Doccccccccc

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
1. WHY ARTICLE 32 AND NOT ANY 226 OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT

AUTHORITIES
In cases of clear and ongoing violations of fundamental rights, the petitioner has the
constitutional option to directly approach the Supreme Court, bypassing lower courts.
The current case involves violations of Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and
expression), Article 21 (right to privacy), and Article 19 (1) (g). When fundamental rights
are at stake, there is no obligation to file under Article 226 first. The Supreme Court,
being the guardian of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to hear such matters directly.
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court emphasized that when
fundamental rights are violated, the aggrieved party can directly approach the Supreme
Court under Article 32 without needing to exhaust other remedies.
If the petitioner were to file separate writ petitions in various High Courts under
Article 226, there is a possibility of inconsistent judgments, leading to confusion
regarding the legality of AI-based censorship and NMC’s regulations. A fragmented
approach could create uncertainty in enforcing fundamental rights uniformly across
India. The petitioner, therefore, directly approaches the Supreme Court to ensure a
uniform interpretation of the law regarding the MEITY guidelines and the NMC
directives.
The matter involves grave violations of fundamental rights due to the MEITY guidelines
mandating AI-based content moderation and the NMC directives restricting AI in
healthcare. These issues are of national importance, impacting fundamental rights across
the country. There is an immediate need for the Supreme Court’s intervention to prevent
further harm from unjust censorship and unwarranted surveillance under the AI content
moderation guidelines. The urgency of these issues justifies approaching the Supreme
Court directly.
While Article 226 provides for writs in High Courts, High Courts may not be equipped to
address large-scale violations involving nationwide guidelines. Moreover, the petitioner
believes the Supreme Court is the most appropriate body to interpret these large-scale
constitutional issues definitively.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court held that while High
Courts can adjudicate on fundamental rights under Article 226, the Supreme Court is the
ultimate authority in constitutional matters and provides the final word on the
interpretation of fundamental rights.
Approaching administrative bodies like the Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology (MEITY) or the National Medical Commission (NMC) has proved
ineffective. Since these bodies themselves are responsible for the contested guidelines,
there is no impartial authority available to provide redress. The Supreme Court remains
the only forum with the jurisdiction to hear and provide relief from these violations.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court held that when
fundamental rights are being violated on a large scale and no other adequate remedy is
available, the petitioner is justified in directly approaching the Supreme Court under
Article 32.
FACTS OF SHREYAL SINGHAL

 The case centered around the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized sending offensive, false, or menacing
information through electronic communication, including emails and social media
posts.
 The case was triggered by the arrest of two women in Maharashtra for posting
comments on Facebook criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai after the death of
political leader Bal Thackeray. They were arrested under Section 66A for posting
"offensive" comments.
 Shreya Singhal, a law student, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the
constitutional validity of Section 66A, arguing that it infringed on the right to freedom
of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) of the Constitution of India.
 The petition argued that the terms used in Section 66A, such as "offensive,"
"menacing," and "annoying," were vague, subjective, and gave authorities excessive
power to arbitrarily arrest individuals for expressing opinions online.
 The law had been widely misused, with several cases of individuals being arrested for
trivial comments or posts on social media platforms, leading to fears of censorship
and suppression of free speech.
FACTS OF THE CASE OF JUSTICE KS PUTTUSWAMY VS UOI

 The case arose from a challenge to the Aadhaar scheme, launched by the
Government of India, which required citizens to register for a unique 12-digit
identification number based on their biometric and demographic data.
 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a writ
petition in 2012 challenging the mandatory collection of personal information (such
as fingerprints and iris scans) for Aadhaar registration, arguing that it violated the
right to privacy.
 At the time of the challenge, there was no specific law in India that explicitly
recognized privacy as a fundamental right. The government argued that the
Constitution did not guarantee privacy as a fundamental right.
 The Government of India defended the Aadhaar scheme, arguing that the right to
privacy was not a fundamental right and that the scheme was crucial for efficient
governance, reducing corruption, and ensuring that subsidies reached the intended
beneficiaries.
 Given the importance of the question regarding the right to privacy, a nine-judge
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was constituted to decide whether the right
to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.
"Test of Proportionality"
The test of proportionality is a legal principle used by courts to determine whether a
government action that limits a fundamental right is justified and reasonable. In simple terms,
it means that the restriction on a right must not be excessive or unfair and must serve a
legitimate purpose. The test ensures that there is a balance between individual rights and
the public interest.
Here’s what interception, monitoring, and decryption mean in simple terms:
Interception: This means capturing or stopping the flow of information (like messages,
emails, or calls) before it reaches its destination. For example, intercepting an email means
getting access to it while it's being sent, but before it is read by the person it was meant for.
Monitoring: This refers to watching or keeping track of the information being shared over a
network. It could involve observing what people are sending or receiving, without necessarily
changing or stopping the information. It's like watching a chat or tracking data exchanges in
real-time.
Decryption: This means converting coded or encrypted information back into its original
form so it can be understood. Many messages or data are scrambled (encrypted) for security,
and decryption makes them readable again. It’s like unlocking a locked message so it can be
read.
Upload filtering means automatically checking and screening the content (like videos,
images, or text) that people try to upload to a website or platform. The system reviews the
content to make sure it doesn’t break any rules, such as copyright laws or harmful content
guidelines, before allowing it to be posted online.
In simple terms, it's like a gatekeeper that checks everything you try to upload to make sure
it’s safe and allowed before it shows up online.
Content moderation means reviewing and managing what people post online to make
sure it follows certain rules or guidelines. This can involve removing harmful, offensive, or
illegal content and making sure that what stays online is safe and appropriate. In simple
terms, it's like a filter that checks what people post to make sure it’s okay to share with
others.
The doctrine of purposive construction, also known as the purposive approach, is a

method of interpreting laws and legal documents that considers the purpose of the law or
document. It's used when the law's language is ambiguous or its intent is unclear.
One of the method , of interpretation of statute is 'purposive construction' of the enactment

which gives effect to the legislative purpose/intendment, if necessary must be followed and
applied. The doctrine of purposive construction is well accepted.

Doccccccccc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doccccccccc

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

Doccccccccc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. WHY ARTICLE 32 AND NOT ANY 226 OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT

FACTS OF SHREYAL SINGHAL

FACTS OF THE CASE OF JUSTICE KS PUTTUSWAMY VS UOI

Here’s what interception, monitoring, and decryption mean in simple terms:

The doctrine of purposive construction, also known as the purposive approach, is a

One of the method , of interpretation of statute is 'purposive construction' of the enactment

You might also like

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