of Judicial Review ................................................................................ 1
1.2 No Alternate Remedy is available ........................................................................... 2
1.3 There is a Violation Of Fundamental Rights in the present case. ........................... 3
1.4 The Petitioners Have a Locus Standi. ...................................................................... 5
2. WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS MADE UNDER IT RULES AND

TELECOMMUNICATION ACT, ARE ULTRA VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
INTIA. .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 The impugned provisions violate the Right to Privacy under Article 19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India as they fail to meet the test of proportionality ............................ 6
2.2 The impugned provisions vest broad, unguided discretionary powers in the
administrative authority .................................................................................................... 11
3. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE IT RULES AND

TELECOMMUNICATION ACT ARE IN COMMENSURATION WITH THE
GOVERNMENT OF INITIA’S POLICY ON TELECOMMUNICATION AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY...................................................................................... 12
3.1 That the Information Technology Rules are in violation of National Cyber
Security Policy of Government of Intia. ........................................................................... 12
Page | I
--WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER--
3.2 That The Information Technology Rules are in violation of National Digital
Communications Policy of Government of Intia. ............................................................. 14
3.3 That The Telecommunications Act is in violation of The National Telecom Policy
of the Government of Intia. .............................................................................................. 15
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................... XIII
Page | II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
• SCC – Supreme Court Case.

• Hon’ble – Honourable
• vs. – Versus.
• Art. - Article
• AIR – All India Report.
• SC – Supreme Court.
• Cal. – Calcutta.
• SCR – Supreme Court Report.
• Crl. – Criminal.
• M.C. – Miscellaneous.
• Comm. – Committee.
• Art- Article.
• Ors. – Others.
• Anr. – Another.
• The Act – Telecommunications Act
• IT Rules – Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules, 2022
• OTT – Over-the-top
• DoT – Department of Telecommunication
• Sec.- Section
• i.e.- That Is
• Govt. – Government
Page | III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Andhra industrial works v. Chief Controller, I&E, (1974) 2 SCC 348 (India). 3
Bodhisattwa v. Subha Chakroborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490 (India). 1
K.K. Kouchunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725 (India). 2
K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India). 3, 6, 7, 9, 11
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353
(India). 7
Mohini v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666 (India). 2
Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda, (2002) 7 SCC 564 (India). 1
People's Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568 (India). 9
R.R. Verma v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 402 (India). 11
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1 (India) 1
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 (India). 2
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 (India). 4, 11
Sudhir Chandra v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (1984) 3 SCC 369 (India). 11
Statutes
Aadhar Act, 2016, § 33, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India) ......................................... 10
Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, § 419 (A), Acts of Parliament, 1951 (India). .......................... 10
Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, S 138.................................................................................... 10
IT Act,2000, § 69, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India). ............................................. 9, 11
Telegraph Act, 1885, No. 1, Acts of Imperial legislative Council, 1885 (India). ..................... 9
The Intelligence Services Oversight Act, 1994 ....................................................................... 10
The Regulations of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related
Information Act, 2000 .......................................................................................................... 10
Constitutional Provisions
INDIA CONST. art 32. .................................................................................................................. 1

India Const. art. 14, 19, 21 ..................................................................................................... 6, 9
Page | IV
India Const. art. 14. .................................................................................................................... 6

India Const. art. 19 and 21. ........................................................................................................ 6
India Const. art. 19. .................................................................................................................... 9
Other Authorities
Record ¶5 ................................................................................................................................... 6
Treatises
Frank La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right
to freedom of opinion and expression UNHRC 17/27, 49-50 (2011) .................................... 7
Committes
Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship of Justice B.N. Srikrishna, A Free and Fair
Digital Economy Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians, 1, 158 (2018) ........................... 6
Policies
National Cyber Security Policy, Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of

India (2013) .......................................................................................................................... 12
National Digital Communication Policy, Ministry of Information and Technology,
Government of India (2018) ................................................................................................. 12
National Telecom Policy, Department of Telecom, Government of India (2012). ................. 12
Page | V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Intia clubbed the Writ Petitions of Ms. Hermoine (IT Rules)
and Mr Harry (The Act) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India pursuant to its
powers under Article 139-A of the Constitution of Intia.
Article 139-A of the Constitution of Intia—
(1) “Where cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending
before the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts
and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or on an application made by the
Attorney-General of India or by a party to any such case that such questions are substantial
questions of general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases pending
before the High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself….”
Read with
Article 32 of the Constitution of India—
“Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part……”
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Page | VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
The Republic of Intia is an extremely diverse country and has an enormous population. Intia’s
Ministry of Technology in exercise of the powers conferred under the appropriate sections of
its Information Technology Act, enabled the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines
and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022(“IT Rules”) in May 2022.The new IT Rules, were
responded with a rebuttal from various intermediaries and social activists. While the IT Rules
debate was ongoing, the State of Intia enacted their new Telecommunications Act.
ENCROCHMENT TO THE POLICY OF INTERMEDIARIES
The intermediaries vociferously rebutted various provisions of the IT Rules and the
Telecommunication Act. One of the Intermediary, Whereapp contended that the new Rules are
in contradiction to their policy of E2E Encryption as it instructs them to help in identification
of ‘first originator’ of information after receiving ‘appropriate orders’. Whereapp also released
an official statement, clearly highlighting that adherence to the mandate under IT Rules will
lead to a compromise in people’s right to free speech and privacy.
Furthermore, Section 24 (2) of the new Telecommunication Act contains that in the occurrence
of public emergency or in the interest of public safety, the Central Government or an officer
employed by it may instruct the direct that a message or a class of messages transmitted for
received by any telecommunication services shall not be transmitted or shall be intercepted or
detained or disclosed.
PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN PURSUANCE OF

BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Ms Hermoine, a social activist approached the Supreme Court of Intia, citing various provisions
of the IT Rules “problematic for people’s privacy. Mr Harry, Founder of Humara Internet
Foundation, working towards protecting digital rights of the citizens, filed a petition before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Intia citing Section 24(2) of The Act as unconstitutional in its
present form. Since Ms Hermoine’s petition was sub judice, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of
the view that both the petitions involved similar set of question of facts and question of laws
and therefore clubbed the petitions for a combined hearing on January 27, 2023.
Page | VII
ISSUES RAISED
THE PETITIONERS VERY RESPECTFULLY PUT FORTH TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT, THE
FOLLOWING QUERIES:
[ISSUE 1]
WHETHER THE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32 ARE MAINTAINABLE.
[ISSUE 2]
WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS MADE UNDER IT RULES AND
TELECOMMUNICATION ACT, ARE ULTRA VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION
OF INTIA.
[ISSUE 3]
WHETHER THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE IT RULES AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
Page | VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32 ARE MAINTAINABLE
The Counsel humbly submits to the Court that the suit filed by the Petitioners under Article 32
of The Constitution, challenging new IT rules and the new telecommunication act possess a
threat of infringement of fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of Intia.
Furthermore, the petitioners also have Locus Standi in the present matter.

TELECOMMUNICATION ACT, ARE ULTRA VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
INTIA.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Section 24 (2) the Act, violate article 14,
19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and should be struck down as Firstly, the impugned
provisions violate the Right to Privacy under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as
they fail to meet the four-pronged test of proportionality. [2.1]. Secondly, the impugned
provisions violate article 14 of the Constitution as they vest broad, unguided discretionary
powers in the administrative authority. [2.2]

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
It is humbly submitted that it is humbly submitted before this honourable supreme court that
the IT rules and the Telecommunication Act, both of them are not commensuration with the
government policy on Information technology and telecommunications mainly because of the
privacy breach of the consumer. For this issue the following policies by the government of Intia
has been used.
• National Telecom Policy, 2012
• National digital communication policy, 2018
• National cyber security policy, 2013
The argument for this issue is three legged. First leg deals with non-compliance with national
cyber security policy, second deals with non-compliance with national digital communications
policy and the third one deals with non-compliance with national telecom policy.
Page | IX
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32 ARE MAINTAINABLE
1. It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the petitions under article 321 are maintainable
because first [1.1] The Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review, second [1.2] There
is no alternate remedy available, third [1.3] There is violation of Fundamental rights and
fourth [1.4] The petitioners have Locus Standi.
1.1 THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (4TH)
2. It is humbly submitted before this court that the power of judicial review is conferred upon
the Supreme through virtue of article 322.
3. In the words of the Supreme Court in the case of Bodhisattwa v. Subha Chakroborty3,
“The jurisdiction enjoyed by this Court under Article 32 is very wide as this court, while
conceding a petition for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights to declaring an
Act to be ultra vires or beyond the competence of the legislature.”
4. In Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda case of 20024, the Supreme Court had said that the
courts exercising the power of judicial review both under articles 226, 32 and 136 of the
constitution act as a sentinel on the qui vive.
5. In facts of the present case the Government of Intia came out with IT rules and
Telecommunications act both of them have a part of controversy. IT rules for its provision
regarding ordering the intermediaries to reveal the name of first originators of the message
under appropriate orders and Telecommunication act for its provision given in section
24(2).
6. Section 24(2) of Telecommunications act states-
“On the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of the public safety, the Central
Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorized in this behalf by the
Central or a State Government, may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so, in
the interest of the sovereignty, integrity or security of India, friendly relations with foreign
states, public order, or preventing incitement to an offence, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, by order:
1
INDIA CONST. art 32.
2
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1 (India).
3
Bodhisattwa v. Subha Chakroborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490 (India).
4
Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda, (2002) 7 SCC 564 (India).
Page | 1
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER-
(a) direct that any message or class of messages, to or from any person or class of persons,
or relating to any particular subject, brought for transmission by, or transmitted or received
by any telecommunication services or telecommunication network, shall not be transmitted,
or shall be intercepted or detained or disclosed to the officer mentioned in such order; or
(b) direct that communications or class of communications to or from any person or class of
persons, or relating to any particular subject, transmitted or received by any
telecommunication network shall be suspended.”
7. This essentially means that the communication of the message can be intercepted or it can
be stopped without customer’s consent.
8. It is humbly submitted that due the controversial nature of these acts, it becomes the need
of the hour for the court to exercise its power of judicial review in this case as from the
facts it becomes very clear that Internet is used by the majority of people of Intia so it is
implied that this controversy concerns a lot of people.
9. Therefore, it humbly submitted before this honourable court that the present matter required
judicial review and hence because of this the petition before this honourable supreme court
is maintainable.
1.2 NO ALTERNATE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE (3RD)
10. It is humbly submitted before this court that there is no alternate remedy available to the
petitioners at hand apart from approaching the honourable supreme court of Intia.
11. “Appealing before the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the preservation of fundamental
rights is in itself a fundamental right”, this was laid down in Mohini v. State of Karnataka5
12. “It is unnecessary to first approach the High Court and exhaust the remedy under Article
226 before approaching the Supreme Court”, this was held down in Romesh
Thapar v. State of Madras6
13. It was held in K.K. Kouchunni v. State of Madras7 that “the mere existence of an adequate
alternative legal remedy cannot be per se be a good and sufficient ground for dismissing a
petition under Article 32”
5
Mohini v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666 (India).
6
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 (India).
7
K.K. Kouchunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725 (India).
Page | 2
14. In facts of the present case the Government of Intia came out with IT rules and
Telecommunications act, both of them are part of a controversy. IT rules for its provision
regarding ordering the intermediaries to reveal the name of first originators of the message
under appropriate orders and Telecommunication act for its provision given in section
24(2).
15. Section 24(2) essentially means that the communication of the message can be intercepted
or it can be stopped without customer’s consent.
16. It is humbly submitted that due the controversial nature of these acts, it became need of
the hour for petitioners to reach before this honourable supreme court of Intia as from the
facts it becomes very clear that Internet is used by the majority of people of Intia so it is
implied that this controversy concerns a lot of people and hence lives of a lot of people
along with their right are hanging on the line.
17. It humbly submitted that in the light of the facts presented and by applying the law
mentioned in the above-mentioned cases makes it very evident that the petitioner did not
have any other substantial remedy apart from appealing to the supreme court because of
the grave and very concerning nature of the issue concerning a majority of the population
of the republic of Intia.
18. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this honourable supreme court that current petition
is maintainable in the absence of another and effective remedy.
1.3 THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. (1ST)
19. It is humbly submitted before the honourable supreme court of Intia that the in present case
the action of the government of bringing in IT rules and the Telecommunication act was
violative of fundamental rights of citizens of Intia.
20. “It is most humbly submitted by the petitioners that even when there is a threat of violation
of fundamental rights, the petitioner is not required to wait until the actual infringement
occurs. The basic rights must be infringed or imminently threatened: the breach might be
current or impending, and it can occur in a number of ways, making a full categorization
impossible” this was laid down in - Andhra industrial works v. Chief Controller,
I&E, (1974)8.
21. Right to privacy was recognised in the case of - Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union
Of India on 26 September, 20189 , Wherein, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual's
8
Andhra industrial works v. Chief Controller, I&E, (1974) 2 SCC 348 (India).
9
K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
Page | 3
privacy is an essential aspect of dignity. Dignity has intrinsic as well as instrumental value.
Human dignity, as an intrinsic value, is an entitlement or a constitutionally protected
interest in and of itself.
22. It is humbly submitted before the court that an ambiguous restriction on the right to freedom
of speech was on the Internet was struck down in the case of - Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on
24 March, 201510 which held that-
23. “Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being
violative of Article 19(1) (a) and not saved under Article 19(2).The version of the rule, in
our opinion, consists in this that it establishes a restriction on every Type of demonstration
be the same however genuine and however ineffectual of causing an infringement of public
tranquillity and does not constrain itself to those aspects of demonstrations which could
lead to that result.”
24. Similarly, in the case of S. Khushboo v Kanniammal and Anr11, the Supreme Court stated
that “freedom of expression is essential, even if it is not absolute because we must accept
unpopular views”
25. In the present case the provisions of the new The new Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 (“IT Rules”)”12 and
section 24(2) of the new Telecommunication act13 breaches the right to privacy of users
because IT rules has provisions to get the names of first originator of the messages from
the intermediaries without the consent of first originator and The telecommunication act
has provision which could lead to stopping or interception of the communication between
users without their consent in case of public emergency or any matter concerning public
safety. These could result in Privacy breach of the Customer.
26. It is further submitted that The Act contains provisions that are similar to section 66A of
the IT Act 2000, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in the preceding case as
because of the above-mentioned provision the users and customers would be wary of
putting up their authentic original thoughts on the social media platform. As a result, the
preceding case serves as a kind of precedent in the current case, and some provisions of the
Act may be deemed unconstitutional.
10
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 (India).
11
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 (India).
12
Hereinafter referred as IT Rules
13
Hereinafter referred as The Act
Page | 4
27. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the action of
government is violative of fundamental rights of citizens of Intia and hence the petition
brought before this court should be maintainable.
1.4 THE PETITIONERS HAVE A LOCUS STANDI. (2ND)
28. It is humbly submitted before the court that the petitioners have Locus Standi in the present
matter as they are acting in a public-spirited manner and their fundamental rights also faces
threat of being violated.
29. “A writ petition under Article 32 by a public-spirited person on behalf of a section of the
society which complains of violation of fundamental rights is maintainable” held in the
case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984)14
30. “Locus Standi means the right to bring an action, to be heard in court, or to address the
court on a matter before it”. Held in case of S.P. Gupta v. President of India, 1981.
31. The principle was enunciated by the court as early as 1982 in S.P. Gupta v. Union of
India15, where BHAGWATI, J, stated:
“Any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial
redress for public injury from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of
the constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of
such constitutional or legal provision”.
32. In the present case Mr. Harry and Ms. Hermoine, both of them has filed the petition before
this court in the interest of public in a public-spirited manner. All they were concerned
about was that how would this affect the Public and majority of the people of the republic
of Intia who are the user of internet and would be affected by the provisions of IT rules and
Telecommunications act.
33. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this honourable supreme court that the petition
presented before this court has a locus standi and hence is maintainable before the
honourable supreme court of Intia.
14
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984)14 3 SCC 161 (India).
15
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 (India).
Page | 5

TELECOMMUNICATION ACT, ARE ULTRA VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION
OF INTIA.
34. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Section 24 (2) the Act16, violate article
14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India17 and should be struck down as Firstly, the
impugned provisions violate the Right to Privacy under Article 19 and 2118 of the
Constitution of India as they fail to meet the four-pronged test of
proportionality. [2.1]. Secondly, the impugned provisions violate article 1419 of the
Constitution as they vest broad, unguided discretionary powers in the administrative
authority. [2.2]
2.1 THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE
19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AS THEY FAIL TO MEET THE TEST OF
PROPORTIONALITY
35. It is humbly contended before this Hon'ble Court that Section 24 (2) of the Act and IT
rules, violate the Right to Privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution as they
are not reasonable restrictions. The impugned provisions are not reasonable restrictions to
the right to Privacy as they fail to meet the muster of proportionality laid down by this
Hon'ble Court in K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India20 as firstly, the provisions lack the
safeguard of legitimate purpose and necessity [2.1.1] Secondly, that the impugned
provisions are disproportionate. [2.1.2] lastly, there is a lack of adequate procedural
safeguards [2.1.3].
2.1.1 THE PROVISIONS LACK THE SAFEGUARD OF LEGITIMATE PURPOSE AND NECESSITY
36. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that it is quintessential that an action
warranting the reasonable restriction of the Fundamental Right to Privacy must be
necessary to achieve a legitimate state aim.21 The principle of necessity was also recognised
by the Justice Srikrishna Committee.22
16
Record ¶5
17
India Const. art. 14, 19, 21.
18
India Const. art. 19 and 21.
19
India Const. art. 14.
20
K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India)
21
Id.
22
Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship of Justice B.N. Srikrishna, A Free and Fair Digital Economy
Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians, 1, 158 (2018)
http://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Data_Protection_Committee_Report.pdf
Page | 6
37. The counsel accepts that there is a need of a law which allows for the legal interception and
blocking of the information to protect a vast country like Incia from external as well as
internal armed rebellion or which disturbs public order or is threat to national security.
Therefore, counsel humbly submits to the first requirement of the test.
2.1.2 THAT THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS ARE DISPROPORTIONATE AND DO NOT PASS THE
MUSTER OF PROPORTIONALITY
38. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that for a restriction on the fundamental
right to privacy to be reasonable must inter-alia, be the least intrusive measure, proportional
to the restriction and the privacy of an individual.23 The proportionality principle requires
balancing of the object sough to be achieved by the restriction with the harm suffered by
the individual.24
39. The United Nations considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the
justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law,
to be disproportionate and thus a violation of Article 19, Paragraph 3, of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also calls upon all States to ensure that Internet
access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest25
40. The interception of messages and blocking of the internet cause more harm than good, in
this advance society where everything utilizes internet in one way or another. Cheap access
to internet has enabled the citizens of Intia [across all ages] to use and spend a major chunk
of their daily time using the internet and social media.26
41. For instance, pharmacists and shopkeepers in Kashmir who typically rely on the Internet
for supplies report shortages of crucial supplies, such as insulin and baby food.
Additionally, medicine and health services for those in rural areas are paralyzed, while
ATMs are unable to dispense cash. This means that family communications, money flow,
and social and entertainment media have all been brought to a standstill.
42. India is the most frequent offender by a large margin. Of the 182 total shutdowns in 2021,
India was responsible for a staggering 106 times, according to Access Now #Keepiton. The
23
Supra note 20.
24
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353 (India).
25
Frank La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression UNHRC 17/27, 49-50 (2011).
26
Record ¶1
Page | 7
second country, Myanmar shut down the internet at least 15 times.27 Numerous studies
support the conclusion that internet shutdowns overwhelmingly cause violent protest, even
in areas where civil protests had been generally non-violent.28
43. The economic cost which is paid by India to sustain these shutdowns is significantly
overwhelming than the benefit they are supposed to do. The 16315 hours of Internet
shutdowns over the period of 2012 to 2017 cost the Indian economy nearly $3.04 billion.”29
In 2020 alone the Internet shutdowns costs India $2.8 billion30
44. The provisions of the IT Rules which set guidelines for traceability carries a significant
impact on several quarters.
45. One of the provisos to Rule 4(2) states that an order cannot be passed if there are ‘other less
intrusive means’ to identify the first originator. However, the said proviso stands of little
to no value as the phrase ‘less intrusive means’ find no definition/guidance within the
Rules, thereby rendering the proviso unclear and ambiguous.
46. Firstly, it will have a chilling effect on free speech. As of now, End-to-End encryption on
instant messaging applications allows for dissent. If this is compromised, it would impact
the working of protestors, activists, journalists etc. who rely on confidential sources to
gather information.
47. Secondly, traceability means that companies will have to compromise on End-to-End
(‘E2E’) encryption. In this regard, E2E encryption means that messages between two
individuals cannot be accessed by any other entity including the social media intermediary.
Therefore, any compromise on the E2E encryption design undermines the hitherto-existing
privacy of communication over messaging apps, as ensured through end-to-end encryption.
48. Thirdly, companies will be forced to modify their existing tech-infrastructure to comply
with this proviso’s requirement of metadata access and, it disproportionately impacts
fledgling tech-companies since they have few resources to incorporate such changes into
their tech-infrastructure.
49. Fourthly, the proviso disregards a vital canon of law: mens rea. This means that a video or
news link with incorrect facts innocently shared by one person to another does not
27
Access now, Internet shutdowns in 2021 report: India is the world’s largest offender, Access now (Dec. 20,
2022, 9:29 PM), https://www.accessnow.org/internet-shutdowns-india-keepiton-2021/
28
Rydzak Jan, Of Blackouts and Bandhs: The Strategy and Structure of Disconnected Protest in India SGDPI
(2019).
29
Rajat Kathuria, Mansi Kedia, The Anatomy of an Internet Blackout: Measuring the Economic Impact of
Internet Shutdowns in India ICRIER 9, 9-13 (2018).
30
The Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet-shutdowns-in-2020-costs-india-28-
billion/article33501483.ece (Dec. 20, 2022, 23:00).
Page | 8
necessarily make the person sharing such link have the criminal intent to commit any crime.
This may lead to several legal tussles. It also needs to be understood that an originator may
not be the author of an information.
50. It is therefore, humbly submitted before this hon'ble Court that internet shutdowns and
traceability could amount to disproportionate encroachment on the fundamental right to
privacy guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.31
2.1.3 THAT THERE IS LACK OF ADEQUATE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
51. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that it is quintessential that any law
warranting a reasonable restriction of the right to privacy must have adequate procedural
safeguards in place.32
52. Section 24 (2) of the Act, vest the government with all the power to intercept or block the
messages there is no judicial oversight, an order to breach the fundamental right enriched
under Article 19 and 21 can be given, without taking advice from the judiciary or any other
superior authority. Even the review committee only sits once in 60 days which completely
under the control of the executive, which the government can easily influence.
53. The IT Rules provision of traceability are also ridden with the lack of judicial oversight or
any other superior authority. The rules providing for a competent authority to give an order
under Section 69 of the IT Act33 make this provision same as section 24 (2) even though
here it allows a competent judicial authority to pass the orders.
54. The safeguards given in both the provisions which are verbatim the reasonable restrictions
provided under Article 19 (2)- (6)34 are nowhere defined in both the Acts. Even though all
the terms have been defined in catena of judgements they are not defined in the context of
the provision. The government can use this ambiguity to bend the definitions of these
provisions to their own will to pass the orders.
55. In PUCL vs UOI35, the hon’ble SC upheld the constitutional validity of the section 5 (2) of
the Telegraph Act, 188536. After reading both the provisions, it can be established that both
the provisions are similar and the new Act just reproduced the said provision. It was held
that government has not exercised their power vested in section 7 (2) of the telegraph act
31
India Const. art. 14, 19, 21.
32
Supra note 20.
33
IT Act,2000, § 69, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
34
India Const. art. 19.
35
People's Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568 (India).
36
Telegraph Act, 1885, No. 1, Acts of Imperial legislative Council, 1885 (India).
Page | 9
to frame the rules and the SC realizing the same framed the procedural safeguards which
were later enacted in Rule 419 (A)37 of the telegraph act. The procedural safeguards find
no mention in the Act.
56. In Para 86 of the Puttuswamy Judgement Justice Nariman has specifically noted that “the
ultimate analysis” of a measure's proportionality “must be left to the training and expertise
of the judicial mind.”38
57. It is pertinent to note that this Hon'ble Court in Puttaswamy39, despite noting that what is
in the interest of national security may be a question of policy, struck down Section 33(2)
of the Aadhaar Act40 on the ground that it did not provide for any independent (judicial)
oversight and was therefore, unreasonable, disproportionate, and unconstitutional.
58. Similar provisions of exemptions exist in other jurisdictions however, they
provide for independent oversight, such as, in South Africa, there is parliamentary as well
as civil oversight.41 Further, judicial approval is required for interception of
communication activities.42 In Germany, a Parliamentary Control Panel scrutinizes
intelligence activities.43 In UK, interception warrants require approval by the Judicial
Commissioner to ensure that the test of proportionality was met at the time of issuance of
the warrant.44
59. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the “procedural
safeguards” limb of the broader proportionality enquiry - require Independent
Judicial/legislative oversight of the impugned provisions. Due to the lack of checks and
balances, in cases of Internet shutdowns the action of the government can be arbitrary
which could be used to supress the voice of individuals. The arbitrary lockdowns are the
early warning signs of state violence.
37
Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, § 419 (A), Acts of Parliament, 1951 (India).
38
Supra note 20.
39
Supra note 20.
40
Aadhar Act, 2016, § 33, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India).
41
The Intelligence Services Oversight Act, 1994, see statement of objects and reasons? To provide for the
establishment of a Committee of Members of Parliament on Intelligence and to define its functions; and for the
appointment of Inspectors General or Intelligence and to define their functions; and to provide for matters
connected therewith. ? available at https://www.oldsite.issafrica.org/uploads/INTELSERVACT40OF1994.PDF
(last accessed on 19 April 2018).
42
The Regulations of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information
Act, 2000 available at https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2002-070.pdf (last accessed on 19 April 2018)
43
Foreign Intelligence Gathering Laws: Germany, Library of Congress available at
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/intelligence-activities/germany.php (last accessed on 9 May 2018).
44
Investigatory Powers Act, 2016, S 138.
Page | 10
2.2 THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS VEST BROAD, UNGUIDED DISCRETIONARY POWERS IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY
60. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that any restriction on a right must be
narrowly tailored for it to be reasonable.45 Discretionary power given to government
authorities are valid only if guided through sufficient procedural
safeguards, guidelines and standards. Vesting an uncontrolled power in an administrative
authority falls outside the constitutional framework.46
61. No obligation to provide a reasonable justification for an action indicates absence of any
safeguards.47 Both the provisions don’t have any accountability mechanism; they are not
responsible for their decisions. The lack of checks and balances on the power of executive
could lead to arbitrariness.
62. The acquisition of information via Rule 4(2) requires the passing of either a judicial order
or an order under Section 69, IT Act48. This either/or situation gives the information-
seeking agencies to circumvent judicial scrutiny since Section 69, IT Act lacks procedural
safeguards. Further, orders passed under this section are not available in the public domain,
thereby compromising on the principles of accountability and transparency.
63. Section 24 (2) of the Act provides for exemption on wide grounds including
“sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
states or public order.”
64. These grounds are not anywhere defined under the Act, are extremely open
ended and subject to subjective interpretations giving vide unguided discretionary power
to the Central government to restrict the right to privacy of individuals.
65. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the impugned provisions
fail to pass the muster of being reasonable restrictions as they are not narrowly
tailored and vest broad, unguided discretionary powers in the administrative authority.
45
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 (India).
46
R.R. Verma v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 402 (India).
47
Sudhir Chandra v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (1984) 3 SCC 369 (India).
48
IT Act,2000, § 69, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
Page | 11

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
66. It is submitted that the provisions mentioned in IT rules and in Telecommunications Act
are in violation of numerous policies of government of Intia on Information Technology
and Telecommunications. A thorough reading and a logically coherent understanding of
the policies would make it very evident that the intention of government of Intia behind
framing the policies were to ensure a just, Reasonable and Accountable regime of
Telecommunications and Information technology.
67. The counsel submits that we all are living in 21st Century where the importance of
information and the communication attached to that information has become very much
evident and therefore the security of the confidentiality, Integrity and availability of these
become just as important and to achieve this, Government of Intia has been releasing
various policies from time to time and for the sake of convenience of this court the counsel
has referred to the following Policies: -
• National Cyber Security Policy49, 2013.
• National Digital Communications Policy50, 2018.
• National Telecom Policy51, 2012.
68. The argument for this Issue has been divided into 3 sub arguments numbered as 3.1, 3.2
and 3.3.
3.1 THAT THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RULES ARE IN VIOLATION OF NATIONAL CYBER
SECURITY POLICY52 OF GOVERNMENT OF INTIA.
69. It is respectfully submitted before this Court that the National Cyber Security policy was
brough in by the government of Intia in year 2013 with a vision to establish a secure and
resilient cyberspace for citizens, businesses and government.
70. With vision in mind one of the main objects of the government of Intia behind bringing this
policy was-
49
National Cyber Security Policy, Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of India (2013).
50
National Digital Communication Policy, Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of India
(2018).
51
National Telecom Policy, Department of Telecom, Government of India (2012).
52
Supra note 49.
Page | 12
“To create an assurance framework for design of security policies and for promotion and
enabling actions for compliance to global security standards and best practices by way of
conformity assessment (product, process, technology & people).”
71. This meant that the standard that was put up for the government of Intia to follow when it
comes to the information technology and cyber security was very high and stringent and
was to be seen in the comparison with some of the very high tech and well-developed
countries around the world as were now living in 21st century so the rules and other
regulation that the government of Intia was going to rollout had to follow through with the
best standard out there.
72. Also, the Counsel submits that under the point no. D of the strategy section of this policy
it has been stated that
“To develop a dynamic legal framework and its periodic review to address the cyber
security challenges arising out of technological developments in cyberspace (such as cloud
computing, mobile computing, encrypted services and social media) and its harmonization
with international frameworks including those related to Internet governance.”
73. This means that this rule intends to have a periodic review of all the security challenges
which includes the future upcoming challenges and its harmonization with international
framework on internet governance, the same challenge originated when the government of
Intia decided to come out with the IT rules which had some serious challenges for our
present and upcoming Information Technology regime and IT rules was brought to confront
the technological development in the IT field.
74. The most problematic part about these rules is mainly the mandate requiring online-
communication applications like whereapp to help in the identification of ‘first-originator’
of information after receiving ‘appropriate orders.’ Stated in Section 4(2) of the IT rules
75. In Light of the facts of the present case and looking at the relevant parts of the policy, it
does not seem the National Cyber Security Policy and IT rules, both comply with each
other. One talks about upholding the world standard in global security and the other has a
policy on violating right to privacy of the customer, which is not what upholding the
international security standards means.
76. Another non-compliance is that the policy talks about periodic review to address the cyber
security challenges arising out of the technological advancement in the field but it seems
that the government’s IT rules which was rolled out to tackle the cyber security challenges
arising out of technological advancement in the field manages to do the exact opposite and
created a new threat to user consent and privacy.
Page | 13
77. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the following It rules violated the government of
Intia’s policy on Cyber security on the following above-mentioned grounds.
3.2 THAT THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RULES ARE IN VIOLATION OF NATIONAL

DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS POLICY53 OF GOVERNMENT OF INTIA.
78. It is humbly submitted that the IT rules goes against and does not comply with the National
digital communications policy of government of Intia. Some of the very crucial violations
are given below.
79. The IT Rules is not in compliance with points mentioned under Strategies.
80. Government of Intia came out the National Digital Communications policy in year 2018
with a vision
“To fulfil the information and communication needs of citizens and enterprises through
the establishment of a ubiquitous, resilient, secure, accessible and affordable Digital
Communications Infrastructure and Services; and in the process, support India’s
transition to a digitally empowered economy and society”.
81. Under this Policy the government has devised some strategies that they would probably
adopt to achieve and fulfill their mission.
82. It is submitted that under point no. 3.1 of the strategies section of the National digital
communication policy, a detailed and elaborate policy has been mentioned which deals
with harmonizing communications law and policy with evolving legal framework and
Jurisprudence relating to Privacy and data protection.
83. It also talks about Amending various licenses and terms and conditions, whenever
necessary, to incorporate provisions with respect to privacy and data protection.
84. It is submitted that this policy also talks about Providing Autonomy and Choice for every
citizen and enterprise. This has been mentioned in point no. 3.2 under the strategies section.
85. This means that the government’s policy is a great advocate for data privacy, User consent
and keeping up with the developments that are taking place in the world of legal
jurisprudence regarding data privacy, Information technology and telecommunication.
86. It is humbly submitted that in the present case government decided to come out with the IT
Rules in May 2022 which was nothing but a ticking timebomb which could explode at any
moment for people’s right to privacy and their right to choose and consent.
87. The IT Rules have provisions which stated
53
Supra note 50.
Page | 14
“A significant social media intermediary providing services primarily in the nature of

messaging shall enable the identification of the first originator of the information on its
computer resource as may be required by a judicial order passed by a court of competent
jurisdiction or an order passed under section 69 by the Competent Authority as per the
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for interception, monitoring and
decryption of information) Rules, 2009, which shall be supported with a copy of such
information in electronic form”.
88. The above-mentioned provisions went against the government policy on National Digital
Communications as government mentioned policy values the principle of data privacy and
user’s consent before accessing the data but on the other hand, the IT rules which was
released by the government does not take user’s consent into account before revealing the
name of the originator of the message.
89. Therefore, in light of the facts presented and provisions of the law applied, it is humbly
submitted before the supreme court of Intia that the IT rules is not in commensuration with
the policy called National Digital communications policy rolled out by the Government of
Intia in the year 2018.
3.3 THAT THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL TELECOM

POLICY54 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INTIA.
90. It is humbly submitted that the Government of Intia can out with the National Telecom
Policy of Intia in year 2012 with a vision
“To provide secure, reliable, affordable and high-quality converged telecommunication
services anytime, anywhere for an accelerated inclusive socio-economic development.”
91. 6th point in the Objectives section deals with Quality of service and protection of consumer
interest and aims to protect the interest the consumers who entrust the company with his or
her details.
92. Point no. 6.2 states that-
“To formulate a Code of Practice for Sales and Marketing Communications to improve
transparency as well as address security issues relating to Customer Acquisition”
93. This makes it very evident that this policy asks for the government to improve the
transparency and address security issues with the help of code or a regulation.
94. It is also submitted that in 13th point under objectives section it has been mentioned that-
54
Supra note 51.
Page | 15
“To undertake a comprehensive review of Indian Telegraph Act and its rules and other
allied legislations with a view to making them consistent with and in furtherance of the
above policy objectives.”
95. So, this makes it very evident that this policy does want a comprehensive review of the
Indian telegraph act which is the parent act of the Telecommunications act but the important
thing here that should be kept in mind is that the review has to be consistent with the
furtherance of the policy objectives of the National Telecom policy.
96. In present case when government of Intia indeed decided to come out with
telecommunication act. It was thought to be huge development and a revolution for
telecommunication realm but when the content of the section 24(2) of the same act were
read, it made it very evident that something else was brewing hidden under the cover of
gigantic revolution.
97. Section 24(2) states that-
“On the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of the public safety, the
Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorized in this
behalf by the Central or a State Government, may, if satisfied that it is necessary or
expedient to do so, in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity or security of Intia, friendly
relations with foreign states, public order, or preventing incitement to an offence, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, by order:
(a)direct that any message or class of messages, to or from any person or class of persons,
or relating to any particular subject, brought for transmission by, or transmitted or
received by any telecommunication services or telecommunication network, shall not be
transmitted, or shall be intercepted or detained or disclosed to the officer mentioned in
such order;
(b)direct that communications or class of communications to or from any person or class
of persons, or relating to any particular subject, transmitted or received by any
telecommunication network shall be suspended.”55
98. So, it is humbly submitted that the Telegraph acts goes against policy on two counts. One
that it fails to secure the customer acquisitions and his/her info or details as it has a
provision for stopping or intercepting the transmission of a message in case of national
emergency. Second that the review of the telegraph act which was the parent act of the
Telecommunication Act had to be taken in such a way that it furthered the policy objectives
55
Record, ¶5.
Page | 16
of telecom policy but it is clearly evident that it does not do that instead it goes against
some of the objectives of the policy as mentioned in the above-mentioned lines.
99. In light of the fact presented and by application of the appropriate law, it is very evident
that section 24(2) of the Telecommunication is not in commensuration with the government
of Intia’s policy as the act does not seeks to protect the consumer’s interest hence does not
protect their interest in case of emergency and stops the transmission of a message on the
above-mentioned grounds.
100. Also, given that the act succeeds the telegraph act, it does not follow the policy as the
government did not make the telecommunication act in compliance with the
telecommunication policy which it should have done according to the policy line stated in
point no. 13.
101. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this honourable supreme court of Intia that the
following act, the telecommunication act is not in commiseration which the Nation
Telecom policy, 2012 of the Government of Intia.
Page | 17
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN AND
AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
I. HOLD THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE PRESENT
FORM.
II. HOLD THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ARE NOT IN COMMENSURATION WITH THE
GOVERNMENT OF INTIA’S POLICIES.
AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT IN THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED.
Sd /-
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS
Page | XIII

P27 With Comments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P27 With Comments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P27 With Comments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAMCODE: M-

--2 CNLU CYBER LAW NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

3RD AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INTIA

W.P. No.__ / 2022

j UNION OF INDIA ..………….Respondent

MR. HARRY & MS. HERMOINE ………..Petitioner

UNION OF INDIA ...…………Respondent

As Submitted to the Chief Justice & Other Companion Judges of the

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... I

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. III

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... VII

ISSUES RAISED .................................................................................................................. VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................IX

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

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32 ARE MAINTAINABLE ............ 1

1.1 The Power Of Judicial Review ................................................................................ 1

1.2 No Alternate Remedy is available ........................................................................... 2

1.3 There is a Violation Of Fundamental Rights in the present case. ........................... 3

1.4 The Petitioners Have a Locus Standi. ...................................................................... 5

2. WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS MADE UNDER IT RULES AND

3. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE IT RULES AND

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................... XIII

• SCC – Supreme Court Case.

INDIA CONST. art 32. .................................................................................................................. 1

India Const. art. 14. .................................................................................................................... 6

National Cyber Security Policy, Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of

Article 139-A of the Constitution of Intia—

Article 32 of the Constitution of India—

“Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

All of which is respectfully submitted.

ENCROCHMENT TO THE POLICY OF INTERMEDIARIES

PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN PURSUANCE OF

WHETHER THE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32 ARE MAINTAINABLE.

WHETHER THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE IT RULES AND

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32 ARE MAINTAINABLE

2. WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS MADE UNDER IT RULES AND

3. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE IT RULES AND

1. WHETHER THE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 32 ARE MAINTAINABLE

1.1 THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (4TH)

1.2 NO ALTERNATE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE (3RD)

1.3 THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. (1ST)

1.4 THE PETITIONERS HAVE A LOCUS STANDI. (2ND)

2. WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS MADE UNDER IT RULES AND

2.1.3 THAT THERE IS LACK OF ADEQUATE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

3. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE IT RULES AND

3.2 THAT THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RULES ARE IN VIOLATION OF NATIONAL

“A significant social media intermediary providing services primarily in the nature of

3.3 THAT THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL TELECOM

I. HOLD THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE PRESENT

GOVERNMENT OF INTIA’S POLICIES.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.