12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

TEAM CODE –NMCC O8

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI

IN THE MATTERS OF:

INDU, SEIJI AND ORS. ……..PETITIOER

VS.

STATE OF KALBARI AND ORS. ……RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT JUDGES OF KALBARI

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1|Page- - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .....................................................................................9

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................10

ISSUES RAISED .................................................................................................................. 12

A. WHETHER BLOCKING INDU’S ACCESS TO THE PERSONAL AND

OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS OF PRIME MINISTER, CABINET
MINISTERS, AND THE UNP ON SEJI IS UNLAWFUL?

1.1 THE ACTION OF GOVT.ACCOUNTS BLOCKING USERS ON SEIJI IS

NOT UNLAWFUL.

1.2 NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED.

B. WHETHER THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI

SHOULD BE UPHELD OR DISMISSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF KALBAR?

2.1 THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT MUST BE UPHELD BY THE

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI.

2.2 MISUSE OF THE INFORMATION AND MALICIOUS DEPICTION OF

THE OPPOSITION PARTY VIOLATED VARIOUS POLICIES
PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS ACT.

C. WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(GUIDELINES FOR INTERMEDIARIES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS
CODE) RULES, 2021 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?

3.1 SEIJI’S INABILITY TO REGULATE ITS USER’S ACTIVITY MADE IT

A MATTER OF NECESSITY TO INTRODUCE THESE RULE:

2|Page- - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

3.2 IN HOSTING VARIOUS CONTENT FROM THE OFFICIAL AS WELL

AS PUBLIC TOPICS WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS NEWS, SEIJI
IS RIGHTFULLY MARKED AS A NEWS AGGREGATOR.

3.3 THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO INTENT TO RESTRICT ANY

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ANY CITIZEN OR COMPANY, BUT
MUST MAINTAIN A BALANCE BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
AND NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTEGRITY.

D. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVT.TO SEIJI FOR THE

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF VALID IN LAW?

4.1 NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVT.TO SEIJI FOR THE ALLEGED

VIOLATION OF LAW LEGALLY VALID.

4.2 THE ROLE OF SEIJI CONCERNING CURRENT AFFAIRS AND ITS

POLITICAL INFLUENCE IS RIGHTLY MARKED AS A NEWS
AGGREGATOR.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………..15

PRAYER ……………………………………………………………………………………23

3|Page- - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Bom. Bombay

Co. Company

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

Edn. / Ed. Edition

Govt. Govt.

Hon`ble Honorable

Ltd. Limited

Mad. Madras

No. Number

HC High Court

Ors. Others

Pg. Page

Re. Reference

Pvt. Private

SCC Supreme Court Cases

4|Page- - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SC Supreme Court

Sd/ Signed

UOI Union of India

V. Versus

Vol. Volume

5|Page- - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2013) 12 SCC 73

2. Kartar Singh Giani v Ladha Singh AIR 1934 Lah. 777.
3. Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 US 569 (1994)
4. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2019) SCC Online SC 1725
5. Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras (1950) AIR 124
6. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
7. Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January 2004, 2920 of 1996
8. Virendra v. The State of Punjab, 1957 AIR 896
9. Sakal Papers v. Union of India, 1962 AIR 305
10. Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India, 1986 AIR 515
11. Tata Press Limited v. Mahanagar Telephone Nagar Limited, 1995 SCC (5) 139
12. Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd .v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, 1988 AIR 1642
13. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2001 Delhi 126
14. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955
15. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCR (2) 204
16. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
17. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1987 AIR 748
18. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 490 of 2002
19. Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India,1960 AIR 554
20. Abbas v. Union of India, 1971 AIR 481
21. Indirect Tax Practitioner Assn. v. R.K. Jain, NO.15 OF 1997
22. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors
(2020)
23. Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj and Ors. (2018)
24. My Space Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (2016)
25. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985).

6|Page- - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

STATUES, RULES & LEGISLATIONS

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Information Technology Act, 2000
3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR)
4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR)
5. Copyright Act, 1957
6. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
7. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021
8. Foreign Contribution Regulations Act, 2010.

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Basu D.D., Commentary of the Constitution of India, (8th ed., 2011), Vol.1. & Vol.2.
2. Datar A.P., Datar on Constitution of India, (1st ed., 2001), Wadhwa and Co
3. Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, (6th ed., 2010), Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Vol.1.
4. Universal Law Publishing, Information Technology Act, 2000 Along with Rules &
Regulations, Lexis Nexis Butterworths

JOURNALS REFERRED

1. All India Reporters

2. Supreme Court Cases

DATABASES REFERRED

1. http://www.scconline.com

2. http://www.manupatra.com

3. http://www.westlaw.org

4. http://www.indiankanoon.com

5. http://www.lexisnexis.com

7|Page- - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

6. http://www.judis.nic.in

LEGAL DICTIONARIES

1. Aiyer, P.R., Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd ed., 2005).

2. Encyclopaedic law lexicon.

3. Garner B.A., Black‟s Law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009).

4. Greenberg Daniel, Stroud‟s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, (4th ed.), Sweet and
Maxwell, Vol. 4.

5. Mish F.C., Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, (11th ed. 2003).

8|Page- - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has filed the pleadings before the Hon’ble High court of Kalbari, under article
2261of the Constitution of Nanda. The respondent reserves the right to challenge the same.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

1
Article 226, in The Constitution Of India 1950:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Govt., within those
territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Govt., authority or person may also be
exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or
in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Govt. or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories.

9|Page- - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Elections heavily relied on social media which results in the prime minister ship of
Samar Pratap of Tandav Party (Right Wing).Seiji being the prime most app used by
citizens as well as ministers of Nanda was also used by the opposition (Left Wing),
for sharing their conflicting views, which later became a medium for spreading hate
resulting violence and death of innocents.

2. Seiji introduced a blocking feature which allowed users to block any other users as
they wished, in spite internet being an important an important medium to circulate
information regarding Govt. policies and decisions. Seiji is now widely used by all
ministers including PM to share their ideology as well as their official updates. The
PM had an official account under the handle of @PMofNanda and a personal account
@SamarP. Both these accounts were actively used, and any post on either of the sites
became instant news.

3. The 2019 legislation which intended to reorganize the states of Nanda based on
population to ensure that each state had equal no. residents. This was heavily
criticized on Seiji, fights broke out and Indu a student activist and of the State of
Kalbari was the foremost critic whose influence under the handle @Induandu became
popular via her sharp attacks and comments towards the PM and the Ministers of
Nanda. #ResignSamarPratap became the most trending hash tag for the rest of the
week. The opposition used it to further their own agenda.

4. In the heat of the social media “battle” which now transitioned into a personal conflict
between Indu and the PM. The PM directly responded from his official account
against Indu, which aggravated the public and highly boosted the popularity of Indu,
the consequences of Indu’s posts were apparent as the Govt. lost Four seats in the Bye
Elections.

5. Govt. under Sec 69A of its IT Act, 2009 issued a notice to Seiji to remove Indu as an
user. Seiji refused to comply with the order as it was against the freedom of speech

10 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

and expression. Meanwhile Indu’s popularity in social media grew rapidly due to the
criticism Indu and their group members were blocked from the PM’s official account
and soon from all the accounts of the PM’s cabinet. This prevented Indu from tagging
PM or accessing his posts, which resulted in her popularity being dimmed.

6. It wasn’t only the cabinet ministers and PM’s accounts which she was unable to tag
but also the oppositions (UNP) official account, thus disabling her to view UNP’s
policies and more. Thus, Indu approached High Court of Kalbari seeking regarding
the same and allow her to said accounts.

7. In the meantime, the various Govt. in the wake of upcoming elections were preparing
for the same as a criticism Dhrithi Tiwari shared a video on Seiji attacking the leftist
opposition party. Consequences of this video led to a wide debate which largely
halted the public image of the leftist party. As quoted by Balbir Sen (Author of a
research paper based on which the video was made) who also claimed Copyright
Infringement against Dhrithi& Seiji. The claim was made on violation of various
policies. The district court on the issues held that sharing contents on Balbir Sen’s
research through video without proper authorization was a violation of fair use policy.

8. The Govt. introduced the IT (Intermediaries & Digital Media Ethics Code) Rule
2021, which resulted in Seiji being marked as a new aggregator due to its significant
influence on everything. The Constitutionality of Rule 3-7 of IT Rules, 2021 was
challenged by Seiji. One of the impacts that occurred due to Seiji being marked as a
news aggregator was a lack of trust from Foreign investors, which them disabled them
receiving a huge of investment from Axel Inc. on grounds of violation of Foreign
Contribution Regulation Act.

9. Seiji challenged the notice before HC of Kalbari. The Hon’ble High Court was now
faced with four distinct issues involving Seiji, the Government, the Opposition Party,
and Balbir Sen.
The laws of Nanda are parimateria with laws of India.

11 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

ISSUES RAISED

A. Whether blocking Indu’s access to the personal and official accounts of

prime minister, cabinet ministers, and the UNP on Seiji is unlawful?

B. Whether the order of district court of Kalbari should be upheld or

dismissed by the Hon’ble high court of Kalbari?

C. Whether rule 3 to 7 of the information technology (guidelines for

intermediaries and digital media ethics code) rules, 2021 are constitutional?

D. Whether the notice issued by the Govt.to Seiji for the alleged violation of
valid in law?

12 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether Blocking Indu’s access to the personal and official accounts of Prime
Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP on Seiji is unlawful?

It is humbly submitted before the High Court, that posting material on the internet which
causes or can cause mass disturbance and provoke the people against the government, it is, by
the virtue of Section 69(A) of IT Act, that the Govt. can take steps to ensure that such
disruption is not caused and block the user(s) who do so. Furthermore, Seiji's own feature
allows users to block anyone if they find doing so a necessity.

2. Whether the order of District Court of Kalbari should be upheld or dismissed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari?

It is humbly submitted before the High Court that, the video shared by the minister only
favored a particular party and that the information provided by Balbir Sen, author of the
research paper based on which the video was posted, in no way was meant to be used for
such purposes. Thus, it constituted to be violative of fair use policy and amounted to
copyright infringement, the same was upheld by the District court as well.

3. Whether Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries

and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are Constitutional?

It is humbly submitted before the High Court that Seiji has failed to prescribe specific
contents to be uploaded by any users which could easily gives rise to disputes even among
users. Seiji also fails to comply with the new legislation introduced by the Government that
results in courts intervention of the matter which later becomes a primary concerns to more
parties .Thus it is obvious that Seiji proves that it cannot be a competent intermediary as it's
handicapped in it's functions.

4. Whether the notice issued by the Govt. to Seiji for the alleged violation of valid in
law?

It is humbly submitted before the High Court that since the Govt. is only performing its
regulatory duty by ways of which it has introduced the IT Rules, 2021. As determined
through recent events and the role of Seiji concerning current affairs and its political
13 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-
 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

influence, it was rightly marked as a news Aggregator. Being a news Aggregator, as per
section 3(1) (g) if Foreign Contribution Regulations Act, 2010, it would not be able to receive
foreign funding, hence the notice issued by the Govt.to Seiji for the same, stands legally
valid.

14 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE A. WHETHER BLOCKING INDU’S ACCESS TO THE PERSONAL AND

OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS OF PRIME MINISTER, CABINET MINISTERS, AND THE
UNP ON SEJI IS UNLAWFUL?

While this case concerns just one person and the limits between humorous and menacing
speech, it illustrates neatly what fundamental questions are at stake in the information
society. Every day brings new and increasingly difficult cases to the fore that challenges what
we know about protecting freedom of expression.

1.1 The action of Govt. accounts blocking users on Seiji is not Unlawful:

1.1.1 Centre can block public access to an intermediary “in the interest of sovereignty and
integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States
or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence
relating to above” under Section 69A of IT Act, 2000. Section 69A provides the Govt.the
power to take such steps, the procedure to do so is listed in the Information Technology
(Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

It can also be interpreted that broad terminologies are used in the law to protect the rights of
citizens from those who infringe them by means of this medium.

1.1.2 Freedom is sacred but those who misuse it to spread hate, divisions and violence have
no right to possess it, they must be blocked and punished. But this should not become an
excuse to hit at those who are ideologically different yet patriotic, democratic and rightfully
critical of the state. We also have no quarrel with people parodying PM as long as it is in the
limits of good humor.

1.2 No fundamental rights are being violated :

1.2.1 Again, apart from its beneficial role, Internet is open to misuse as well, which gives the
State a justification to regulate online content in the interests of the public at large. Several
cyber-crimes, defamation, invasion of privacy, incitement of offences, racist remarks,
stalking, abuse, hacking, harassment and many more can be easily committed through social
Media and once such objectionable content is uploaded, it becomes viral and consequently,

15 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

very difficult to contain. Hence, the importance of the State regulating social media also
cannot be denied. Section 69A grants power to the Central Govt. to issue directions to block
public access of nay information through any computer resource on similar grounds.
1.2.2 In the case, the striking down of Section 66A of the IT Act — under which posting
‘offensive’ comments online was a crime punishable by jail — by the Supreme Court in 2015
was hailed by many, but mixed feelings have remained.

1.2.3 Section 95 of the CrPC talks about the “power to declare certain publications forfeited
and to issue search warrants for the same”, while section 96 allows for an “application to the
High Court to set aside declaration of forfeiture”.

Thus, Freedom is sacred but those who misuse it to spread hate, divisions and violence have
no right to possess it, they must be blocked and punished. But this should not become an
excuse to hit at those who are ideologically different yet patriotic, democratic and rightfully
critical of the state.

ISSUE B. WHETHER THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI SHOULD

BE UPHELD OR DISMISSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI?

2.1 The order of the district court must be upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of
Kalbari:

2.1.1 The research paper was purely informational; it cannot be mended to carry out
deliberate attacks on any person / political party. The legal doctrine of fair use policy permits
a person to use any work which is protected under the Act with limited usage of such work so
as to maintain the sanctity and originality of such work as well as the registered proprietor of
the work, which is clearly being violated by the petitioner.

2.1.2 Copyright infringement refers to the unauthorized use of someone’s copyrighted work.
The use of Balbir Sen’s copyrighted work without permission thereby infringing certain
rights of the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform
the protected work.

Section 51 of the Copyright Act specifies when a copyright is infringed.

2.1.3 In Nanda, there are no set guidelines that define the number of words or passages that
can be used without permission from the author. Only the Court applying basic common

16 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

sense can determine this. The extracted portion had affected the substantial interest of the
Author which violates the fair dealing that itself is a significant limitation on the exclusive
right of the copyright owner

2.1.4 In the case of Kartar Singh Giani v. Ladha Singh, the High court held that: “two
points have been urged in connection with the meaning of the expression fair, in fair dealing
(1) that in order to constitute unfairness there must be an intention to compete and to derive
profit from such competition and (2) that unless the motive of the infringer were unfair in the
sense of being improper the dealing would be fair.”

Further, by the posting the video on the internet, it benefited the ruling party by winning 6
seats in the election which derived profit through the stir it created via the video that was
based on the aforementioned research work of Balbir’s.

2.2 Misuse of the information and malicious depiction of the opposition party violated
various policies prescribed under this act:

2.2.1 The video shared on the internet gained an advantage in election by winning 6 seats,
where it specifically attempted to misuse information of the original work of the owner and
maliciously depicted the opposition as inefficient and did it a very derogatory manner.

2.2.2 Fair dealing is not a license to violate the exclusive right of the copyright owner. One
cannot copy from another and claim refuge under the garb of fair dealing. Simply giving the
credit to the original author would not help either. Even where the user has copied a
substantial part of the work, it would not be considered as 'fair' and 'legitimate' since
copyright protection requires reasonable skill and labour to reach the threshold of originality
and quality for protection.

2.2.3 Thus, Dhrithi Tiwari who used the research work as a base to criticize the
fitness of the office of the leftist and did derive profit by the “mere criticism’ in
her video that she shared on her personal Seiji account, which can be amounted
as violation of fair use policy of the work. The work clearly strengthens and
intensifies user’s clear and bona fide intention to infringe copyright work of the
research paper. The Hon’ble High court is requested to uphold the order passed
by the district court on the matters pertaining in this issue.

17 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

ISSUE C. WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(GUIDELINES FOR INTERMEDIARIES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE)
RULES, 2021 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?

3.1 Seiji’s inability to regulate its user’s activity made it a matter of necessity to
introduce these Rule:

3.1.1 The Government guides, regulates and mandates individuals and companies
alike in maintaining order and ensuring that the people are protected from harmful,
derogatory, and fake content which can cause disturbance and stir violence in the society. In
the context of doing so over the internet, as, the internet, in particular Social Media is one of
the most widely used mediums to interact at these times. Thus, the Government has taken
steps to maintain a safe space within the sphere of Internet, Social Media and other things in
the same context.

3.1.2 One of the ways The IT Rules 2021 does so is through its aim to empower
ordinary users of social media platforms and OTT platforms with a mechanism for
redressal and timely resolution of their grievance with the help of a Grievance Redressal
Officer (GRO) who should be a resident in India. Special emphasis has been given on the
protection of women and children from sexual offences, fake news and other misuse of
the social media.

3.1.3 Thus, it is clear through its measures that the Government does not and
cannot take lightly of the crimes that can occur through any medium be it through a real
platform or a virtual one.

3.2 In hosting various content from the official as well as public topics which would be
considered as news, Seiji is rightfully marked as a news aggregator:

3.2.1 A news aggregator can be generally considered as a source of information which

is categorically and in an ordinate manner is represented in the public. It is not and cannot be
limited to only a selected few categories such as journalists or news channels. Seiji, on one
aspect of its primal character may only look like a social media platform where users can
express their opinion. Within time Seiji has also emerged as a source of information covering
current affairs and political/ social events, including official statements as well as
notifications.

18 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

3.2.2 Thus, to ensure that the information which can be generally deemed as and
comes under the ambit of News. The Government through the new legislation, takes an
implicit responsibility to ensure the credibility of news that is circulated within Seiji. Thus
marking it as a News Aggregator under the new rules only makes it more efficient in doing
so.

3.2.3 With such a huge population dependent on social media platforms, the tech-
giants cannot choose to ignore the new and emerging challenges like persistent spread of
fake news, rampant abuse of the platforms to share morphed images of women, deep
fakes and other contents that threaten the dignity of women and pose a threat to security.
Instances of use of abusive language, defamatory contents and hate speech in these
platforms have become very common. The algorithms used by these platforms to
optimize views and advertisements often fail to distinguish between relevant or useful
content and abusive content and fake news, thereby amplifying them in very little or no
time.
3.2.4 In view of such emerging challenges, the Supreme Court in 2018, in the
Tehseen S. Poonawalla v/s Union of India case, directed the government to curb and
stop dissemination of explosive messages and videos on various social media platforms
which have a tendency to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.3 The Court in
2017 observed that the government may frame necessary guidelines to eliminate child
pornography, rape and gang rape imageries, videos and sites in content hosting platforms
and other applications.
3.2.5 The new rules are thus in accordance with the previous Supreme Court
observations. As per the rules, intermediaries are mandated to remove or disable contents
that are against the safety and dignity of individuals within 24 hours of receiving of
complaints. Such complaints can be filed either by the individual or a person on his/her
behalf. According to the government, knowing the “first originator of information” (also
known as “traceability”) of messages that cause violence, riots, terrorism, rape or threat
to national security fall under reasonable exceptions to Right to Privacy - which again is
not absolute as per the Constitution.

19 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

3.3 The Government has no intent to restrict any fundamental rights of any citizen
or company, but must maintain a balance between the Right to Privacy and
National Security and integrity:
3.3.1 All the Rules as prescribed in the IT Rues of 2021 have been made in
consideration of all the Rights Constitutional as well as otherwise. In doing so, it cannot
be feeble in its approach while implementing them. It must be understood that some
rights are not and cannot remain absolute in every situations. Sometimes, even the Right
to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21), which is the prime most enforceable and
protected right is also violated.

3.3.2 Freedom of speech and expression is the basic tenet of any democracy.
However, no freedom is absolute or completely unrestricted. The imperative of striking
the right balance between fundamental rights and ascertaining the reasonableness of a
restriction has been a constant effort since the adoption of the Constitution. The debate
has now reached the digital world. The on-going tussle between private, tech giants who
own a substantial amount of Big Data, governments desirous of imposing reasonable
restrictions and users worried about issues relating to data privacy and constraints on
freedom of speech and expression, is likely to get more complicated before optimum
solutions can be arrived at. The IT Rules 2021 seek to address concerns of the citizens
without infringing on their privacy and personal liberties, while maintaining digital
sovereignty at the same time.

3.3.3 Failure to comply with the rules could lead to the removal of ‘intermediary’
status a safe harbour to avoid liability for the content that their users publish) of the
companies and could possibly invite sanction or even punishment under the law.

3.3.4 While the new rules were challenged by many on grounds of violation of
free speech, the government has clarified that these rules permit social media platforms
to operate in India freely but with due accordance to the law. Every entity has to abide
by the Constitution of the country and the Rule of Law. Also, as per Article 19 of the
Constitution, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and is subject to
reasonable restrictions, especially in case of a threat to national sovereignty and security.

20 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

ISSUE D. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVT.TO SEIJI FOR THE
ALLEGED VIOLATION IS VALID IN LAW?

4.1 Notice issued by the Govt. to Seiji for the alleged violation of law is legally valid:
4.1.1 Any organization that is engaged in the production of the broadcast or any sort of audio
or visual news or current affairs program will not be allowed to accept any type of foreign
contribution, Seiji being one such of an organization cannot receive foreign funding from any
foreign resources under section 3(1) (g) of Foreign Contribution Regulations Act, 2010.

4.1.2 Also in the amendment bill of the Foreign Contribution Regulations Act, 2010 says that
the amendments to Section 11 of the Act wherein it was written to add a proviso that will
then give power to the Govt.to disallow any person who got permission under FCRA to
utilize and receive foreign contribution but without the approval of the Govt. then it would be
believed that the person would violate any provision of the Act or Foreign Contribution
(Regulation) Act, 1976

4.1.3 A ‘person’, as defined in Section 2(1)(m) with the exclusion of those mentioned in
Section 3 of FCRA, 2010, having a definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or
social programme can receive foreign contribution after it obtains the prior permission of the
Central Government, or gets itself registered with the Central Government, Which Seiji’s
being a social networking site and a news aggregator according to the new IT Rules, 2021
doesn’t comply with any of the above mentioned criteria.

4.2 The role of Seiji concerning current affairs and its political influence, is rightly
marked as a news Aggregator:

4.2.1 Seiji or company engaged in the production or broadcast of audio news or audio visual
news or current affairs programmes through any electronic mode, or any other electronic
form as defined in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology
Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) or any other mode of mass communication cannot receive foreign
contribution is rightly marked as a news aggregator under Section 3(1) (g) if Foreign
Contribution Regulations Act, 2010.

21 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

4.2.2 Further, any foreign contribution is prohibited from being accepted by certain persons.
These include, among others, election candidates, a newspaper editor or publisher, judges,
Govt. servants, members of any legislature, and political parties under The Foreign
Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2020.

Therefore Seiji being a non- profited organization viz. news aggregator has violated the laws
pertaining in this Act by receiving foreign contribution.

22 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-

 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent humbly submit that the Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari to be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:

1. Blocking Indu’s access to the personal and official accounts of prime minister,
cabinet ministers, and the UNP on Seiji is not unlawful.
2. The order of district court of Kalbari should be upheld.
3. Rule 3 to 7 of the information technology (guidelines for intermediaries and digital
media ethics code) rules, 2021 are constitutional.
4. Notice issued by the Govt. to Seiji for the alleged violation is valid in law.

And pass any other relief, that this Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari may deem fit and proper
in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd. /-

(Counsel for the Respondent)

23 | P a g e - - MEMORANDUMFOR THE RESPONDENT-