1

TEAM CODE-O

THE 30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020 FOR THE KERALA
LAW ACADEMY TROPHY

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAYOORSTHAN

IN THE MATTER OF

COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTY…………………………………...PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF MAYOORSTHAN …………………………………....RESPONDENT

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

OF

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MAYOORSTHAN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS...…………………………….…............................2

LIST OF ABBREVIATION………………………………………….….......4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………...….…...........6

STATEMENT OF JURISIDICTION……………………………………..…12

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………......….…...13

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………...……………………….......15

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………….…..16

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………….….........18

_________________________________________________________

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA………………………………………….18
1.1 The petition is independent from the alternative existing
remedy………....................................................................….18

1.3 The petition is maintainable as there is an infringement of fundamental

rights…………………………………………………………….........19

2.WHETHER THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE

FALSEHOODS AND MANIPULATION ACT,2020, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON
THE GROUNDS OF LACK OF LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY………20

2.1 the impugned Act conflict with central powers…………………20

2.2. the Application of Doctrine of Repugnancy would make the impugned Act
unconstitutional……………………………………………………….21

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 3

3.THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACTS VIOLATES ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF THE Constitution OF
INDIA………………………………………….............................22
1. Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020 does not
qualify the Test of Proportionality……………………….22
2. .That the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020
is vague in nature…………………………………………23

4. WHETHER THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE

FALSEHOODS AND MANIPULATION ACT 2020 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA………………………………………………………..26
1. That the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act,
2020 is Arbitrary in nature ………………………………………………... 27
2. .Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020 is
against Natural Justice. ………………………………………………………30

5.“THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020” VIOLATES ARCTICLE 21 OF THE Constitution OF
INDIA……………………………………………………………………………………..…32

5.1. Section 7(1) ,7(1)(B) Of ''The Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehood And
Manipulation Act 2020” violates 21 of the Constitution of
India………………………………………………………………….....………….….33

5.2. Section 8(4), 10(2), 10(3), 10(4) (Of ''The Mayoorsthan Protection From Online
Falsehood And Manipulation Act 2020” violates 21 of the Constitution of
India………………………………………………………………………………......34

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………..…...…36

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

A.I.R All India Reporter

IT Information Technology

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Bom CR Bombay Cases Reporter

Hon’ble Honourable

HC High Court

w.e.f With Effect From

U/S Under Section

P. Page Number

Ano. Another

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 5

Art. Article

Ors Others

UOI Union Of India

v. Versus

S. Section

Ltd. Limited

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 6

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

LEGISLATION REFERRED

1. THE Constitution OF INDIA, 1950

2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
3. KERALA POLICE ACT,2020
4. RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2000
5. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDURE CODE, 1973
6. THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885
7. THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT,1951

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 7

BOOKS REFERRED

1. H.M. SEERVIA, ConstitutionAL LAW OF INDIA 439 (UNIVERSAL LAW

PUBLISHING CO & 4THed.2010
2. DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE Constitution, (10th ED …. 1987

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 8

CASES REFERRED

1. S P Gupta v. Union Of India, A.I.R. 1982 SC 149

2. Maidur Kaamagar Sabha v. Abdul Bhai, A.I.R. 1976 S.C.R. (3) 591
3. State Of Bombay v. United Motors LTD, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 252
4. K.K. Kochunni v. State Of Madras, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 725
5. Harbansa Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2120

6. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2007 S.C 1:(2006) 8 S.C.C. 212

7. State of Punjab v Shri Amar Singh, P.L.R. 1998, 119 H.C. 498
8. Union Of India v. Association For Democratic Reforms, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 126, 2000
(57) D.R.J 82
9. R.P v. Indian Express Limited, A.I.R.1989 S.C. 190, 1988 S.C.R. Supl. (3) 212
10. People Union Of Civil Liberty V. Union of India, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 476
11. Govt Of India v. Association Of Cricket Bengal, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1236, 1995 S.C.C. (2)
161
12. Nawabhash Abash v. State Of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 557
13. Province Of Bombay v. Adwani, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 308
14. Shivaram Poddar v. I.T.O, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1095
15. Fazalbhai v. Custodian, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1397
16. Mohindar Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commission, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 9

17. Bennette v. Union Of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 106

18. State Of UP v. Raj Narain, A.I.R.1975 S.C. 865
19. R.T.D. Limited v. Properties Of Indian Express PVT LTD, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 190
20. Shreya Singal v. Union Of India, A.I.R. 2015 S.C. 1523.
21. Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India, A.I.R.1978 S.C.C. (1) 248.
22. A. K. Kraipak v. Union Of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C.150.
23. Maqbool Fida Hussain v. Raj K R . Pandey, 2008 Cr.L.J .4107.
24. Sakal Papers (P)Ltd &Ors v. Union of India, A.I.R.1962 S.C.R. 842
25. S.Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr , A.I.R. 2010 S.C.C. 600
26. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 1:(2006) 8
27. Avinder Singh v State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 321
28. Sri Srinivas Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu A.I.R. 1992, S.C. 992

29. Amita v. Union of India. (2005) 13 S.C.C. 721.

30. Dalmia cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 10 S.C.C.104.
31. Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 S.C.C. 34
32. Dharam Dutt v. Union India, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1295.
33. Law of the Constitution, 9th Ed., p. 202
34. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R.1952 S.C.75
35. Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, A.I.R. 1974 S.C.
2009
36. Joseph Shine v UOI, 2018 S.C.C. OnLine S.C. 1676
37. Indra Sawhney v U.O.I., A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 477
38. Air India v Nargesh Meerza, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621
39. Visakha v State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C.C. 3011
40. National Legal Service Authority [NALSA] v UOI, A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 1863
41. Harsh Mander v. U.O.I., 2018 S.C.C. OnLine Del 10427
42. Shayara Bano v U.O.I. 2017 S.C.C. .OnLine S.C. 963
43. Navtej Singh Johar v U.O.I., (2018) 10 S.C.C. 1
44. Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India. (1996) 6 S.C.C. 530: A.I.R.
1996 S.C. 3538
45. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R.1952 S.C.75
46. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R.1974 S.C.555
47. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 10

48. ABL International Lid. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corps. India Ltd., (2004) 3 S.C.C.
553.
49. Ameeroonissa v. Mehboob (1953) S.C.R. 404.
50. Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 1
51. Dhirendra v. Legal Remembrancer, (1955) S.C.R. 224, Sarbanande Sonowal v Union of
India, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2920.
52. Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, (1950) S.C.R. 869.
53. KA Abbas v. Union of India A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 481
54. Javed v. State of Haryana A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3057,
55. State of Kerala v. Ararind Ramakant Modawdakar, (1999) 7 S.C.R. 400 (para 6).
56. Mithu v State of Punjab A.I.R. 1983 S.C 473
57. Jyoti pershad, Mahtab Singh, SurendarDevGaur vs administrator for union territory of
India A.I.R 1961 S.C. 1602
58. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 124
59. Lovell v. City of Griffin 303 U.S. 444 (1938)
60. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India 2019 S.C.C. OnLine S.C. 1725 [para. 53]

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 11

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. https://www.legislativeservice.in
2. https://manupatra.com
3. https://lexisnexis.com/in/legal
4. https://scconline.in
5. https://oxforddictionaries.in
6. https://ibloger.in
7. https://ipleader.in
8. https://lawteacher.in
9. https://indiakanoon.in
10. https://casemine.in
11. http://lawtimesjournal.in/maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india/
12. http://Legalservicesindia.com/article/1847/Freedom-of-Press..in
13. https://lawescort.in/

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 12

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before hon’ble High
Court of Mayoorsthan. The petition invokes its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution for the violation of Fundamental Rights enumerated in part III of the
Constitution.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 13

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mayoorsthan is a State in the Indian Union governed by a Unicameral Legislative

Assembly under the rule of Mayoorsthan Republic Party. The main political party in
opposition is the Mayoorsthan Socialist Party. The total population of the State is
5,48,57,600 with a literacy
Rate of 99% out of which 60% is active in social media.

2. Several popular mainstream Medias had reported the propagation of fake messages through
social media platforms often leading to riots and patriotic fervor due to the people’s ignorance
of authenticity and validity of the facts in and around the State of Mayoorsthan. The
transmission of these fake messages has had a noticeable influence over the Indian Electoral
process leading to social unrest and violent outbreaks amongst the mob. It has also affected the
outbreak of Covid-19 and transmission of misinformation including false cures, anti-
vaccination propaganda and conspiracy theories further complicating the rescue task for the
authorities.

3. Several allegations of illegalities, irregularities, corruption and nepotism were directed against
the Government, Chief Minister and certain Cabinet Ministers in light of fake and unreliable
news mainly fueled by social media messages. Investigations against the alleged persons and

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 14

the resignation of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet Ministers were demanded. The State
Government readily agreed to the demands for investigations and officially wrote to the Central
Government seeking investigations into the allegations by the Central Agencies, but turned
down the demands for resignation of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet ministers.

4. On 07/08/2020, the Government of Mayoorsthan appointed a Committee to study the social

impact of fake news and the studies suggested the implementation of preventive measures like
enactment of penal provisions at the government level to safeguard the authenticity of the news
shared through online platforms, and based on this report, the “Mayoorsthan Protection from
Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill 2020” was piloted in the State Legislative Assembly
on 02/10/2020. The opposition Parties strongly opposed the bill and staged a walk out and the
bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 20/10/2020 without any opposition. And the
governor of the State gave assent to “Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and
Manipulation Act 2020” on 02/11/2020.

5. The act was implemented to prevent Mayoorsthan from online falsehoods and manipulation and
for the cessation of propagation of fake news through social media platforms. A broader
definition of the words bot, statement, government etc. is laid down. The act contains 12
sections that include the grounds by which a person shall be charged against the Act and the
punishment and compensation for persons, both legal and artificial.

6. Another major provision of this act deals with the issuance of Correction Direction and Stop
Communication Direction. A Communication Officer is appointed to issue the direction and the
procedures to be followed by the charged person are also included in the Act.

7. Council for Civil Liberty, a charitable society registered under the jurisdiction of Mayoorsthan
for the Protection and Promotion of human Rights filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Indian Constitution claiming that the Act is unconstitutional on the grounds of lack of
legislative competency and violation of fundamental rights under Article 14, Article 19 (1) (a)
and Article 21 of the Constitution.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 15

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE
2. THAT THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOODS AND
MANIPULATION ACT,2020, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUNDS OF
LACK OF LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY.
3. THAT “THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND
MANIPULATION ACT 2020” IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE
CONSTITUION OF INDIA.
4. THAT “THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND
MANIPULATION ACT 2020” IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE
CONSTITUION OF INDIA.
5. THAT '' THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD
AND MANIPULATION ACT 2020" IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUION OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 16

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 0F THE

CONSTITUION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE.

The Public Interest Litigation filled by the petitioner is maintainable. Firstly, the existence of
an efficacious alternative remedy would not oust the petitioners from filling the writ petition
as fundamental right infringed. Secondly fundamental right has been infringed by the
implementation of “Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act
2020 and therefor the petition will maintainable on this regard. It is humbly submitted by the
petitioner that ‘Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020’
infringes the rights of equality, right to freedom of speech and expression and right to life and
personal liberty as enshrined by the Constitution under Articles 14, Article 21 and 19(1)
respectively.

2. “THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACTS 2020” IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUNDS OF
LACK OF LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY.

The Mayoorsthan Legislative Assembly is incompetent to pass the impugned act because the
Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act,2020 is
unconstitutional on the grounds of lack of Legislative Competency.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 17

3. “THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACTS 2020” IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE
Constitution OF INDIA.

The act is contented to be unconstitutional as there is no Intelligible differentia between those

who use internet and those by words spoken or written or other mediums of communication
as basis to punish somebody. Also, there is a differentiation of punishment for an individual
and the punishment in other cases. That is, two different punishments are given for
committing the same offence, which is a violation of equal protection of law as per Article
14. Furthermore, the Act does not state any specific requirements or any procedure by which
the Communication Officer is selected, it is the discretion of the government.

4. “ THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020” IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE
Constitution OF INDIA.

The act is contended to be unconstitutional on the following grounds: First, Section 3 of the
act infringes the protection guaranteed under Article19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India by
restricting some of the subjects which are outside the purview of reasonable restriction that is
Article19(2).

Secondly, Section 8(4) and 10(1) of the act violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India by restricting the people from expressing their views by issuing a stop communication
direction.

5. ''THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020" IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE
Constitution OF INDIA.

Article 21. Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The object of the
fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty and
deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law. It clearly means that this

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 18

fundamental right has been provided against state only. The petitioners of this case stated that
section 7(1), 7 (1)(b) , 8(4), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4) was against the principle of Natural of
Justice Theory & Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the articles firmly deal with the
principles of natural justice. Late Mr. Bhagawati J. stated, “the principle of reasonableness
which legally as well as philosophically is an essential element of equality or non-
arbitrariness .Therefore, the procedure laid in Article 21 “must be right, just and fair” and
shall not be arbitrary, oppressive, otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the
requirements under Article 21 would not be fulfilled.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I.

II. I.THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 0F THE
Constitution OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE.

1. The Public Interest Litigation filled by the petitioner against the “ Mayoorsthan
Protection From Online Falsehood And Manipulation Act 2020” is maintainable, as it is
independent of any alternative remedy [A] Further, there is infringement of fundamental
rights [B] and therefore the Constitutionality of the act is being challenged.

1.1 The petition is independent of the existing alternative remedies.

2. The existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar on the
petition before the court1 as it is a process that the court chooses to opt out of
convenience and discretion. Under special circumstances the High Court may grant writ
remedies to a petitioner even with the existence of an alternative remedy. 2 Where there is
well-founded allegation that fundamental right has been infringed, alternative remedy is
no bar for entertaining writ petition and granting relief 3. The mere existence of an
adequate alternative legal remedy cannot be per se be a good and sufficient ground for
1
Shivram Poddar v. ITO, A.I.R 1964 SC 1095; also see JUSTICE B L HANSARIA’s WRIT JURSIDICTION
(3 ed.2005)
2
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 (11)
3
State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. A.I.R 1953 SC 252

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 19

throwing out a petition under Article 226. if the existence of a fundamental right and a
breach, actual or threatened, of such right and is alleged is prima facie established on the
petition4. In spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the court may exercise its writ
jurisdiction in at least petitions where the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights5. Thus, the petitioner humbly submits that writ petition is
maintainable as existence of alternative remedy is not a bar.

1.2 The petition is maintainable when there is infringement of fundamental rights.

3. A writ petition can be filed with respect to reassessment when there has been a
contravention of fundamental rights. It is humbly submitted by the petitioners that
‘Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020’ is
infringing the rights of equality, right to freedom of speech and expression and right to
life and personal liberty as enshrined by the Constitution under Articles 14, Article 21
and 19(1)6respectively. So submit that the ‘Mayoorsthan Protection From Online
Falsehoods and Manipulation Act is unconstitutional on the grounds of lack of
legislative competency and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a)
and 21 of the Constitution. Therefor, It is submitted that the writ filed by the petitioners
is maintainable

4
K.K. Kouchunni V. State of Madras A.I.R 1959 SC 725
5
Harbansa lSahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. A.I.R 2003 SC 2120
6
INDIA CONST. Article 14, 19 cl.1, 21

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 20

II.THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOODS AND

MANIPULATION ACT,2020 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUNDS OF
LACK OF LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY

4. Article 2467of the Constitution of India Deals with Distribution of Law making power:
The Constitution, in making the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and
the States, follows the Government of India Act, 1935; It enumerates various items of
legislation in three lists:
List I – the Union List; List II – the State List; List III – the Concurrent List8.23 Subject to
some additions, deletions and modifications of some of the items, Parliament has exclusive
powers of legislation with respect to 97 items in List I; the State Legislatures have exclusive
powers of legislation with respect to 66 items enumerated in List II and both Parliament and
the State Legislatures may make laws in respect of 47 subjects enumerated in List III. 9
The “Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020” is based
on communication of false statements through social media.

7
Article 246 : (1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws
withrespect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as
the “Union List”).
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State
also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule
(in this
Constitution referred to as the “Concurrent List”).
(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State
or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule ((in this
Constitutionreferred to as the “State List”).
(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory for India not
included [in a State] not withstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List.
8
V.N.Shukla’sConstitution of India, 13th Ed. 2017 with Supp. 2019 794
9
Ibid.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 21

List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is known as Union List. Entry 31 of the
Union List deals with “Posts and Telegraphs; telephone, wireless, broadcasting and
other forms of communication”. The State of Mayoorsthan has no legislative power to
make laws on the subjects mentioned in Union List as per Article 246(3). Hence the Act is
void.

5.If any legislation is enacted by a State Legislature in respect of a matter falling within List I
that will be without jurisdiction and therefore void10.The question of repugnance arises only
in case both the legislations fall within the same List, namely, List III. If any legislation is
enacted by a State Legislature in respect of a matter falling within List I that will be void 11.

2.1 The impugned Act conflict with Central Laws

6.Section 5 of the impugned Act provides punishment for offences stated in Section (3) and
(4) ,that is already covered by Sections 153A, 171G, 177 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover
,there is contradiction between the punishments provided under Indian Penal Code and
provision of the impugned Act which provided the punishment and made it rigorous. Thus
the provisions of the Act seeks to put in place a law which covers the same ground as
Sections153A, 171G, 177 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a central legislation. The Act is
beyond the power of the State Legislature and is thus arbitrary and illegal.

2.2 The application of Doctrine of Repugnancy would make the impugned Act
unconstituional
7. A bare reading of the Impugned Act indicates that the provisions of the Act are repugnant
to certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Information Technology Act,
2000.
8. In the case of Offshore Holdings P.Ltd v. Bangalore Devt, Authority &Ors12, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the repugnancy of statutes in the following words:
“The repugnancy would arise in the cases where both the pieces of legislation deal with the
same matter but not where they deal with separate and distinct matters, though of a cognate
and allied character.W here the State legislature has enacted a law with reference to a

10
Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium CO. Ltd. and Ors, A.I.R. 1976 1031
11
Ibid.
12
Offshore Holdings P.Ltd v. Bangalore Devt, Authority &Ors (2011) 3 S.C.C. 139

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22

particular Entry with respect to which, the Parliament has also enacted a law and there is an
irreconcilable conflict between the two laws so enacted, the State law will be a stillborn law
and it must yield in favour of the Central law.” It is notable to mention that it was mentioned
in the same judgment that the “The question of repugnancy arises only when both the
legislatures are competent to legislate in the same field ,i.e. when both, the Union and the
State laws, relate to a subject in List III of the Constitution of India.”13
III.

IV. III.THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020 IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

9. Freedom of speech , considered the basic freedom by most philosophical thinkers , consist
of several facts, including the right to express one’s opinion unhindered, unfettered by the fear
of retribution. It allows people to freely participate in the social and political happenings of
their country. In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras 14while quoting US Supreme Court view
in Lovell v. City of Griffin 15 [ 1937 ] the apex court held that the freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed under Art,19(1)(a) means right to speak and to express one’s opinion by
word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or in any other manner. It is to express one’s
conviction and opinions or ideas freely through any communicational medium or visible
representation such as gestures, signs and the like. This freedom is essential for the proper
functioning of the democratic process. But here the act actually prohibits the people to
communicate their ideas freely without any fear and also for avoiding or redusing the spread of
fake news in the state should not take a measures which affects the peoples freedom. This
freedom is essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process
3.1 Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020 does
not qualify the Test of Proportionality

10. In the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India16, the Court said that, though the
Indian Constitution allows the Government to restrict freedom of expression, but per
the Indian Constitution such restrictions must be proportionate. With this in mind, the
Court defined proportionality as the question of whether, “regulating exercise of
13
Ibid.
14
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras A.I.R 1950 S.C 124
15
Lovell v. City of Griffin 303 U.S. 444 (1938)
16
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1725 [para. 53]

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 23

fundamental rights, the appropriate or least restrictive choice of measures has been
made by the legislature or the administrator so as to achieve the object of the
legislation or the purpose of the administrative order, as the case maybe.”

The Court then outlined its understanding of the test of proportionality after
conducting an extensive comparative review of proportionality tests used by Indian,
German and Canadian Courts:
1. The goal of the restriction must be legitimate.

2. The restriction must be necessary.

3. The authorities must consider if alternative measures to the restriction

exist. 4. The least restrictive measure must be taken.
5. The restriction must be open to judicial review.

11.It is humbly submitted, therefore, that Section 3 does not satisfy the “Test of
Proportionality” as the provision contained in Section 3 is of an arbitrary and excessive
nature. It covers within its ambit categories such as public tranquility, public
finance.es, public confidence etc. which are arbitrary and liable to be abused by
authorities. The Act is also silent on the provision of Judicial Review and hence should
be struck down as unconstitutional.

12. It is further contended that Section 7 provides arbitrary powers on the State
Government, . In other words, ‘Opinion’, ’Public interest’ is entirely subjective. In the
Maneka Gandhi case17, the Court said that, “when uncanalised power vested in an
authority, the law would suffer from the vice of discrimination, since it would leave it
open to an authority to discriminate between persons and things similarly situated”.

3.2.That the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation

Act, 2020 is vague in nature.

13. It is humbly submitted that the phraseology employed in Section 3 suffers from the
vice of vagueness due to which innocent persons are roped in as offenders. In other
words, the terms ‘to be prejudicial to public health, tranquillity, finance, public
confidence’ are not clear and they have not been defined in the Constitution or in the
General Clauses Act or in any other legislation. In such a scenario, it would be quite

17
Ibid 24

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 24

obvious for the authorities to act arbitrarily and whimsically while booking innocent
persons under the Section 3 and 5.

14. The Shreya Singal v. Union of India 18on March 2015 deals with the
unconstitutionality of a section 66A of the Information Technology Act which was not
originally present in the section but enacted into force by virtue of an Amendment Act
of 2009. This case says about the infringement of the fundamental right of 19(1)(a) and
is not saved by any of the 8 subjects covered in Article19(2). In this case the causing of
annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation,
enmity hatred, or ill will are all outside the purview of Article19(2). Further in creating
an offence with aforesaid terms, none of them are even attempted to be defined and
cannot be defined. This create a vagueness in the act and the result being the innocent
person are roped in as well as those who are not. Such persons are not told clearly on
which side of the line they fall; and it would be open to the authorities to be as arbitrary
and whimsical as they like in booking such person under the said section. In fact, a
large number of innocent person have been booked and many instances have been
given in the form of a note to the court. The enforcement of the said section would
really be an insidious form of censorship which impairs a core value contained in
Article19(1)(a

15.In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India19 , the Court said: “Every expression used is
nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another”.

16.In this case, under S.2 of the Act the word misleading have not been defined in the
Act and the meaning of the word False statement is being reiterated under S.2 and S.3
but gives out different meaning under both the sections ,this creates a nature of
ambiguity. Under S.5 , S.6,S.7,S.8,S.9,S.10 and S.11 the procedure for the conviction
of a person held liable under this Act is clearly mentioned and hence it is vague.

17.Therefore, the interpretation was held to be subjective in nature. Hence the court
ordered 66A as in violation of of right to freedom of speech and expression and is not
covered under the grounds of reasonable restrictions given under Article 19(2). The
Court found that Section 66A is capable of limiting all forms of internet

18
Ibid 21
19
Ibid 21

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 25

communications as it makes no distinction “between mere discussion or advocacy of a

particular point of view, which may be annoying or inconvenient or grossly offensive
to some and incitement by which such words lead to an imminent causal connection
with public disorder, security of State etc.”20

18.As to petitioners’ challenge of vagueness, the Court followed the U.S. judicial
precedent, which holds that “where no reasonable standards are laid down to define
guilt in a Section which creates an offense, and where no clear guidance is given to
either law abiding citizens or to authorities and courts, a Section which creates an
offense, and which is vague must be struck down as being arbitrary and
unreasonable”. [para. 52] The Court found that Section 66A leaves many terms open-
ended and undefined, therefore making the statute void for vagueness.

19.The Court also addressed whether Section 66A is capable of imposing chilling
effect on the right to freedom of expression. It held that because the provision fails to
define terms, such as inconvenience or annoyance, “a very large amount of protected
and innocent speech could be curtailed”21.

20.In this case ,under S.2 of the Act the word misleading have not been defined in the
Act and the meaning of the word False statement is being reiterated under S.2 and S.3
but gives out different meaning under both the sections ,this creates a nature of
ambiguity.Under S.5 , S.6,S.7,S.8,S.9,S.10 and S.11 the procedure for the conviction of
a person held liable under this Act is clearly mentioned and hence it is vague.

It is humbly submitted, that in light of the aforementioned laws, cases and arguments,
Article19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution has been violated.

20
Ibid 21 [para. 20]
21
Ibid 21 (para 83)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 26

V. IV.THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM MANIPULATION ACT IS IN

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

21.Article 14 of the Indian Constitution declares that the State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. In the
case of Sri Srinivas Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu 22 the SC held that, Prima facie, the
expression equality before the law' and 'equal protection of the laws' may seem to be
identical, but, in fact, they mean different things. While equality before the law is a somewhat
negative concept implying the absence of any special privilege by reason of birth creed or the
like, in favour of any individual23 and the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law,
equal protection of the law is a more positive concept, implying the right to equality of
treatment in equal circumstances. The concept of equality and equal protection of the laws in
its proper spectrum encompasses social and economic justice in a political democracy 24. It
prohibits unreasonable discrimination between persons. The doctrine of equality 25 contained
in Article 14 is not the ideal equality but the legal equali4ty 26. Equality of law is part of the
Rule of Law which has been explained by Dicey 27.From State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali
Sarkar28 to Joseph Shine v UOI29, the Article 14 went on to shape its ambit.

22
Sri Srinivas Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu A.I.R. 1992, S.C. 992
23
Amita v. Union of India. (2005) 13 S.C.C. 721.
24
Dalmia cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 10 S.C.C.104.
25
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 S.C.C. 34
26
Dharam Dutt v. Union India, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1295.
27
Law of the Constitution, 9th Ed., p. 202
28
State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R.1952 S.C.75 ; See also Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice
Tendolkar, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 538; Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, A.I.R.
1974 S.C. 2009
29
Joseph Shine v UOI, 2018 S.C.C. OnLine S.C. 1676 ;See also E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu,
A.I.R.1974 S.C.555; Maneka Gandhi v U.O.I., (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248; Indra Sawhney v U.O.I., A.I.R. 1993 S.C.
477; Air India v Nargesh Meerza, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621; Visakha v State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C.C. 3011;
National Legal Service Authority [NALSA] v UOI, A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 1863; Harsh Mander v. U.O.I., 2018
S.C.C. OnLine Del 10427.; Shayara Bano v U.O.I. 2017 S.C.C. .OnLine S.C. 963; Navtej Singh Johar v U.O.I.,
(2018) 10 S.C.C. 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 27

It is submitted by the petitioner that the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and
Manipulation Act,2020 is in violation of of Article 14.

4.1That the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act,2020
is Arbitrary in nature

The petitioner humbly submits that the Act has been framed arbitrarily. 30 The Apex Court in
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar31 evolved a rule which requires that:

22. There should be a reasonable classification based on intelligible

differentia; and this classification should have a rational nexus with the objective sought
to be achieved; popularly known as Nexus Tests; and held that: ‘Equal laws would have to be
applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person
and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the
same. The law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs and exigencies
of the society and as suggested by experience.
23. In E.P Royappa V State of Tamil Nadu 32, J.Bhagwati delivered the judgement on behalf
of himself J.Chandrachood and J.Krishna Iyer observed that equality is a dynamic concept
with many aspect of dimension and it cannot be “cribbed cabined and confined with in
traditional and doctrine limits. From a positivistic point of the view, equality is antithetic to
arbitrariness. It can recognise even degree of evil, but the classification should never be
arbitrary, artificial or evasive. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, where an
act is arbitrary and it is implicit that it is unequal both politically and constitutionally, is in
violation of Article 14.
24.In the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India 33 J.Nariman held that a Constitutional
infirmity is found in Article 14 itself whenever legislation is manifestly arbitrary, i.e., when it
is unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, capricious, biased, with favouritism or nepotism and
not in pursuit of equitable treatment. It should conform to norms which are rational and
reasonable. Article 14 is subject to the doctrine of classification. It applies only where equals

30
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India. (1996) 6 S.C.C. 530: A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3538
31
State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, A.I.R.1952 S.C.75
32
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R.1974 S.C.555
33
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 28

are treated differently without any reasonable basis but, not where equals and unequal are
treated differently. Thus Article 14 forbid class legislation. It permits reasonable
classification34 of persons, objects and transactions for the purpose of legislation 35.It is
humbly submitted that the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation
Act, 2020 does not pass the twin test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus.

1) Intelligible differentia' test

25. Classification36 must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons
or things that are group together from those that are left out of the group. The differentia
which is the basis of the classification and the object legislation are two different elements
and it follows that the object itself cannot be the basis of classification. Basis of permissible
classification are Geographical basis37 , Historical considerations38, Nature of persons, Nature
of business39, State and private persons, Reference of time, Object of the law 40, Purposes of
taxation.41

2)Rational Nexus

26. Intelligible differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by
the statute. The differentia must have a rational nexus (relation) to the objects sought to be
achieved by impugned legislative or executive action. The classification must rest on a
rational basis and must have a relation to the object sought. Finally, the object of the
classification must be legal. The doctrine of classification was evolved to sustain a legislation
or State action designed to help weaker sections of the society or some such segments of the
society. The action would be sustained if it satisfies the twin tests of reasonable classification
and the rational principle co-relating it to the object sought to be achieved.

1. Considering the object of the law as a basis of classification, the inclusion of

internet as a medium of transmission of fake news and the exclusion of other forms

34
ABL International Lid. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corps. India Ltd., (2004) 3 S.C.C. 553.
35
Ameeroonissa v. Mehboob (1953) S.C.R. 404.
36
Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 1
37
Dhirendra v. Legal Remembrancer, (1955) S.C.R. 224, Sarbanande Sonowal v Union of India, A.I.R. 2005
S.C. 2920.
38
Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, (1950) S.C.R. 869.
39
KA Abbas v. Union of India A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 481
40
Javed v. State of Haryana A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3057,
41
State of Kerala v. Ararind Ramakant Modawdakar, (1999) 7 S.C.R. 400 (para 6).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 29

of transmission is arbitrary as the fake news propagated through the offline media
can also create violent attacks. By curbing the rights of people who use a particular
medium42 for the transmission of messages is clearly discriminatory.
2. Considering the Geographical basis of classification, under S.(1)(ii) of the
impugned Act,it states that the Act extends to the whole of the State of
Mayoorsthan but under S.(6)(1),the words “A person who, whether in or outside
Mayoorsthan” here a person outside of Mayoorsthan can also be held liable. If the
operative reason for the State action is outside the area of permissible
considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and is hit by
Articles 14 and 16 and the mala fide exercise of Power and arbitrariness are
different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice
3. S. 5(a) and (b) and 6(2) (a) and (b) states the punishment given to an individual in
case a person contravenes Sec 3 and 4. Here, there is a differentiation of
punishment for an individual and the punishment in other cases. That is, two
different punishments are given for committing the same offence, which is a
violation of equal protection of law as per Article 14. Similarly, in the case of Mithu
v State of Punjab43the Supreme Court ruled that Section 30313 violated Articles 14
and Article 21 since an unreasonable distinction was sought to be made between the
punishments given to two classes of murderers.
4. S.8(4) and S.10(4) of the act states that a person who has communicated a false
statement of fact in Mayoorsthan a Correction Direction may be issued even if the
person does not know or has no reason to believe that the statement is false. Here
the State has all the chance to give a Correction Direction and Stop Communication
Direction to any person according to his interests and favour ,may be a person with
a different political view or one who finds that the Government is wrong, and there
is no issue whether the person knows the reason or not. The fact in this matter is
that, the citizens of Mayoorsthan are not provided equal protection of law as stated
in Article 14.
5. S.7(1) of the act states that the state government may designate any officer of the
state as Communication Officer which is in violation of Article 14 due to
inequality in choosing the officer.

42
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India A.I.R 2015 S.C 1523
43
Mithu v State of Punjab A.I.R. 1983 S.C 473

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 30

Jyoti Pershad, Mahtab Singh, SurendarDevGaur v.Administrator for Union

Territory of India44 in which the hon'ble court has given guidelines to check if state
passed statutes are in violation of article 14 or not:
i. If the statute itself or the rule made under the statute applies unequally to
persons or things similarly situated it would be an instance of direct
violation of Constitutional guarantee
ii. The enactment or the rule might not be in terms enact a discriminatory rule
of law but might enable an unequal or discriminatory treatment to be
accorded to persons or things similarly situated. This very provision of law
which enables or permits the authority to discriminate in certain
circumstances offends the guarantee of equal protection accorded by article
14.
27. In respect to this guidelines provided in the case and the Mayoorsthan Protection from
Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act,2020,

1. The sections 5(B) that mentions about the punishment in other cases and according to
the 1st and 2nd guideline the section is not in terms with equal punishment.
2. Section 7(1) mentions about the designation of the communication officer and as per
the 1st and 2nd guidelines it is not equal treatment therefore arbitrary and out of
bounds
4.2.Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020 is
against Natural Justice.

28.Section 8(4) of the Act states that “a person who communicated a false statement of fact in
Mayoorsthan may be issued a Correction Direction even if the person does not know or has
no reason to believe that the statement is false.” Here the the Correction Direction is send
without affording the the person an opportunity to know the reason or to substantiate his part
and hence violates the principle of Audi Alteram Partum. It embodies that no person shall be
condemned unheard and is a main factor of Natural Justice. Natural Justice is an integral part
of administrative process. Article14 guarantee a right of hearing to the person adversely
affected by the administrative order.
29. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India45 SC opined that “Article 14 is an authority for the
proposition that the principles of Natural Justice are an integral of the guarantee of equality
44
Jyoti pershad, Mahtab Singh, SurendarDevGaur vs administrator for union territory of India A.I.R 1961 S.C
1602
45
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India A.I.R 1978 S.C 597

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 31

under Article 14, an order depriving a person of his civil right passed without affording him
an opportunity of being heard suffers from the vice of violation of natural justice.be a person
with a different political view or one who finds that the Government is wrong, and there is no
issue whether the person knows the reason or not. The fact in this matter is that, the citizens
of Mayoorsthan are not provided equal protection of law as stated in Article 14.

It is humbly submitted, that in light of the aforementioned laws, cases and arguments,
Article14 of the Indian Constitution has been violated.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 32

VI. V.“THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020" VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE Constitution OF
INDIA.

30. Article 21. Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: “No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Though the
phraseology of Article 21 starts with negative word but the word No has been used in relation
to the word deprived. The object of the fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent
encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure
established by law. It clearly means that this fundamental right has been provided against
state only.

31. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India46 the Apex Court opened up a new
dimension and laid down that the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable one.
Article 21 imposed a restriction upon the state where it prescribed a procedure for depriving a
person of his life or personal liberty. In this case SC 7 Judge Bench said ‘personal liberty’ in
article 21 covers a variety of rights & some have status of fundamental rights and given
additional protection u/a 19. Triple Test for any law interfering with personal liberty: (1) It
must prescribe a procedure; (2) the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the
fundamental rights conferred u/a 19 which may be applicable in a given situation and (3) It
must withstand test of Article 14. The law and procedure authorising interference with
personal liberty and right of privacy must also be right just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful
or oppressive. In this case the apex court also held that the natural justice principle should be
brought in article 21 of the Indian Constitution. According to article 414 of the Indian
Constitution the rules made by the Supreme Court is binding all the lower courts.

32. Hence to deprive a person from his rights mentioned in article 21 the state should follow a
procedure where the principle of natural justice is followed and it should be just fair and
reasonable.

46
Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India, A.I.R1978 SCC (1) 248

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 33

5.1. Section 7(1) ,7(1)(B) Of ''The Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehood And
Manipulation Act 2020” violates 21 of the Constitution of India,

33. Section (7). (1) “Mayoorsthan Protection from online Falsehood and Manipulation
Act ,2020”47. The state Government may designate any officer of the state as
Communication Officer for the implementation of the Act the Communication officer is
competent to issue the Correction direction under Section 8 if following conditions are
satisfied (a) a false statement of fact has been or is being communicated in Mayoorsthan;
(b) the Communication Officer is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the
Direction. “ Mayoorsthan Protection from online Falsehood and Manipulation Act
2020”. The qualification for the post of communication officer is not mentioned in the
Act which also shows the vagueness of the act. If the government provides unconditional
power to the Communication Officer, there is a chance that sometimes his unreasonable
or prejudicial attitude will reflect in his actions and decisions and that will adversely
affect the Public Interest. where an act of private individual supported by the state
infringes the personal liberty or life of another person, the act will certainly come under
the ambit of Article 21. Article 21 of the Constitution of India deals with prevention of
encroachment upon personal liberty or deprivation of life of a person.
34. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner 48, the court held that
the concept of fairness should be in every action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial,
administrative and or quasi-administrative work. Purpose of the principle, to provide equal
opportunity of being heard, Concept of Fairness, to fulfil the gaps and loopholes of the
law., to protect the Fundamental Rights, to Basic features of the Constitution, No
miscarriage of Justice.
35. In the case of the Province of Bombay vs. Khushaldas Advani49, it was said that natural
justice will be applicable on statutory as it is a basic principle of Natural justice which
leads to fairness and justice.

36. According to the Principle Of Natural Justice theory, consists of 3 rules. The first one
“Bias rule” generally expresses that panel of expert should be biased free while taking the
47
Section 7(1) of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act 2020
The state Government may designate any officer of the state as Communication Officer for the implementation
of the Act
48
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 A.I.R S.C 851
49
Province of Bombay vs. Khushaldas Advani, A.I.R 1950 S.C 222

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 34

decision. The decision should be given in a free and fair manner which can fulfil the rule of
natural justice. Hearing before punishment which is another principle of natural justice is also
nowhere seem to be mentioned in the said act. So the petitioners humbly submit that Section
7(1) and 7(1)(b) violates the natural justice principle as well as this procedure is not fair and
the court may please declare the above mentioned sections as unconstitutional.

5.2. Section 8(4), 10(2), 10(3), 10(4) Of ''The Mayoorsthan Protection From Online
Falsehood And Manipulation Act 2020” violates 21 of the Constitution of India,

37. According to section 8 (4) of “Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and
Manipulation Act 2020” a person who communicated a false statement in Mayoorsthan is
issued a correction direction and 10(4) says about the issue of stop communication direction.
Both of these are issued to the person even if the person does not know or has no reason to
believe that the statement is false. This can lead to the punishment of innocent people who
have never thought of spreading fake news and creating problems in Mayoorsthan in their
wildest dreams. This makes the act unfair and it intrudes the right to life of people under
which it is a vast concept which contains various rights.

50
38.In the case of K.S Puttaswamy the court held that right to privacy is included in an
individual’s right to freedom of expression and movement. It connected article 21 of the
Indian Constitution with article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

39.In section 10(2) of the Act it is conveyed that a stop communication direction is issued to
a statement, that is substantially similar to the false statement. This clearly restricts the
freedom of thoughts and opinions of people who would like to express their views on
different issues, which is a violation of article 21 of Indian Constitution.

40.In section 10(3) of the act prescribes that the person should issue a correction notice in the
specified form and manner within the specified time therefore, all corrections should me
made according to the opinion of the communication officer which leads to the violation of
the freedom of life and liberty which also violates freedom of speech and expression.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India51 is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme

50
KS Puttaswamy and ors vs Union of India and ors 2017 (10) S.C.C 1
51
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, A.I.R 2015 SC 1523,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 35

Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. The
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 52, relating
to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of
speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21of the Constitution of India. The
Court further held that the Section was not saved by virtue of being a 'reasonable restriction'
on the freedom of speech under Article 19(2). The Supreme Court also read down Section 79
and Rules under the Section. It held that online intermediaries would only be obligated to
take down content on receiving an order from a court or government authority. The case is
considered a watershed moment for online free speech in India. It also found Section 118(d)
of the Kerala Police Act to be unconstitutional as applied to Section 66A. Based on the
forgoing reasons, the Court invalidated Section 66A of ITA 53 in its entirety as it violated the
right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution
Of India54.

41. While the decision of the Supreme Court is of immense significance in protecting online
free speech against arbitrary restrictions, Section 66A, which was declared unconstitutional,
has continued to be used as a punitive measure against online speech in several cases. So the
'Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehood And Manipulation Act 2020' can be noted
as the violation of this particular judgement held by the Supreme Court Of India. Article 141
of the Indian Constitution provides that, "The law declared by the Supreme Court shall
be binding on all courts within the territory of India." In Article 141 the expression
"all courts" has been used which creates question that whether Supreme the sphere of
all courts.

52
The Information Technology Act, 2000
53
The Kerala Police Act 2011,
54
INDIA CONST. Article19 cl.1, 21

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 36

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:

1. That, the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable
in the court of law.
2. That the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act,2020 is
unconstitutional on the Grounds of lack of legislative competency.
3. That, “The Mayoorsthan Protection from Falsehood And Online Manipulation Act 2020”
is in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
4. That, “The Mayoorsthan Protection from Falsehood And Online Manipulation Act 2020”
is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. That, “The Mayoorsthan Protection From Falsehood And Online Manipulation Act 2020
is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

AND/OR

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

S/d-

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER