RLF31

TEAMCODE – LF31
ST
1 NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF BHAWANI
PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLES 32 & 139A OF CONSTITUTION OF

BHAWANI
TRANSFER PETITION NO. _____/2020
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. _____/2020
NARI RAKSHA SAMITI ……. PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF BHAWANI ……. RESPONDENT
Clubbed With
BADRINATH BHATIA AND OTHERS ……. PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF BHAWANI ……. RESPONDENT
Clubbed With
THE GUARDIANS OF THE JUVENILES ……. PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF BHAWANI AND OTHERS ……. RESPONDENT
IN THE CASE CONCERNING
THE BRO’S LOCKER ROOM
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1ST NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...................................................................................... 9
ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................ 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 13
1. WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

INVESTIGATION TEAM OR A CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
PROBE? ...................................................................................................................... 13
WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND

CYBER STALKING ARE ENOUGH TO ENSURE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF
WOMEN? .................................................................................................................... 15
Provisions of Indian Penal Code dealing with cyber bullying and cyber stalking .......... 15
2.1.1 Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment under Section 354A 15
2.1.2 Voyeurism under Section 354C ........................................................................ 15
2.1.3 Stalking under Section 354D ............................................................................ 16
2.1.4 Defamation under Section 499 ......................................................................... 16
2.1.5 Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman under Section
509 ........................................................................................................................... 17
Provisions of Information Technology Act dealing with cyber bullying and cyber
stalking ........................................................................................................................ 17
2.2.1 Punishment for violation of privacy under Section 66E .................................... 17
2.2.2 Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually

explicit act, etc. in electronic form under Section 67A .............................................. 18
WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS THE POWER TO MAKE GUIDELINES AND

DIRECT LEGISLATURE TO MAKE LAWS?............................................................ 18
Written Submission for the Respondents Page 2

3.1 Judicial Overreach .................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Doctrine of Separation of Powers ........................................................................... 19
4. WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IS

LEGAL UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHAWANI? ............. 20
4.1 Disclosure by media justified ................................................................................. 20
4.2 Article 19 the vindication of the media ................................................................... 20
5. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE “BRO’S-LOCKER-ROOM”

CAN BE JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF BHAWANI CONSTITUTION? . 21
5.1 Right to privacy of the girls involved ...................................................................... 21
5.2 Validity of criminalization of Information Technology Act, 2000 ........................... 23

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Serial No. Abbreviations Full Form
1. AIR All India Reporter
2. ADM Additional District Magistrate
3. & And
4. Anr. Another
5. Art. Article
6. CBCID Central Branch Crime Investigation

Department
7. CBI Central bureau of investigation
8. CTO Commercial Tax Offficer
9. CRI. L. J Criminal Law Journal
10. CRL Criminal Original Petition
11. Hon’ble Honourable
12. Ors. Others
13. Retd Retired
14. Stat Statute
15. SIT Special Investigating Team
16. SC Supreme Court
17. SCC Supreme court cases
18. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
19. SCW Supreme Court Weekly
20. UN United Nation
21. vs./ . v. Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Crl) No. 130 of 2020 (India)
........................................................................................................................................ 13
Arnit Das v. State of Bihar AIR 2000 SC 2264 (India) ........................................................ 22
Bennett Coleman v Union of India, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 842 (India) .......................................... 21
Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Gujarat 2007 AIR SCW 4499 (India) ................ 13
Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jail, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 1514 (India) ........ 22
Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683 (India) ............. 19
Francis Corale v. ADM Union Territory of Delhi & Others, AIR 1981 SC (India) ............... 22
Jishu Sengupta V. State of West Bengal 2017 CRI. L. J. 1531 (India) ................................. 22
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India AIR 2017 SC 4161(India) ....................... 22
K V Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai (2013) 12 SCC 480
(India) ............................................................................................................................. 14
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 S.C.R. 621 (India) ........................................... 20
Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. CTO (1994) 2 SCC 434 (India) .................................................... 21
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549 (India) ......................... 19
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124 (India)................................................. 20
State of Kerala v A Lakshmi Kutty (1986) 4 SCC 632 (India) ............................................. 18
State of Maharashtra v. Bhrat Shanti Lai Shah (2008) 13 SCC 5 (India) .............................. 23
State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010)
3 SCC 571 (India) ............................................................................................................ 14
Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 (India)
........................................................................................................................................ 19
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr, 2002 (3) S.C.R 294 (India)
........................................................................................................................................ 21
Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 195 (India) .............................. 19
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011(India) ..................................................... 22
Statutes
Alaska Stat. §§ 11.41.260, 11.41.270 .................................................................................. 23

Article 50, The Constitution of India ................................................................................... 19

Section 354A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860........................................................................ 14

Section 354C, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ........................................................................ 14
Section 354D, The Indian Penal Code, 1860........................................................................ 14
Section 499, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 .......................................................................... 14
Section 509, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 .......................................................................... 14
Section 66E, The Information Technology Act, 2000 .......................................................... 14
Section 67A, The Information Technology Act, 2000 .......................................................... 14
Section 67B, The Information Technology Act, 2000 .......................................................... 14
Treatises
HRC resolution 34/7 ........................................................................................................... 21
Websites
http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/laws/ california.shtml .................................................. 24

https://www.un.org/en/ ........................................................................................................ 21

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. BACKGROUND OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM”
Union of Bhawani is a country in South Asia where women have basic human rights as men
and many statutes has been passed by the legislature for safety of women in Bhawani. Despite
many statutes being passed, women in Bhawani are still victims of online stalking and cyber
bullying.
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 16-18 year old boys discussed methods
of sexual assault against minor girls and circulated their pictures including nude/morphed
photos without their consent. A series of screenshots which were posted on social media
platforms exposed the group’s chat on photogram.
The screenshots revealed chats between a group of school going students sharing photos of
underage women and teenage girls, followed by lurid discussion on their bodies and
objectification of their classmates and other women, some as young as 14.
2. PETITION FILED BY NARI RAKSHA SAMITI
An NGO named “NARI RAKSHA SAMITI” filed a Writ Petition in the form of a Public
Interest Litigation (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 Special Investigation Team or Central Bureau of Investigation.
3. PETITION FILED BY THE GROUP OF ADVOCATES
A group of advocates including Advocate Badrinath Bhatia presented a letter to Chief Justice
of Bhawani to seek court’s direction to appropriate authorities to register FIRs against the
perpetrators in the said matter. This incident showed the ease with which cyber bullying can
be indulged in under the veil of anonymity.
In the view of this horrific incident they requested the matter to be taken up by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to address the various issues arising therefrom which not only includes privacy
and safety of women but also sensitization and counselling of juveniles who are engaged in
such conduct.

They also requested the Hon’ble Supreme Court to 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.
4. PETITION FILED BY THE GUARDIANS OF THE JUVENILES
The Cyber Crime Cell of Indraprastha Police registered a case under the relevant sections of
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Information Technology Act. The police while investigation
arrested 22 members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” along with its admin who were all juveniles
and disclosed the details of the juveniles in conflict with the law to a reputed News Media
named “The Frank Owl”, which disclosed the name of the arrested juveniles in its exclusive
TV report, following which a newspaper named “The Mint” also disclosed their details.
People started protesting in front of the juveniles’ houses and their guardians were attacked.
The guardians of the juveniles filed a Writ Petition against the electronic media houses and
print media agencies before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for violating their Right to Privacy
and dignity and mandatory provisions provided in other laws for not disclosing the identity of
juveniles in conflict with the law.
Through this petition, the petitioners challenged the validity of Section 74(3) of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015 on the ground that the punishment is inadequate because of which media
houses don’t abide by the law provided and arrested persons suffer for this irresponsible act. It
was also stated that the criminalisation of such act is going overboard by forbidding speech
that is within an individual or a group’s realm of privacy and none of the members intended to
make their own conversations (containing sexually explicit content) public.
The petition contended that no legal implications follow if a person publishes sexually explicit
conversations exchanged between two or more persons privately on a public forum.
Information Technology Act’s criminalisation of certain kinds of private communication does
not come under the reasonable restrictions mentioned under Article 19(2).
5. FINAL HEARING
The Hon’ble Supreme Court clubbed the petitions as all the three matters involved similar
issues and the Hon’ble Chief Justice allotted the matter to a Bench for final hearing while
exercising his powers under Constitution of Bhawani.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The first petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Indraprastha under Article 226
of the Constitution of Bhawani. That petition has been transferred to Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Bhawani under Article 139A of the Constitution. The second and the third petitioners have
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of Bhawani Constitution.
Pursuant to the directions of this Court, all the matters have been listed together for final
hearing.

ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

INVESTIGATION TEAM OR A CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION PROBE?
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND CYBER

STALKING ARE ENOUGH TO ENSURE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF
WOMEN?
ISSUE 3

DIRECT LEGISLATURE TO MAKE LAWS?
ISSUE 4
WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IS

LEGAL UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE BHAWANI CONSTITUTION?
ISSUE 5
WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE “BRO’S-LOCKER-ROOM”

CAN BE JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF BHAWANI CONSTITUTION?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

INVESTIGATION TEAM OR A CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION PROBE?
The Respondents humbly submit that the case of “Bro’s Locker-Room” does not require a
Special Investigation Team or a Central Bureau of Investigation probe as such probe can be
invoked only under extraordinary circumstances. This case of “Bro’s Locker-Room” is one
which can be investigated by other various investigating agencies of the State.
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND CYBER

STALKING ARE ENOUGH TO ENSURE SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF
WOMEN?
The Respondents humbly submit that the existing provisions of Indian Penal Code and
Information Technology are enough to ensure safety and protection of women.
ISSUE 3

DIRECT LEGISLATURE TO MAKE LAWS?
The Respondents humbly submit that the judiciary does not have the power to make guidelines
and direct legislature to make laws as it would lead to the breach of doctrine of separation of
powers and it would also amount to judicial overreach.
ISSUE 4
WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IS

LEGAL UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHAWANI?
The Respondents humbly submit that the identities reported by media was already public and
media has its vindication with the article 19(1)(a) Of the Indian constitution by which no
privacy infringement took place violating article 21 making the arrest legal.

ISSUE 5
WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE “BRO’S-LOCKER-ROOM” IS

JUSTIFIABLE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF BHAWANI CONSTITUTION?
The Respondents humbly submit that the members’ right to freedom of speech and expression
under article 19(1)(a) is curtailed under reasonable restrictions of the information technology
act 2000 as it infringes the right to privacy of girls under article 21 of the Indian constitution.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM OR A CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION PROBE?
It is humbly submitted by the respondents, before this Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the
case of “Bro’s Locker-Room” does not require a Special Investigation Team or a
Central Bureau of Investigation Probe.
In Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Gujarat1 it was held that routine matters
should not be entrusted to the CBI as the investigating agencies of various states can
effectively investigate such matters. Of course, where it is shown that the investigating
agency is not doing proper investigation and/or that there is reason to believe that there
is laxity in the investigation, a direction may be given to the CBI to investigate the
matter in the appropriate cases.
Courts assume the extraordinary jurisdiction to transfer an investigation in exceptional

situations to ensure that the sanctity of the administration of criminal justice is
preserved. While no inflexible guidelines are laid down, the notion that such a transfer
is an “extraordinary power” to be used “sparingly” and “in exceptional circumstances”
comports with the idea that routine transfers would belie not just public confidence in
the normal course of law but also render meaningless the extraordinary situations that
warrant the exercise of the power to transfer the investigation. 2
This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional

situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in
investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications
or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the
fundamental rights. Otherwise, CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and
1
Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Gujarat 2007 AIR SCW 4499 (India)
2
Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Crl) No. 130 of 2020 (India)

with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases
and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations. 3
This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the
investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other
independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that the power of
transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court
finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in
the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is
necessary for having “a fair, honest and complete investigation”, and particularly, when
it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State
agencies.”4
In the present case, the members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” were charged under
relevant sections of Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act. 5 They were
charged with Section 354A6, Section 354C7, Section 354D8, Section 4999, Section
50910 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66E 11, Section 67A12 and Section 67B13.
This case of “Bro’s Locker-Room” cannot be taken as “exceptional circumstances”

since all the offences that the members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” are charged with
can be investigated by local investigating agencies and there is no laxity in investigation
as the members of the group were arrested by Indraprastha Cyber Cell Police, booked
under relevant provisions and investigated by the police.
Hence, in the light of submissions made, it is humbly pleaded before this Hon’ble
Supreme Court, that the case of “Bro’s Locker-Room” does not require a Special
Investigation Team or a Central Bureau Investigation probe.
3
State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571
(India)
4
K V Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai (2013) 12 SCC 480 (India)
5
Moot Proposition, paragraph 10
6
Section 354A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
7
Section 354C, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
8
Section 354D, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
9
Section 499, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
10
11
Section 66E, The Information Technology Act, 2000
12
Section 67A, The Information Technology Act, 2000
13
Section 67B, The Information Technology Act, 2000

WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND

CYBER STALKING ARE ENOUGH TO ENSURE SAFETY AND
PROTECTION OF WOMEN?
existing laws regarding cyber bullying and cyber stalking are enough to ensure safety
and protection of women.
Provisions of Indian Penal Code dealing with cyber bullying and cyber stalking
2.1.1 Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment under Section
354A
This section defines sexual harassment as making sexually coloured remarks about
a woman.14 This has been reinstated in the case Jishu Sengupta & Others vs. The
State of West Bengal & Anr.15
In the present case, members of the Bro’s Locker-Room were discussing about
having physical relationship 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. 16 This act by the members of the “Bro’s Locker-
Room amounts to making sexually coloured remarks under Section 354A(1) (iv).
2.1.2 Voyeurism under Section 354C
This section defines the act of voyeurism as watching, or capturing the image of a
woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have
the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other
person at the behest of the perpetrator or such image being disseminated. “Private
act” mentioned in this section refers to any act where the victim’s genitals, posterior
or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear or the victim is using a lavatory
or victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.
14
Section 354A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
15
Jishu Sengupta & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2017 CRI. L. J. 1531 (India)
16

Dissemination of the images to third persons without the consent of the victims is
also an offence under this section even if the victim gives consent to capture of such
images.17
In the present case, the “Bro’s Locker-Room” was also allegedly used to share
nude/morphed photographs of women. 18
2.1.3 Stalking under Section 354D
This section defines stalking as monitoring the use by a woman of the internet, email
or any other form of electronic communication. 19
In the present case, after the leaked screenshot of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” went
viral and outrage over their behaviour poured out, the members of the group
threatened to leak explicit photos and hack the accounts of the women who had
exposed the group chat. One of the posts stated that “Let’s post nude photos of all
girls who posted stories about us. I have photos of some of them…”20
Photos of the girls who have exposed the chat of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” could
have been obtained only by constantly monitoring the use of internet by a woman
or by hacking which amounts to an offence under Section 354D.
2.1.4 Defamation under Section 499
This section defines defamation when an individual who believes that his/her
reputation is being harmed by a visible representation published on the internet.
This provision can be invoked for remarks on social media or obscene images for
public consumption. Under this provision, defaming a woman online will land the
perpetrator in jail for a period of two years.
In the present case, the members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” have passed lurid
comments about the girls, objectified them and slut-shammed them21 which
amounts to the offence of defamation under Section 499.
17
Section 354C, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
18
19
Section 354D, The Indian Penal Code, 1860
20
21
Moot Proposition, paragraph 4 & 5

2.1.5 Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman under
Section 509
This section punishes a person who intends to insult the modesty of any woman,
utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that
such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by
such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and also with fine. 22
In the present case, the “Bro’s Locker-Room” was used to share morphed/nude
photographs of minor girls and women,23 which is clearly a case of intrusion to their
privacy.
Therefore, any person who commits the offence of cyber bullying and cyber stalking
can be punished under the above-mentioned existing provisions of Indian Penal Code.
Provisions of Information Technology Act dealing with cyber bullying and cyber
stalking
2.2.1 Punishment for violation of privacy under Section 66E
This section prohibits the sharing of images of a private area of any person without
his or her consent which violates the privacy of that person. The term private area
means naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast.24
In the present case, the “Bro’s Locker-Room” was used to share nude photographs
of women and girls without their consent.25 The word “nude” implies the display of
genital areas in the photographs.
Members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” can be convicted under Section 66E of
Information Technology Act.
22
23
24
Section 66E, The Information Technology Act, 2000
25

2.2.2 Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing

sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form under Section 67A
This section punishes a person for transmission of any material in the electronic
form which contains sexually explicit act.26 The act of the members of “Bro’s
Locker- Room” amounts to an offence under this section as they have shared
morphed photos of girls and have discussed methods of sexual assault against those
girls.27
Therefore, the existing abovementioned provisions of Information Technology Act can

be used to curb the issues of cyber bullying and cyber stalking.
Hence, in the light of submissions made, it is humbly pleaded before this Hon’ble Supreme
Court that the existing laws in the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act are
enough to ensure safety and protection of women.
WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS THE POWER TO MAKE GUIDELINES

AND DIRECT LEGISLATURE TO MAKE LAWS?
judiciary does not have the power to make guidelines and direct legislature to make
laws.
3.1 Judicial Overreach

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v A Lakshmi Kutty,28 held that special
responsibility devolves upon the judges to avoid an over activist approach and to ensure
that they do not trespass within the spheres earmarked for the other two branches of the
State. The Hon’ble Supreme Court itself observed in this regard that the judges should
not unjustifiably try to perform executive or legislative functions in the name of Judicial
Activism. The judiciary cannot attempt to take over the functions of another organ. 29
26
Section 67A,The Information Technology Act, 2000
27
28
State of Kerala v A Lakshmi Kutty (1986) 4 SCC 632 (India)
29
Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683 (India)

In the present case, the petitioners ask the Hon’ble Supreme Court to draft guidelines
to curb cyber stalking and cyber bullying even when there are provisions in Indian Penal
Code And Information Technology to curb cyber stalking.30 This drafting of guidelines
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court when there are enough laws to curb cyber stalking and
cyber bullying would amount to judicial overreach.
3.2 Doctrine of Separation of Powers

Article 50 of the Constitution states that the State shall take steps to maintain the
separation of powers between the various organs of the government.31 The Indian
Constitution has not indeed recognized the doctrine of separation of powers in its
absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government
have been sufficiently differentiated and consequently, it can very well be said that our
Constitution does not contemplate assumption, by one organ or part of State, of
functions that essentially belongs to another.32
In Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr.33it was held that the Parliament has a
sovereign power to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction
to enact a particular piece of legislation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no court
can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. 34
In the present case, the petitioners ask the Hon’ble Supreme Court to 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,35 which would amount to a breach of doctrine of separation of powers.
Court, that the judiciary does not have the power to make guidelines and direct the legislature
to make laws.
30
31
Article 50, The Constitution of India
32
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549 (India)
33
Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 195 (India)
34
Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 (India)
35

4. WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH

LAW IS LEGAL UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
BHAWANI?
arrest of the juveniles in conflict with law is legal.
4.1 Disclosure by media justified

The electronic media house and print media agency cannot be held liable for revelation
of the identities of the juveniles. Even before the arrest took place, all the identities of
the members of the group were leaked when the screenshots of the chat in photogram
by the boys of the Bro’s Locker Room surfaced online 36. It is a material fact that the
identity of all the members were made public in a short span of time after the
screenshots surfaced publicly. The media reported the case of arrest of the juveniles
only after the inspector of the said arrest revealed it to the press 37. This proves that there
is no infringement of privacy of the juveniles in conflict with law took.
4.2 Article 19 the vindication of the media

The Preamble of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of thought and
expression and it is of key importance. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees
the freedom of speech and expression recognized in the case of Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India,38 where the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression
has no geographical limitation and moves with a citizen's right to collect information
and exchange ideas with others, not only in India but also abroad.
In the case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras,39 it was claimed that “Freedom of
speech and expression that of the media lies at the base of all democratic institutions,
without free political debate, no public education is possible that is necessary to the
proper functioning of the popular government system.” Freedom of speech and
expression includes the right to communicate and receive information like freedom of
expression. In the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and
36
Moot proposition paragraph 4
37
Ibid paragraph 10
38
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 S.C.R. 621 (India)
39
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124 (India)

Anr,40 the Supreme Court held that “one-sided information, disinformation,

misinformation and non-information all create uninformed citizenship that makes
democracy a farce.” Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to
communicate and receive information, including freedom of expression. The most
essential of all freedoms is freedom of speech and expression. In the leading case of
Bennett Coleman v. Union of India,41 it was observed that freedom of speech and the
press is the ark of the covenant of democracy because the evaluation of people’s views
is vital to the functioning of the democratic institution.
In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. CTO42, the Supreme Court reiterated that though freedom
of the press is not expressly guaranteed as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the
freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of the press has always been a cherished
right in all democratic countries and the press has rightly been described as the fourth
chamber of democracy.
Court that the arrest of the juveniles in conflict with law is legal.
5. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE “BRO’S-LOCKER-ROOM”

CAN BE JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF BHAWANI
CONSTITUTION?
5.1 Right to privacy of the girls involved

The framework for examining the right to privacy from a gender perspective is found
in Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12; the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, Article 17; Resolutions of the United Nations’ General
Assembly and Human Rights Council, and the international human rights legal
framework. The UN Human Rights Council43 and the General Assembly44 have noted
40
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr, 2002 (3) S.C.R 294 (India)
41
Bennett Coleman v Union of India, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 842 (India)
42
Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. CTO (1994) 2 SCC 434 (India)
43
HRC resolution 34/7
44
UNGA (2014). Right to privacy in the digital age, A/RES/71/199
https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/71/199 United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights (2014). The right to privacy in the digital age,
A/HRC/27/37.www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/
A.HRC.27.37_en.pdf; United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2018). The right to privacy in the
digital age, A/HRC/39/29.www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/DigitalAge/ReportPrivacyinDigitalAge/
A_HRC_39_29_EN.docx; Human Rights Council (2015). The right to privacy in digital age,
A/HRC/RES/28/16. p.4 (OP 4f) http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/28/16 Human

that “violations and abuses of the right to privacy in the digital age may affect all
individuals, including with particular effects on women, as well as children and persons
in vulnerable situations, or marginalized groups”. They asked the member States “to
further develop or maintain, in this regard, preventive measures and remedies for
violations and abuses regarding the right to privacy in the digital age that may affect
all individuals, including where there are particular effects for women, as well as
children and persons in vulnerable situations or marginalized groups.”
Right to privacy was declared as a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution. It was reasserted in the Puttaswami case45. In the Bro’s Locker Room
case, the privacy of teenage girls was severely attacked by the boys of the photogram
group. By sharing obscene images of the girls, and making lurid remarks on their
sexuality, the boys encroached upon their right to dignity and privacy. The Supreme
Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,46 included the right to gender justice including
the prevention of sexual harassments or abuse within the content of life and personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, in view of the legislative
vacuum. The Supreme Court has held in Mullin's Case that any form of torture or
degrading treatment would be offensive to human dignity and would, therefore, violate
Article 21.47
In the case of Jishu Sengupta V. State of West Bengal48, the Calcutta High Court
observed that it is the women, who is the victim, herself can decide what behaviour or
conduct is not tolerable to her and not the harasser. In the case of Arnit Das v. State of
Bihar,49 R.C Lahoti, J. pointed out that neither the definition of juvenile, nor any other
provision contained in any legislation specifically provides the date by reference to
which the age of a boy or a girl has to be determined so as to find out whether he or she
is a juvenile or not. The Supreme Court held that the age of the boy or girl has to be
determined at the time when they are bought before the competent authority. The
rationale behind this judgment is the apex court has identified the problem that many
Rights Council (2017). The right to privacy in the digital age, A/HRC/RES/34/7, p4.
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/34/
45
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India AIR 2017 SC 4161(India)
46
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011(India)
47
Francis Corale v. ADM Union Territory of Delhi & Others, AIR 1981 SC (India) ; Charles Sobraj v.
Superintendent Central Jail, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 1514 (India)
48
Jishu Sengupta V. State of West Bengal 2017 CRI. L. J. 1531 (India)
49
Arnit Das v. State of Bihar AIR 2000 SC 2264 (India)

children have been lodged in adult jails because they have no evidence to proof their
age. Hence, juvenility of the boys is not a valid defense for the horrifying acts they have
committed.
Hence it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the accused
juveniles were rightfully arrested since the contents of their chats come under
reasonable restrictions of freedom of speech and expression.
5.2 Validity of criminalization of Information Technology Act, 2000

Several sections like section 66, 66B, 66E, 67, 67A, etc. of the Information Technology
Act have set out punishments for sending obscene messages, texts, images etc. These
sections are constitutionally valid. These sections are meant to prevent the ever-
growing cyber-crimes in the digitalized world.
In the international scenario, several laws have been adopted to tackle cyber stalking,
and cyber sexual harassment, taking into consideration the gravity of the quantity of
such offences being committed. The Alaska Code in section 13-2921 also penalizes
harassment when it is done anonymously or otherwise the harasser communicates or
causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical,
telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that cause harassment. 50 The
Arkansas Code in section 5-41-108 explains that, a person commits the offense of
unlawful computerized communications: “If with the purpose to frighten, intimidate,
threaten, abuse, or harass another person, he sends a message on an electronic mail
or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the
person will receive the message and in that message threatens to cause physical injury
to any person or damage to the property of any person.51
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bhrat Shanti Lai Shah,52 the Supreme Court
said that interception of conversation though constitutes an invasion of an individual’s
right to privacy it can be curtailed in accordance with procedure validly established
by law. The court has to see that the procedure itself must be fair, just and reasonable
and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In the instant case, the arrest of the boys
under various statutes is valid since it is necessary to impose the reasonable
restrictions that could be imposed on every citizen, according to the procedure
50
Alaska Stat. §§ 11.41.260, 11.41.270
51
ibid
52
State of Maharashtra v. Bhrat Shanti Lai Shah (2008) 13 SCC 5 (India)

established by law. The privacy, modesty and dignity of the girls were violated
because of the inaction by concerned authorities on the acts of the members of Bro’s
Locker Room. The reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and the arrest are
justified under several provisos of various statues. The California Civil Code also
discusses the problem of stalking under section 170853 and makes a harasser liable for
stalking for carrying on harassing / threatening /abusive communications through
electronic communications along with other ways of conveying the message of
harassment.
Hence, in light of the aforementioned submissions, it is submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme
Court that the act of the members of the Bro’s Locker Room cannot be justified under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Bhawani and the arrests made under various statutes are valid.
53
Cal. Civil Code § 1708.7 Retrieved on 23.04.2010 from http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/laws/
california.shtml

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that it may be
pleased to:
 Declare that the case of “Bro’s Locker-Room” does not require a Special Investigation
Team or Central Bureau of Investigation probe as this case doesn’t come under
extraordinary situation where such probe is required.
 Declare that the existing laws are enough to curb the issues of cyber stalking and cyber
bullying and there is no need to issue guidelines regarding this issues.
 Declare the arrest of the juveniles in conflict with law is legal under Article 21 of The
Bhawani Constitution
 Declare that the act of the members of the “Bro’s Locker-Room” is not justifiable under
Article 19(1)(a)
AND/OR pass any other order or grant any other relief in favour of the Respondents, which
this Honourable Supreme Court may deem fit to meet the ends of equity, justice and good
conscience.
Sd/-
Counsel for Respondents

RLF31

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RLF31

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

RLF31

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAMCODE – LF31

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF BHAWANI

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLES 32 & 139A OF CONSTITUTION OF

TRANSFER PETITION NO. _____/2020

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. _____/2020

NARI RAKSHA SAMITI ……. PETITIONER

UNION OF BHAWANI ……. RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. _____/2020

BADRINATH BHATIA AND OTHERS ……. PETITIONER

UNION OF BHAWANI ……. RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. _____/2020

THE GUARDIANS OF THE JUVENILES ……. PETITIONER

UNION OF BHAWANI AND OTHERS ……. RESPONDENT

IN THE CASE CONCERNING

THE BRO’S LOCKER ROOM

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 7

ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................ 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 13

1. WHETHER THE CASE OF “BRO’S LOCKER-ROOM” REQUIRES A SPECIAL

WHETHER THE EXISTING LAWS REGARDING CYBER BULLYING AND

2.1.2 Voyeurism under Section 354C ........................................................................ 15

2.1.3 Stalking under Section 354D ............................................................................ 16

2.1.4 Defamation under Section 499 ......................................................................... 16

2.2.1 Punishment for violation of privacy under Section 66E .................................... 17

2.2.2 Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually

WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS THE POWER TO MAKE GUIDELINES AND

Written Submission for the Respondents Page 2

3.1 Judicial Overreach .................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Doctrine of Separation of Powers ........................................................................... 19

4. WHETHER THE ARREST OF THE JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH LAW IS

4.1 Disclosure by media justified ................................................................................. 20

4.2 Article 19 the vindication of the media ................................................................... 20

5. WHETHER THE ACT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE “BRO’S-LOCKER-ROOM”

5.1 Right to privacy of the girls involved ...................................................................... 21

5.2 Validity of criminalization of Information Technology Act, 2000 ........................... 23

Written Submission for the Respondents Page 3

Serial No. Abbreviations Full Form

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. ADM Additional District Magistrate

6. CBCID Central Branch Crime Investigation

7. CBI Central bureau of investigation

8. CTO Commercial Tax Offficer

9. CRI. L. J Criminal Law Journal

10. CRL Criminal Original Petition

11. Hon’ble Honourable

12. Ors. Others

13. Retd Retired

14. Stat Statute

15. SIT Special Investigating Team

16. SC Supreme Court

17. SCC Supreme court cases

18. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

19. SCW Supreme Court Weekly

20. UN United Nation

21. vs./ . v. Versus

Written Submission for the Respondents Page 4

Alaska Stat. §§ 11.41.260, 11.41.270 .................................................................................. 23