TEAM CODE: TC01

6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Before

The Honorable Supreme Court of Union of Indica

ORGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32, CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF INDICA

WRIT PETITION NO. __/2021

IN THE CASE CONCERNING CENSORSHIP OF OTT PLATFORMS

AND

YULU PETITIONER NO. 1

OTT CONSORTIUM PETITIONER NO. 2

v.

UNION OF INDICA RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

UPON SUBMISSION TO
THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF UNION OF INDICA

MEMORANDUM OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 4

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

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 8

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

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

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

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDICA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

.................................................................................................................................................. 13
1.1 The Petitioner does not have Locus Standi ........................................................... 13
1.2 The PIL is not maintainable under Article 32 ....................................................... 13
1.2.1 No violation of Article 19(1)(a)…………..………………………………………… 14
1.2.2 No violation of Article 19(1)(g) ......................................................................... 14
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 3 OF

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA

ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021, IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? ............................................... 16
2.1 The IT Rules, 2021 are framed excersing the powers under Section 87 (2) of the
IT Act, 2000. .................................................................................................................... 16
2.2 IT Rules, 2021 are framed within the scope of Constitutional Provisions. ........... 17
2.2.1 Section 3 Of IT rules is within reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
………………………………………………………………………………17
2.2.2 As well as within reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). ...................... 19
2.2.3 These rules will protect the right to live with dignity..................................... 20
2.2.4 Self-regulatory code by OCCPs is tainted toward profit ............................... 21

ISSUE 3: CAN YULU BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 295A OF THE INDICAN

2
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

PENAL CODE? .......................................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Yulu is liable under Section 153A of the Indican Penal Code(IPC). .................... 22
3.2 Yulu can be held liable under Section 295A of the Indican Penal Code............... 23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF........................................................................................................ 25

3
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
& And
§ Section
¶ Paragraph
AIR All Indian Reporter
ANR. Another
HON’BLE Honorable
WP Writ Petition
ART. Article
NO. Number
ORS. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
V. versus
OTT Over-The-Top
OCCPS Online Curated Content Providers
COCCPS Code of Online Curated Content providers
MEITY Ministry of Electronics & Information
Technology
PIL Public Interest Litigation
IPC Indican Penal Code
MP Madhyapradesh
IT Information Technology
FIR First Information Report
DEL Delhi
A.P. Aandhra Pradesh

4
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Sr. No Case Name Citation Page No.

1. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh (2014) 5 SCC 551 13

Verma.

2. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. AIR 1997 SC 3483 22

3. BishambharDayal Chandra Mohan v. State of 1982 SCR (1)1137. 15

Uttar Pradesh

4. Director-General of Doordarshan& Anr. v. 1996 8SCC 433 22

Anand Patwardhan
5. Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136 13
6. Hindi Hitrashak Samiti v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 851 13
7. K.A. Abbas v. Union of Indica 1971 AIR 481 14, 18
8. K.S Puttuswamy v. Union of India 2017 10 SCC 1. 21
9. Kali Charan Sharma v. King Emperor AIR1927 Allahabad 23
649 (SB)
10. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. state of Karnataka (1995) 1 SCC 574 19

11. Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam AIR 1964 SC 925 13

12. Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of Indica AIR 1969 SC 783 13

13. Om Prakash v. Emperor AIR 1948 Nag,199 18
14. Ramesh v. Union of India and ors. (1988) 1 SCC 668 19
15. Romesh Thapar v. Union of Indica AIR 1950 SC 124 18
16. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram 1989 (2) SCC 574 18
17. Shantabai v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1958 SC 532 13
18. Shreya Singhal v. UoI (2015) 5 SCC 1 16
19. Sri BaragurRamachandrappa& Ors v. State of Appeal (crl.) 1228 23
Karnataka, of 1998

5
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

20 State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd ( 1997 ) 2 SCC 453 16

21. State of Bihar v. Rai Bahadur Hurdut Roy (1960) 2 SCR 331
Moti Lal Jute Mills
22. State Of Madras vs V.G. Row.Union Of Indica 1952 AIR 196 20

STATUES

 Constitution of Indica, 1950.

 Indican Penal Code, 1860.

OTHER AUTHORITIES

 Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules
2021

LEGAL DATABASE

 www.scconline.com

 www.manupatra.com

 www.indiankanon.org

6
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Indica. The Respondent most humbly and respectfully submits to this
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica as involved by the Petitioners.
Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution. 1

1
INDIAN CONST.art 32.
7
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
1. Indica adopted its Constitution on 26 January 1950. The Indican Constitution under Part-III
guarantees certain fundamental rights to its citizens. The Constitution of Indica provides for
Freedom of Religion as a fundamental right and there is no intervention of the State in
religious matters. It also explicitly grants the citizens the Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression under Article 19 (1) (a) which is considered as the backbone of Indican
Democracy.
2. Indica has rich social composition, as many religions have originated in the country and few
religions of foreign origin have also flourished here. Around 80% of Indicans are Sindhus,
14% are Kushlims, while the remaining 6% follow other religions since time immemorial.
RISE OF OTT PLATFORMS
1. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 in January 2020, all the cinema halls and amusement
centres in every state of Indica were shut down to prevent the spread of the virus and thus
the citizens of Indica in search of entertainment opted to watch movies, web series, stand-up
comedy gigs, etc on OTT platforms.
2. This increased the popularity and viewership of content on OCCPs platforms to such a level
that every OCCPs platform registered a huge increase in subscription by the people of
Indica thereby generating huge revenues and encouraged such platforms to start domestic
production of original content thus investing huge sums of money into the country.
3. The publishing of certain content was objected to by sections of society, for vulgarity,
obscenity, nudity, etc. In order to address the concerns of these sections a self-regulatory
code, known as COCCPs (given in ANNEXURE-1), was adopted by the OCCPs. However,
it failed to be a successful model as it was tainted with bias leaning towards profit.
RELEASE OF CHANDAK
1. On January 1, 2021, Yulu (Petitioner-1) released multiple teasers for a web series on its
platform “Chandak” which was said to be released on February 1, 2021. It received severe
criticism and was targeted for promoting Sindhuphobic content through the series and
denigrating Sindhu Gods.
2. The trailer came under fire for showing a Kushlim man and a Sindhu woman kissing against
the backdrop of a temple. The background of the same scene also portrayed Sindhu saints in
a controversial manner. Furthermore, the scene showing actors in the attire of Sindhu Gods
drinking and smoking was met with severe backlash.

8
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

3. The Sikh community also protested against Yulu for hurting Sikh sentiments by showcasing
a scene where the lead actor throws away his Kada in the sea.
4. The makers issued an unconditional apology and also removed parts of the series that were
said to be objectionable however went ahead with the release of the series on February 1,
2021.
PUBLIC PROTESTS AND THE PASSING OF IT RULES, 2021
1. There were several protests held urging the Government to pass appropriate laws for
regulating the content on these platforms further to lay down a blanket ban on the release of
Chandak and any similar inflammatory content. Dissatisfied by the steps taken by Yulu,
multiple FIRs were filed under Section 153A and 295A of the IPC. The controversy also
spurred demands for censorship and criminal penalties for the OTT and OCCPs platforms in
Indica and specifically sanctions on Yulu for releasing the controversial web series.
2. Subsequent to the above events, the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
gave its assent to the ―Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021‖ which came into effect from February 5, 2021.
3. Section 3 of the aforementioned rules, lay down a due-diligence clause which calls for
censorship of certain material that may be deemed to be inflammatory, offensive, against
public morality, etc, was met with opposition by all the OTT platforms who came together
to form the OTT Consortium (Petitioner-2).
PIL CHALLENGING THE RULES
1. The OTT Consortium, with Yulu at the helm, challenged Section 3 of the Rules, in a PIL
under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica, on the grounds that the impugned rules were
worded in an ambiguous and vague manner and was being used as a tool by the Ruling
Party to censor and restrain the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.
2. The major question of law by the OTT Consortium is that whether the broadcasting of
content on such digital streaming platforms exceeds the reasonable restrictions under
Article 19 further how much interference can be provided by the Government of Indica in
restraint of free trade.
3. Yulu had also filed a petition challenging the multiple FIRs under Section 153A and 295A
and claimed that the corporation cannot be 7 held liable for the communal riots that took
place in January 2021. The Respondents have alleged that Yulu played a pivotal role in
instigating the riots all across Indica.
4. The above-mentioned petitions are clubbed together and are posted for a hearing before the
Supreme Court.

9
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PIL FILED IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDICA?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE)

RULES, 2021, IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

ISSUE 3

CAN YULU BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 295A OF THE INDICAN PENAL CODE?

10
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PIL FILED IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDICA?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the PIL filed is not
maintainable because the petitioner does not have Locus standi and the petition will not be
maintainable under Article 32 due to no violation of the fundamental rights written in the
const. of Indica.

ISSUE- 2 WHETHER THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 3 OF

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA

ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021, IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Section 3 of Information
Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021is
constitutionally valid on the grounds:
1. The IT Rules 2021 has been framed in the exercise of powers under section 87 (2) of the
IT Act, 2000.
2. These rules are within the scope of the Fundamental Rights as reasonable restrictions are
also provided here.
2.2.1 Section 3 Of IT rules is within reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
2.2.2 As well as within reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).
2.2.3 These rules will protect the right to live with dignity.
2.2.4 Self-regulatory code by OCCPs is tainted toward profit

ISSUE 3: CAN YULU BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 295A OF THE INDICAN

PENAL CODE?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Yulu should be held
liable under Section 153A as it talks about promoting enmity between different groups on
grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial
to maintenance of harmony. Yulu has promoted any religious disharmony. Also, Yulu should
be held liable under Section 295A as it talks about deliberate and malicious acts intended to
outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

11
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDICA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondents humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that the petitions filed before this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Indica are not maintainable.

1.1 THE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE LOCUS STANDI

The term ‘locus standi’ connotes the right to bring an action and to be heard. Any member of
the public or any public-spirited organization having a bona fide and sufficient public interest
will have locus standi to maintain the petition. PIL cannot be used for personal gain, private
profit, political motives, for settling personal scores or even to gain cheap popularity 2.
A PIL is maintainable only if there is a violation of one or more of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Hence, the petitioner does not have proper
locus standi to file the petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as neither the OTT
consortium nor Yulu has faced any grave injustice or any violation of the fundamental rights
and so the OTT consortium does not have app locus standi to file the petition.

1.2 THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32

Article 32 is the constitutional remedy granted by the Supreme Court in the conditions when
the party has suffered encroachment on his or her fundamental rights and signed under part
III of the constitution by the state or by private members and certain situations. The
aggrieved party can directly approach the Apex code to seek justice when they are unduly
deprived of their fundamental rights. This itself is a fundamental right that can appropriately
be described as the cornerstone of democratic a defies raised by the constitution.
For a writ to be maintainable under Article 32, direct infringement 3 of the FR of the
Petitioner must be established 4 The Respondent contends that the research impediments
because of the Order of the Hon’ble High Court do not violate the FR of the Petitioner
because there is no violation of the Fundamental Rights, [1] Article 19(1)(a) or [2] Article

2
Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136.
3
MaganbhaiIshwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783 (India); Hindi Hitrashak Samiti v. Union of
India, AIR 1990 SC 851 (India); Shantabai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1958 SC 532.
4
Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh Verma, (2014) 5 SCC 551 ;Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam, AIR
1964 SC 925.
13
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

19(1)(g).
Since the OTT Consortium or Yulu have not faced any violation of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Part III of the constitution. The petitioner has no maintainability under
Article 32.
1.2.1 No violation of Article 19(1)(a)
Article 19(1)(a) provides the freedom of speech and expression. It also includes the right to
publish and show views of other people (freedom of press and media). The media plays an
important role in the Democratic society as it acts as the fourth pillar outside the government.
although the Indica constitution does not expressly mention the liberty of media, it is evident
that freedom of the press is included in the freedom of speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a).
The Supreme Court for the first time came across the issue of censorship of films under
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India 5, in this case,
the Supreme Court upheld the censor of films on the ground that films have to be treated
separately from other forms of art and expression because a motion picture is able to stir up
emotions more deeply than any other product of art. A film can, therefore, be censored on the
grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held the view that "censorship of films, their classification according to
the age groups and their suitability for unrestricted exhibition with or without excisions is
regarded as a valid exercise of power in the interest of public morality, decency etc. This is
not to be construed as necessarily offending the freedom of speech and expression."
The petitioner claims that these scenes have not exceeded the freedom of speech and
expression, but they have done so. All these projections were completely illegal. By
censoring them and by demanding them to be cut out, it is clear that there is no violation of
article 19 (a) of the constitution of Indica as it is well within the reasonable restrictions.
There is no violation of 19(1)(a) and it is well within the ambit of 19(2).
1.2.2 No violation of Article 19(1)(g)
Amongst the six fundamental rights, Article 19 (1) (g) provides all the citizens of the country
the right to practice any profession, occupation, business or trade of their choice subject to
certain restrictions as laid down under Article 19 (6). Article 19 (1) (g) is a general right
available to all the citizens of the country to carry on any type of business, occupation or
profession to satisfy their livelihood needs. However, this fundamental right does not confer
the right to carry on any business, trade, occupation or profession which is unlawful or is

5
(1970) 2 SCC 780.
14
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

hindering general public interest.

In its latest decision in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh 6, the
Supreme Court observed, "Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution a citizen has the right to
carry on any occupation, trade or business and the only restriction on this unfettered right is
the authority of the State to make a law imposing reasonable restrictions under Clause (6).
The principles underlying in Clauses (5) and (6) of Article 19 are now well settled and
ingrained in our legal system in a number of decisions of this Court, and it is not necessary to
burden this judgment with citations. The expression "reasonable restriction" signifies that the
limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an
excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public, The test of
reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned
and no abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable
in all cases. The restriction which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to
contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the
freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by Clause (6) of
Article 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality.”
All these projections were completely illegal. By censoring them and by demanding them to
be cut out, it is clear that it is well within the reasonable restrictions and does not violate
Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of Indica. It does not restrict the creative and visionary
space of artists. Hence it is no violation of article 19(1)(g) to practice any profession or to
carry on any occupation, trade, or business as it is within reasonable restrictions. There is no
violation of 19(1)(g) and the clauses are within 19(2).
The counsel on behalf of Respondents thus humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that the PIL filed by the Petitioners is not maintainable.

6
1982 SCR (1)1137.
15
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACT OF REGULATING CONTENT, AS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 3 OF

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL MEDIA

ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021, IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
The counsel on behalf of Respondents humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
Section 3 of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules, 2021 is constitutionally valid because, firstly the IT Rules, 2021 are enacted
within the scope of the IT Act, 2000 and secondly the IT Rules, 2021 do not violate the
provisions of the Constitution of Indica.

2.1 THE IT RULES, 2021 ARE FRAMED EXERCISING THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 87 (2) OF
THE IT ACT, 2000.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the IT Rules, 2021 are framed
exercising the powers under Section 87(2) of IT Act, 2000.
In the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. 7, the Supreme Court held that the
approach of the court while examining the challenge to the constitutionality of an enactment
is as follows: “An Act made by the legislature represents the will of the people and cannot be
lightly interfered with. The court should not approach the enactment with a view to pick
holes or to search for defects of drafting. Any such defects should be ironed out in an attempt
to sustain the validity/constitutionality of the enactment.”
It is most humbly submitted that the rules are been framed taking into consideration the
public demands for censorship and criminal penalties for the OTT and OCCPs platforms in
Indica. 8 The rules are enacted in good faith for the public's benefit, with the goal of ensuring
proper regulation of digital and intermediate platforms. Section 3 (b)(i) to Section 3(b)(xi) are
made in the public interest and to ensure that unauthorized content is regulated.
It is to be noted that the guidelines are not new; rather, they are a replacement for the existing
rules (Intermediary Guidelines of 2011), which the Supreme Court recognised as
constitutionally valid in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. 9 As a result, the new Rules have
been created to “meet the requirements of time and new technological breakthroughs.”
Moreover, it is to be noted that the government does not ban any content under Rule 3(b), but
compels an intermediary to undertake due diligence inform the user not to host, display,

7
( 1997 ) 2 SCC 453.
8
¶ 13, Page 6, Moot Proposition.
9
(2015) 5 SCC 1.
16
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any content that is mentioned in the
above-mentioned clause.
As Supreme Court has held guidelines of 2011 valid, it is the humble submission that taking
into consideration the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal v.
Union of India and Section 87 10 of IT Act 2000, Section 3 of the new rules, 2021 should be
declared constitutionally valid.

2.2 IT RULES, 2021 ARE FRAMED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.

2.2.1 Section 3 Of IT rules is within reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) 11 of the Constitution (includes the
freedom of speech and expression) are not absolute and are thus subject to restrictions under
Article 19(2) 12 of the constitution.
"Freedom of speech and expression" does not empower anyone to spread false information in
order to disrupt public order. There is no right to disrupt public order and spread fake news
and deep fakes and also these are not good for maintaining tranquillity in public. So this
should be held constitutionally valid.
"The right to freedom of speech and expression does not include the right to publish or
distribute manipulative/fake information in order to create 'public order' circumstances.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indican constitution grants the right to freedom of speech and
expression, however, is not totally unrestricted. all fundamental rights, including freedom of
speech and expression, are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
Though IT Rules do not impose any penalties or sanctions on users who post content in
contravention of the Rules. The only consequence would be the removal of such content or
the termination of access of such user, by the intermediary, which may be challenged by the
user under the grievance redressal mechanism specifically set out in the IT Rules or by way
of judicial review.

10
Power of Central Government to make rules. -The Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette and in the Electronic Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
11
(1) All citizens shall have the right—(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
12
(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State
from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred
by the said sub-clause in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India,] the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence.
17
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

Thus, it is submitted that in the absence of additional civil or criminal liability, mere removal
of content or blocking of access of users vis a piece of vis information which is in any case
unlawful will not be tantamount to creating a chilling effect on speech and expression.
Justice Patanjali held in Romesh Thapar v Union of India 13 that 19(1)(a) is the basic
foundation and substance of the constitution and our democracy. reasonable constraints, on
the other hand, should ensure that others' rights are not harmed or compromised by the
actions of one man.
The case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram 14 directed that there must be a proper balance
between one of the right free speech and restriction of any social interest. The freedom of
conveying an idea through movies has also some restrictions under Article 19(2) of the
Constitution.
These restrictions come under several policies like integrity, sovereignty, national security,
morality and public order and all these terms are already given in Article 19(2) of the Indican
constitution. So this will be a very obvious ground for upholding these rules constitutionally
valid.
The case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India 15 was the first one in which the issue of censorship
of films came into consideration by the supreme court of India. The petitioner’s film was not
given a ‘U’ certificate so he challenged the validity of censorship under the criteria as it
violated his fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression. The court, however,
held that the motion picture stirs emotions more deeply than any other form of art. Hence pre-
censorship was valid and was justified under Article 19(2). And our case is also similar to it
as this also talks about censorship of certain unauthorized content. As said in prop. that Indica
is a multi-religious country and there should be due caution and discretion when featuring the
activities, beliefs, practices or views of any religious group because hurting religious feelings
on any person is not a right and these rules are constitutional for this reason.
A publisher shall take into consideration Indica is a multi-racial and multi-religious country
and exercise due caution and discretion when featuring the activities, beliefs, practices, or
views of any racial or religious group.
In Om Prakash v. Emperor 16, it has been said by the judge that anything that disturbs public
peace can be said to disturb public order automatically and in these rules, it is clearly written
about content that could disrupt public order or can harm someone’s dignity.

13
AIR 1950 SC 124.
14
1989 (2) SCC 574.
15
1971 AIR 481.
16
AIR 1948 Nag, 199.
18
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

2.2.2 As well as within reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).

Every person has the right to "perform any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade, or
business" under Article 19(1)(g) 17. The right is subject to the provisions of Article 19(6) 18.
This right is not absolute, and the government can impose reasonable constraints "in the
public interest." The phrase "in the benefit of the general public" has a broad meaning,
encompassing public order, public health, public security, morality, communal economic
welfare, and the goals listed in Part IV of the Constitution. Section 3 of these new IT Rules
comes with Due diligence clause supporting religious harmony, Public order, Intellectual
Property rights and talks about informing the user not to host any unlawful, pornographic,
obscene, defamatory content and also talks about the unity and integrity of India, friendly
relationships with neighbours and other countries which is just only promoting fundamental
rights to its citizens.
The State has also been given the authority under Article 19(6) to prescribe professional or
technical qualifications required for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation,
trade, or business, as well as to allow the State to carry on any trade or business entirely or
partially without the participation of citizens. And here these rules laid down provisions to
inform users about privacy policy, rules and regulations and user agreement, which will come
under reasonable restriction.
In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. state of Karnataka 19, it was held that there is no fundamental
right inter alia to do trafficking in women or slaves or to carry on the business of exhibiting
and publishing pornographic or obscene films and literature. And these rules also talk about
restrictions on the grounds of obscenity, nudity and pornographic content. and these all
activities are already not legal in Indica so there is no question of constitutionality.
In Ramesh v. Union of India and ors. 20, a ban was sought on the telecast of the serial Tamas,
which dealt with the partition of the country. It was argued that the serial would re-ignite the
painful memories of Partition, and would lead to public order problems as it is likely to create
animosity between Hindus and Muslims. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, “The effect of

17
(1) All citizens shall have the right (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business.
18
(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular,[nothing in the said
sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from
making any law.
19
(1995) 1 SCC 574.
20
(1988) 1 SCC 668.
19
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

the exhibition of a film or of reading a book has to be judged from the standards of
reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men. It further held, “Censors must make a
substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret
life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good. A balance has to be struck.”
and similar to this judgement said rules are also supporting religious harmony sovereignty
and integrity and public order. Also, the constitution of Indica itself talks about sovereignty
and integrity as a must and above all.
Articles 19(2) and (6) impose limitations on the freedoms guaranteed by Arts.19 (1)(a) and
(g) respectively. These restrictions pose a general question as to how are the restrictions
related to the right, which they restrict? It has been said that it is the rights, which are
fundamental, and not the limitations. But these observations overlook the fact that the rights
granted are not absolute but are subject to permissible restrictions.
The test of reasonableness as laid down by Sastri C.J. in Madras v. V.G. Row 21 where he said
“it is important… to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed should
be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard or general pattern of
reasonableness, can be laid down as applicable to all cases”. For adjudging reasonableness of
a restriction, the courts consider such factors as the nature of the right alleged to have been
infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the
evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing
conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict.
Section 3 of the IT Rules of 2021 specifically mentions the protection of unity, sovereignty,
and public order, among other things, which is fully supporting the doctrine of
reasonableness laid down in this landmark case.
2.2.3 These rules will protect the right to live with dignity
These rules are talking about the origin of a message, impersonating another person,
harassing someone and others for only those messages or content which is already in public
and viral that is why don’t go against privacy and only protect the fundamental right to live
with dignity.
The objective of the impersonation clause and the origin of the message clause is that the
Central government is increasing the current scope of the laws for effective investigative
purposes solely by requesting the details of the initial originator. Fake communications or
Child Sexual Abuse Material have also been observed to have the ability to rupture the
community fabric, resulting in public order issues.

21
State Of Madras v. V.G. Row.UnionOf India & State, 1952 AIR 196.
20
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

In the case of the K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India 22, SC held that "The Supreme Court has
rightly observed that the right to privacy must be considered in relation to its function in
society and be balanced against other fundamental rights which include the need of the
competent authorities for prevention, investigation, prosecution of criminal offences
including safeguards against the threat to public security.'
2.2.4 Self-regulatory code by OCCPs is tainted toward profit

There is already a self Regulatory code that is followed by OTT platforms, but as this is
tainted toward profit that’s why the government brought new rules for regulating such
content which could be neglected by OCCPs.
The counsel on behalf of the Respondents thus humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that Section 3 is constitutionally valid.

22
2017 10 SCC 1.
21
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

ISSUE 3: CAN YULUBE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 295A OF THE INDICAN

PENAL CODE?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondents humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that the web series in question is a work of fiction, and all of the locations, events and
characters are made up. though this is a work of fiction, it is still insulting some religions, so
it should not be tolerated.
The goal of the OCCP platform called "Yulu" was deliberate and was malicious in nature, as
it instigated the riots all across Indica.
As per these facts, Yulu should be held liable under Section 153A as well as Section 295A of
the Indican Penal Code.
In the case of Director General of Doordarshan and Another v. Anand Patwardhan 23, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a film must be judged from an average healthy and
common-sense point of view. However, in the aforesaid web series, the storyline is neither
healthy nor does it carry any sense. The message of the film scene portrayed is totally
perverse, obscene and contrary to the ethics and morality of Indian society and hence the
petitioner cannot take recourse to the contention that the work was purely fictional.
3.1 YULU IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE INDICAN PENAL CODE(IPC).
Sec. 153A 24 of IPC talks about promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony but from Yulu has done acts for promoting enmity between people
by insulting two religions.
Promotion of enmity between different groups of religion, race, caste, residence, place of
birth community or any other group. Yulu has promoted enmity between two different groups
of religions, kushlims and Sindhus.
Acts that disturb the public tranquillity and encourage discords between different groups or
castes or communities. Yulu has created disturb the public offence and encourage discords
between different groups.
Acts or objects that cause fear or insecurity for any religion. The Indica people are in fear and
insecurity because of the public tranquillity among the Indica citizens.
Mens Rea 25 was held to be a necessary ingredient for the offence under section 153a. In order
to assuage the concerns of these sections a self-regulatory code. Yulu promoted and

23
1996 8SCC 433.
24
IndicanPenal Code 1860 § 153-A.
25
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P, AIR 1997 SC 3483.
22
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

disrespect the sovereignty and integrity of indica.

The presence of two communities is important to attract this provision. Mere derogatory of
the feeling of one community without any reference to any other community. Yulu has a
derogatory scene where the two religion Kushlim man and Sindhu women kissing against the
backdrop of a temple.
On the above grounds, it is humbly submitted that Yulu has violated several essentials of
Section 153A.
The counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits before the Court of Law that Yulu
can be held liable under Section 295A of IPC.

3.2 YULU CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 295A OF THE INDICAN PENAL CODE.
Yulu should be held liable under Section 295A 26 as it talks about deliberate and malicious
acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious
beliefs and Yulu has insulted two religions.
The connection between public order and Section 295A has been eroded, over the years. For
instance, in Sri BaragurRamachandrappa& Ors v State of Karnataka 27, the court dealt with
the issue of banning an award-winning Kannada novel, dealing with the life of a revered
Saint, on the grounds of violating Section 295A. The court said:
‘No person has a right to impinge on the feelings of others on the premise that his right to
freedom of speech remains unrestricted and unfettered. It cannot be ignored that Indica is [a]
country with vast disparities in language, culture and religion and unwarranted and malicious
criticism or interference in the faith of others cannot be accepted.’
Yuli impinged on the feelings of the Kushllims and Sindhus and interfered in their faith.
Yulu has created an outrage between two religious feelings of Indica citizens. The movie
Chandak’s trailer came out and has shown a Kushlim man and Sindhu woman kissing against
the backdrop of a temple. Hence yulu be held liable for hurting Sikh sentiment.
Yulu knows the rules and regulations of OTT(over-the-top) but intentionally Yulu has come
up with the web series. It was a deliberate and malicious act. While interpreting the words
"deliberate and malicious intention" occurring in Section 295A of the Penal code, the
Allahabad High Court in Kali Charan Sharma v. King-Emperor 28 held that :
"This matter must be judged primarily by the language of the book itself though it is
permissible to receive and consider external evidence either to prove or to rebut the meaning

26
IndicanPenal Code 1860 § 153-A.
27
Appeal (crl.) 1228 of 1998.
28
AIR 1927 Allahabad 649 (SB).
23
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

ascribed to it in the order of forfeiture.

If the language is of a nature calculated to produce or to promote feelings of enmity or hatred
the writer must be presumed to intend that which his act was likely to produce.” Hence Yulu
is held liable under section 295A.
The insult of the religious beliefs must be caused by words that may be oral or written, by
sign, or by visible representation. The citizens of Indica to watch movies, web series, stand
up comedy act on OTT (over-the-top) platforms or (OCCPs) online curated providers beliefs
by oral and visible representation. Hence yulu is held liable under section 295a.
On the above grounds, it is humbly submitted that Yulu has violated several essential
ingredients of Section 295A, importantly, outraging the religious feelings of a particular
group.
The counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits before the Court of Law that Yulu
can be held liable under Section 295A of IPC.

24
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, the Respondent humbly
prays before this Hon’ble Supreme Court to adjudge and declare that:

1. The PIL filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica under Article 32 is not
maintainable.

2. The Act of regulating content, as given under Section 3 of the Information

Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, is
constitutionally valid.

3. Yulu is liable under Section 153A and 295A of the Indican Penal Code.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in favour of the Respondent in the
interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Respondent shall as in duty bound, ever pray.

Sd./-

Counsel on behalf of Respondent

25
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT