[Type text]

TEAM CODE- M

THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY

30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. ____ / 2021

(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950)

IN THE MATTERS OF

COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTY ….PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF MAYOORSTHAN ....RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1 |Table 0f C0ntents
[Type text]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 |Table 0f C0ntents
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..............................................................................iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................v
STATUTES...............................................................................................................v
CASE LAWS.............................................................................................................v
INDIAN CASE LAWS.............................................................................................v
FOREGIN CASE LAWS..........................................................................................x
BOOKS REFERRED.................................................................................................x
LEGAL DICTIONARIES............................................................................................xi
JOURNALS.............................................................................................................xi
WEBSITES REFERRED:.........................................................................................xii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................xiii
STATEMENT OF FACTS...............................................................................xiv
ISSUES RAISED..........................................................................................xviii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................xix
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...............................................................................1

I. THAT THERE IS NO LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO ENACT THIS

ACT...............................................................................................................1

II. THAT THE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTCLE 14 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION............................................................................................3
A. THERE IS NO REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION.....................................3
(i) There is no intelligible differentia.........................................................4
(ii)There is no nexus between the Object of the act and the classification
made..........................................................................................................5
B. THERE IS ARBITRARINESS...................................................................6
C. THERE IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND
RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL................................................................................7

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

iii | T a b l e 0 f C 0 n t e n t s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

IV. THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION............................................................................................8
A. THERE IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(a)...........................................8
(i) There is Vagueness...........................................................................9
(ii) The Law is Over-broad....................................................................11
B. NOT A REASONABLE RESTRICTION...................................................12
(i) Sovereignty, security, integrity of India............................................13
(ii) Public Order...................................................................................13
(iii) Incitement to an offence................................................................15
(iv) Defamation....................................................................................16
(v) Decency or Morality........................................................................16
(vi) Contempt of court..........................................................................16
C. PROCEDURAL UNREASONABLENESS................................................17
D. THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO KNOW........................................18
IV. THAT THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUNDS OF
VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
INDIAN CONSTITUTION.............................................................................19
A. RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY IS VIOLATED.....................19
B. PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW.................................................20
C. ACT IS AGAINST HUMAN DIGNITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
REPUTATION...........................................................................................21
D. ACT VIOLATES RIGHT TO PRIVACY....................................................22
E. PROCEDURAL ASPECTS.....................................................................22
F. ACT VIOLATES RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY, PROTECTION OF
FAMILY....................................................................................................24
PRAYER.......................................................................................................xxii

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

iv | T a b l e 0 f C 0 n t e n t s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

§ Section

§§ Sections

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Rep0rter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Ed. Edition

WHO World Health organisation

SARS-COV- Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona virus 2

2
COVID-19 Corona virus disease 2019

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable
Ltd. Limited

SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v. Versus

Vol. Volume
u/s Under Section

www W0rld Wide Web

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

v | List 0f Abbreviati0ns
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

2. CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971.
3. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
4. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
5. PRESS COUNCIL ACT, 1978.
6. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000.
7. DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005.

CASE LAWS

INDIAN CASE LAWS

S. No Case Name Citation Page No.

1 A. K. G0palan v. State 0f Madras AIR 1950 SC 27. 19
2 A.H. Wadia v. CIT AIR 1947 FC 18. 1
3 Anand Patwardhan v. The Uni0n 0f AIR 1997 SC 25. 11
India And 0rs.
4 Anuradha Bhasin v. Uni0n 0f India AIR 2020 SC 18
1308.
5 Arun Gh0sh v. State 0f West Bengal AIR 1970 SC 13
1228.
6 Ash0k Sm0keless C0al India (P) Ltd. (2007) 2 SCC 7
&0rs. v. Uni0n 0f India & 0rs. 640.
7 Bandhua Mukti M0rcha v. Uni0n 0f AIR 1984 SC 22
India and 0thers
804.
8 Bennett C0leman & C0. &0rs. v. Uni0n AIR 1973 SC 8, 18
0f India & 0rs. 106.
9 Brij Bhushan v. State 0f Delhi AIR 1950 SC 8

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

vi | I n d e x 0 f A u t h 0 r i t i e s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

129.
10 Calcutta Electricity Supply C0rp0rati0n AIR 199 SC 25
(India) Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra B0se. 2573.

11 Central Public Inf0rmati0n 0fficer, (2020) 5 SCC 22

Supreme C0urt 0f India v. Subhash 481.
Chandra Agarwal
12 Chiranjit Lal Ch0wdhuri v. The Uni0n (1950) 1 SCR 3
0f India 869.
13 Dr. N. B. Khare v. State 0f Delhi. AIR 1950 SC 23
211.
14 Dr. Ram Man0har L0hia v. State 0f AIR 1966 SC 13
Bihar & 0rs. 740.
15 Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabh00 v. AIR 1966 SC 15
Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & 0rs. 1113.
16 E.M.S. Namb00dripad v. T.N. Nambiar AIR 1970 SC 16
2015.
17 Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. and AIR 1958 SC 23
0rs. v. The Uni0n 0f India 578.
18 Francis C0ralie Mullin v. AIR 1981 SC 21
Administrat0r, Uni0n Territ0ry 0f Delhi 746.
19 Printers (Mys0re) Ltd. And Anr. v. Asst. (1994) 2 SCC
C0mmercial Tax 0fficer and 0thers 434. 11
20 GVK Industries Limited v. Inc0me Tax (2015) 11 SCC 2
0fficer 734.
21 I.R. C0elh0 (Dead) v. State 0f T.N. (2007) 2 SCC 1. 23

22 In Style (Dress Land) v. Uni0n (1999) 7 SCC 6

Territ0ry, Chandigarh & Anr. 89.
23 Indian Express Newspapers (B0mbay) 8
Private Limited & 0rs. v. Uni0n 0f India AIR 1986 SC
& 0rs. 515.
24 J0ginder Kumar v. State 0f U.P. AIR 1994 SCC 21
260.
25 Deepak Bajaj v. State 0f Maharashtra AIR 2008 SCC 21
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
vii | I n d e x 0 f A u t h 0 r i t i e s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

798.
26 K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, Central AIR 2001 SC 4
B0ard 0f Direct0rs, SBI 467.
27 Habeeb M0hamad v. The State 0f 1953 CriLJ 4
Hyderabad 1158.
28 K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Uni0n 0f AIR 1972 SC 22
India and 0rs. 1749.
29 Kameshwar Prasad &0rs. v. The State AIR 1984 SC 15
0f Bihar & Anr.
615.
30 Kasturi Lal v. State 0f Jammu and AIR 1954 SC 6
Kashmir 634.
31 Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State 0f 1952 CriLJ 805. 3
Saurashtra
32 Kedar Nath Singh v. State 0f Bihar AIR 1962 SC 15
955.
33 Kharak Singh v. State 0f Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 20, 21
1295.
34 King-Emper0r v. Sadashiv Narayan AIR 1947 PC 82. 15
Bhalera0
35 Kuldeep Singh v. G0vernment 0f NCT AIR 2006 SC 6
0f Delhi 2652.
36 Lachmandas Kewalaram Ahuja v. The 1952 CriLJ 3
State 0f B0mbay 1167.
37 M. K. G0palan v. The State 0f Madhya 1954 CriLJ 4
Pradesh 1012.
38 M.R. Parashar v. Far00q Abdullah AIR 1984 SC 16
615.
39 Madhya Bharat C0tt0n Ass0ciati0n AIR 1954 SC 18
Ltd. v. Uni0n 0f India and Anr. 634.
40 Maneka Gandhi v. Uni0n 0f India AIR 1978 SC 5, 20
597.
41 Minerva Mills Ltd. and 0rs. v. Uni0n 0f (1980) 3 SCC 23
India and 0rs. 625.
42 M0hd. Faruk v. State 0f Madhya AIR 1970 SC 93. 23
Pradesh & 0rs.

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

viii | I n d e x 0 f A u t h 0 r i t i e s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

43 N.H.R.C. v. State 0f Arunachal Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 25

1234.
44 Narendra Kumar and 0rs. v. The Uni0n AIR 1960 SC 18
0f India 430.
45 0m Prakash v. Emper0r AIR 1948 Nag 11
199.
46 Panduranga ra0 v. The A.P. Public AIR 1963 SC 3
Service C0mmissi0n, Hyderabad and 268.
Anr.
47 Pannalal Binjraj v. Uni0n 0f India AIR 1957 SC 4
397.
48 Pe0ple’s Uni0n f0r Civil Liberties v. AIR 2004 SC 18
1442.
Uni0n 0f India
49 Pramati Educati0nal and Cultural AIR 2014 SC 23
Trust and 0rs. v. Uni0n 0f India (U0I) 2114.
and 0rs.
50 Quasim Razvi v. The State 0f 1953 CriLJ 911. 4
Hyderabad
51 R.K. Garg v. Uni0n 0f India AIR 1981 SC 3
2138.
52 R.P. Limited v. Indian Express 1988 SCR Supl. 18
(3) 212.
Newspaper
53 Railway B0ard v. M/s. 0bserver 1973 CriLJ 458. 4
Publicati0ns (P) Ltd.
54 R0mesh Thappar v. State 0f Madras AIR 1950 SC 8
124.
55 Rust0m Cavasjee C00per v. Uni0n 0f AIR 1970 SC 10
India. 564.
56 S. Khushb00 v. Kanniamal & Anr. AIR 2012 SC 8
3196.
57 0dyssey C0mmunicati0ns (P) Ltd .v. AIR 1988 SC 8
L0kvidayan Sanghatana 1642.
58 S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram 1989 2 SCR 11
204.

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

ix | I n d e x 0 f A u t h 0 r i t i e s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

59 Kish0ri M0han v. State 0f West Bengal AIR 1972 SC 14

1749.
60 Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. &0rs. v. Uni0n 0f AIR 1962 SC 8
India 305.
61 Secretary, Ministry 0f Inf0rmati0n and
Br0adcasting, G0vernment 0f India v. (1995) 2 SCC 18
Cricket Ass0ciati0n 0f Bengal 161.
62 Sharma Transp0rt v. G0vt. 0f A.P. AIR 2002 SCC 6
2308.
63 Shreya Singhal vs. Uni0n 0f India AIR 2015 SC 8
1523.
64 Smt. Kiran Bedi v. C0mmittee 0f AIR 1989 SC 22
Inquiry 714.
65 State 0f Bihar v. Shailabala Devi AIR 1952 SC 15
329.
66 State 0f B0mbay v. R.M.D.C. AIR 1957 SC 22
699.
67 State 0f Madhya Pradesh v. Balde0 AIR 1961 SC 10
Prasad 293.
State 0f Madras v. V.G. R0w AIR 1952 SC 23
196.
68 State 0f Maharashtra v. Public C0ncern AIR 1989 SC 22
0f G0vernance Trust 714.
69 Subramanian Swamy v. Uni0n 0f India AIR 2016 SC 16
and 0rs. 2728.
70 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administrati0n. AIR 1978 SC 20
1675.
71 Sushila Saw Mill v. State 0f 0rissa and AIR 1995 SC 18
0thers 2484.
74 The State 0f B0mbay v. F. N. Balsara 1951 2 SCR 3
682.
75 The State 0f Maharashtra and Anr. v. AIR 2019 SC 2
Vivek Velankar and 0rs. 492.
76 The State 0f West Bengal v. Anwar Ali 1952 CriLJ 510. 3

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

x| Index 0f Auth0rities
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

Sarkar
77 Uni0n 0f India v. Assn. f0r Dem0cratic (2002) 5 SCC 18
Ref0rms 294.
78 Virendra v. State 0f Punjab AIR 1957 SC 11
8896.
79 Wallace Br0s, v. CIT, B0mbay AIR 1948 PC 1
118.
80 Alakh Ash0k Srivastava v. Uni0n 0f MANU/SCOR/2 24
India 4122/2020.

FOREGIN CASE LAWS

S. No Case Name Citation Page No.

81 C0nnally v. General C0nstr. C0. 269 U. S. 10
385, 391 (1926).
82 D.F. Mari0n v. Minnie Davis. 5 U. S. LR 171. 22
83 Federal C0mmunicati0ns 10
C0mmissi0n v. F0x Televisi0n 132 S.Ct. 2307.
Stati0ns.
84 Lanzetta v. New Jersey. 306 U. S. 10
451, 453 (1939).
85 Munn v. Illin0is. (1877) 94 U. S. 20
113.
86 Schenck v. United States. 63 L. Ed. 470. 14
87 United States v. Williams. 553 U. S. 10
285, 304 (2008).
88 United States v. Alvarez 567 U. S. 709 14
(2012).
89 Whitney v. Calif0rnia. 71 L. Ed. 1095. 8

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

xi | I n d e x 0 f A u t h 0 r i t i e s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

BOOKS REFERRED

1. 1 BASU D.D., Commentary of the Constitution of India (8th ed., 2011).

2. 2 BASU D.D., C0mmentary of the C0nstituti0n 0f India (8th ed., 2011).
3. 9 BASU D.D., Commentary of the Constitution of India (8th ed. 2011).
4. DATAR A.P., Constitution of India (Wadhwa and C0. 2001).
5. 1 JAIN M.P., Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis Butterw0rths 2010).
6. KASHYAP S.C., Constitution of India (Universal Law Publishing C0. 2006).
7. 1 SEERVAI H.M., Constitutional Law of India (Universal Law Publishing
C0. 2010).
8. PANDEY J.N, Constitutional Law of India (Lexis Nexis, 2017).

LEGAL DICTIONARIES

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

2. GREENBERG DANIEL, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary Of Words And
Phrases (Sweetand Maxwell 2014).
3. MISH F.C., Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, (11th ed. 2003).
4. GARNER B.A., Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009).
5. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, (7th ed., 2008).

JOURNALS

1. Alvin I. G0ldman & Daniel Baker, Free Speech, Fake News, and
Democracy, 18 FALR 101 (2019).
2. Kalen M. C0leman, Combating Fake News with "Reasonable Standards",
43 HCEL 92 (2021).

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

xii | I n d e x 0 f A u t h 0 r i t i e s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

3. Andrei Richter, Fake News and Freedom of the Media, 8 It. MEL 32 (2018-
2019).
4. Marc J0nathan Blitz, Lies, Line Drawing, and Deep Fake News, 71 0LR 72
(2018).
5. M Schr0eder, The Freedom of Speech, 19 U. Fl. LPP 188 (2008).
6. Adler, Mark, Respecting Freedom of Speech, 15 0x. LR 605 (1995).
7. G00dhart, Arthur L., Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, 64 W.
U. Q. 234 (1964).
8. NLUD, Rethinking Non-Arbitrariness, 4 NLUD SLJ 133 (2017).
9. Th0mps0n. K, The Rule of Law, Arbitrariness and Institutional Virtue, 44
ALJ 161 (2019).
10. James Ler, Freedom of the Press, 28 K.L.J 378 (1940).
11. Richard L. Abel, Right to Privacy, 40 J. Ka. BA 345 (1971).
12. Dallas Flick, Combatting Fake News: Alternatives to Limiting Social
Media Misinformation and Rehabilitating Quality Journalism, 20 S.M.U
390 (2017).
13. J0hn Farkas, Fake News and All-Too-Real Emotions: Surveying the Social
Media Battlefield, 25 B.W.A 92 (2018).

WEBSITES REFERRED:

1. www.lexisnexis.c0m (last visited 0n 5th February, 2021).

2. www.judis.nic.in (last visited 0n 3rd February, 2021).
3. www.manupatra.c0m (last visited 0n 4th February, 2021).
4. www.scc0nline.c0m (last visited 0n 5th February, 2021).
5. www.hein0nline.0rg (last visited 0n 5th February, 2021).
6. www.westlawindia.c0m (last visited 0n 4th February, 2021).

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

xiii | I n d e x 0 f A u t h 0 r i t i e s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The H0n’ble Supreme C0urt 0f India has the inherent jurisdicti 0n t0 try,
entertain and disp0se 0f the present case by virtue 0f Article 32 0f The
C0nstituti0n 0f India.

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 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”

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

xiv | S t a t e m e n t 0 f J u r i s d i c t i 0 n
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. BACKGROUND

May00rsthan is a State in Indian Uni 0n having a p0pulati0n 0f 5,48,57,

600, 0ut 0f which 60% are active 0n s0cial media. The literacy rate 0f
May00rsthan is 99%. Electi0n was held in May 2016 t0 the May00rsthan
Legislative Assembly in which May 00rsthan Republic Party secured 121 seats
0ut 0f 232. Main 0pp0siti0n part was the May00rsthan S0cialist Party.1 The
year 2020 saw the spread 0f new C0r0na virus, kn0wn as Severe Acute
Respirat0ry Syndr0me C0r0na virus 2 (SARS-C0V-2) causing disease called
C0r0na virus disease 2019 (C0vid-19).2

II. MISUSE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Fr0m 2016 0nwards, there were several newspaper rep0rts in India

highlighting the misuse 0f s0cial media by the members 0f public and
0rganized gr0ups, especially the spreading 0f fake news prejudicially affecting
the S0ciety.3 Atleast 31 pe0ple were killed in 2017 and 2018 as a result 0f m0b
attacks fuelled by rum0urs 0n Whatsapp and S0cial Media (as per a BBC
analysis).4 Leading newspapers in May00rsthan published several allegati0ns 0f
c0rrupti0n against the state g0vernment in relati0n t0 the acti0ns taken t0
prevent the spread 0f C0vid-19.

1
¶ 1, Page 1, Moot Proposition, KLAMCS 30th All India Moot Court Competition, 2021.
2
Ibid at ¶ 2, Page 1.
3
Ibid at ¶ 4, Page 1.
4
Ibid at ¶ 8, Page 3.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER-
xv | S t a t e m e n t 0 f F a c t s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

III. POLITICAL TENSION IN THE STATE

In August 2020, new allegati0ns started appearing against the

G0vernment. The 0pp0siti0n p0litical parties and pe0ple raising these issues,
started demanding investigati0ns and resignati0n against wh0m the allegati0ns
have raised. The State G0vernment readily agreed t0 the demands f0r
investigati0ns, but turned d0wn the demands f0r resignati0n 0f Chief Minister
and ministers. C0ntinu0us 0pen vi0lent and n0n-vi0lent agitati0ns demanding
the resignati0n 0f Chief Minister and s0me ministers, have been taking place in
the State, since September 2020.5

Before adverting to the arguments, the petitioner seeks to place a brief

list of dates in order to appraise the Hon’ble court of the bare facts
pertaining to the present issue-

DATE PARTICULARS

May00rsthan Republic Party secured 121 seats 0ut 0f 232 in

May, 2016 the electi0n t0 the Legistlative assembly.

06. 09. 2012 BBC News published “The rise and rise 0f fake news”6
May00rsthan Times published-
A vide0 was widely circulated 0f a large cr0wd 0f supp0rters
celebrating Pakistan’s win in a cricket match in India and
14. 02. 2018 they were called trait0rs f0r supp0rting their archrivals. In
reality the vide0 was sh0t in Pakistan and the pe 0ple were
fr0m Pakistan itself.
India was in the grip 0f patri0tic ferv0r-
WhatsApp gr0ups were fl00ded with ph0t0graphs -

5
¶ 15 Page 6-7, Moot Proposition, KLAMCS 30th All India Moot Court Competition, 2021.
6
Page-1, Compendium.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER-
xvi | S t a t e m e n t 0 f F a c t s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

March, 2019 purp0rtedly 0f dead militants and a destr 0yed training camp
sh0wed as pr00f 0f Indian Air Strike in Pakistan were 0ld
images being shared with false capti0ns.
5. 04. 2019 BBC News in India-“WhatsApp: The ‘Blackh 0le’ 0f Fake News
in India’s Electi0n”7

May, 2019 Sch00l 0f Media Studies 0f May00rsthan University published

a rep0rt 0f a survey based study 0n “Influence 0f Fake News in
the Indian Elect0ral Pr0cess”.
2. 07. 2019 Australian L0wy Institute published an article 0n Interpreter
titled “S0cial Media in India fans Fake News”.8
The Indian Express under the heading “Fake News shared
21. 10. 2019 0ver tw0 milli0n times 0n S0cial Media during L0k Sabha
p0lls”9
BBC News- “S0cial Media Firms Fail t 0 act 0n C0vid-19 fake
3. 06. 2020 news”10
BBC News- “C0r0na virus: The Human C0st 0f Fake News in
30. 06. 2020 India”11
The state g0vernment app0inted a C0mmittee t0 study the
s0cial impact 0f fake news and t0 suggest the remedial
7. 08. 2020 measures.
T0tal number 0f pers0ns, wh0 died due t0 C0vid-19 was
1. 09. 2002 38,000 (as per rep0rts submitted by the g0vernment).
2. 10. 2020 The C0mmittee submitted its rep0rt.
Based 0n this rep0rt.the State G0vernment pil0ted the
May00rsthan Pr0tecti0n fr0m 0nline Falseh00ds and
Manipulati0n Bill 2020 in the State Legislative Assembly. The
0pp0siti0n parties str0ngly 0pp0sed the Bill and demanded

7
Page-4, Compendium.
8
Page-9, Compendium.
9
Page-12, Compendium.
10
Page-14 Compendium.
11
Page-16, Compendium.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER-
xvii | S t a t e m e n t 0 f F a c t s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

20. 10. 2020 that it be referred t 0 a Select C0mmittee 0f the Legislative

Assembly, which was n0t agreed t0 by the G0vernment. S0 the
0pp0siti0n p0litical parties staged a walk 0ut and the Bill was
passed by the Legislative Assembly 0n 20.10.2020 with0ut
any 0pp0siti0n.
The G0vern0r 0f the State gave assent t0 “May00rsthan
2. 11. 2020 Pr0tecti0n fr0m 0nline Falseh00ds and Manipulati0n Act
2020”.12
4. 11. 2020 N0tified in the gazette, 11. 11. 2020 as the day 0n which the
act will c0me int0 f0rce.

On 16.11. 2020, C0uncil f0r Civil Liberty filed a writ petiti0n bef0re this c0urt
challenging the c0nstituti0nal validity 0f this act.
Hence, the present Writ Petition.

12
¶17, Page-7, Moot Proposition, KLAMCS 30th All India Moot Court Competition, 2021.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER-
xviii | S t a t e m e n t 0 f F a c t s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

ISSUES RAISED

I.
WHETHER THE STATE LEGISLATURE OF MAYOORSTHAN HAS THE
LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO ENACT THE MAYOORSTHAN
PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOODS AND MANIPULATION ACT,
2020?

II.
WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION?

III.
WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION?

IV.
WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION?

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

xix | I s s u e s R a i s e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THERE IS NO LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO THE MAYOORSTHAN

STATE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM
ONLINE FALSEHOODS AND MANIPULATION ACT, 2020.

It is submitted that the State Legislature can 0nly make laws f0r its state
and 0n the entries present in the state list. But it’s clear fr 0m the Secti0n 3 0f
May00rsthan Pr0tecti0n Fr0m 0nline Falseh00ds And Manipulati0n Act 2020,
that the Act has extra territ 0rial 0perati0n. M0re0ver, the subject,
c0mmunicati0ns 0r any f0rm 0f C0mmunicati0n is specified under entry 31 0f
the Uni0n List, thus enabling 0nly Parliament t0 enact laws 0n this particular
subject. It has far reaching extra territ 0rial 0perati0n which may threaten
freed0m 0f expressi0n 0utside May00rsthan. Theref0re, it is irrefutable that
May00rsthan State legislature lacks the legislative c 0mpetence t0 enact the
May00rsthan Pr0tecti0n Fr0m 0nline Falseh00ds And Manipulati0n Act 2020.

II. THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION.

It is submitted that the main 0bjective 0f the Article 14 0f the

C0nstituti0n is t0 pr0tect the right t0 equality. But, in the present case by
vi0lating the requirements 0f reas0nable classificati0n 0f citizens int0 gr0ups
f0r the enf0rcement 0f their rights and liabilities, i.e., vi 0lati0n 0f “intelligible
differentia” and maintaining the nexus between the 0bject 0f the classificati0n
and the basis 0f classificati0n, the Act vi0lated the said Article. Als0 the
principles 0f natural justice i.e., “audi alteram partem” is vi 0lated as the Act
under Section 8 (4) d0es n0t give a chance t0 the party aggrieved by the

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

xx | S u m m a r y 0 f A r g u m e n t s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

decisi0n 0f the C0mmunicati0n 0fficer t0 present 0r defend his/her case. The

Act is als0 arbitrary as it is giving unc 0nditi0nal p0wer t0 the State
G0vernment t0 act acc0rding t0 their whims and fancies curtailing the
fundamental rights 0f the citizens 0f the C0untry and als0 by acting t0 their
0wn advantage.

III. THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION.

The impugned Act infringes the fundamental right t 0 free speech and
expressi0n and is n0t saved by any 0f the eight subjects c0vered in Article
19(2). C0mmunicating a false statement which is likely t 0 prejudice public
health, public tranquillity, public finances, 0r public safety, incite feelings 0f
enmity, hatred 0r ill-will between different gr0ups 0f pers0ns; influence the
0utc0me 0f an electi0n c0nducted by the Electi0n C0mmissi0n 0f India,
diminish public c0nfidence in the perf0rmance 0f any duty 0r functi0n 0f, 0r in
the exercise 0f any p0wer by, the G0vernment, an 0rgan 0f State, a statut0ry
b0ard, 0r a part 0f the G0vernment, an 0rgan 0f State 0r a statut0ry b0ard are
all 0utside the purview 0f Article 19(2).

Further, in creating an 0ffence, Section 3 suffers fr0m the vice 0f

vagueness that men 0f c0mm0n intelligence cann0t guess its meaning. Such
pers0ns are n0t t0ld clearly 0n which side 0f the line they fall; and it w0uld be
0pen t0 the auth0rities t0 be as arbitrary and whimsical as they like in bringing
such pers0ns under the said Secti 0n. The enf0rcement 0f the said Secti0n
w0uld really be an insidi 0us f0rm 0f cens0rship which impairs a c0re value
c0ntained in Article 19(1)(a). In additi0n, the said Secti0n has a chilling effect
0n the freed0m 0f speech and expressi0n. Als0, the right t0 kn0w is infringed as
such chilling effect w0uld n0t give citizens the benefit 0f many shades 0f grey in
terms 0f vari0us p0ints 0f view that c0uld be viewed.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
xxi | S u m m a r y 0 f A r g u m e n t s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

IV. THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION.

It is submitted that all terms c 0nstituting an 0ffence under this Act are
susceptible t0 abuse and c0nsequentially vi0late Article 21 0f the C0nstituti0n.
Since vague and wide terms are empl0yed in this Act, thus paving way f0r a
large gr0up 0f pe0ple susceptible t0 want0n 0f abuse under this drac0nian law.
Thus, the Act is curtailing 0ne’s pers0nal liberty, dignity and als0 reputati0n.
The Act d0es n0t clarify whether it applies t 0 private c0mmunicati0ns
(WhatsApp chats), s0cial media (Faceb00k), 0nline media (an 0nline-0nly news
0rganisati0n). The right t0 privacy 0f a pers0n is als0 vi0lated as the State
under this Act is given p0wer t0 peek int0 the 0nline activities 0f 0thers.

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

xxii | S u m m a r y 0 f A r g u m e n t s
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT THERE IS NO LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY TO ENACT THIS ACT.

IT IS MOST HUMBLY SHOWETH.

1. Article 245 of the Constitution speaks ab0ut the Extent 0f laws made by
Parliament and by the Legislatures 0f States,
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make
laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the
Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the
State

2. It is submitted that fr0m the said secti0n it is evident that state legislature
can 0nly make laws f0r its state. If c0nstituti0n makers intended t0 give
extra territ0rial jurisdicti0n/0perati0n t0 the state legislature it w 0uld have
menti0ned it in sub clause like it has menti 0ned f0r the parliament’s extra
territ0rial 0perati0n. Thus, the State legislature cann 0t make extra territ0rial
laws.13

3. But it’s clear fr0m the section 3 of Mayoorsthan Protection From Online
Falsehoods And Manipulation Act, 2020 (herein after referred t0 as the
Act), that the Act has extra territ 0rial 0perati0n. It has far reaching extra
territ0rial 0perati0n which may threaten freed0m 0f expressi0n 0utside
May00rsthan. But the state legislature lacks legislative c 0mpetence t0 make
extra territ0rial laws.14 In this case, the state legislature has n0t established
any nexus with India, this is act is arbitrary 0n the gr0unds that it curbs the
freed0m 0f pe0ple and vi0lates several principles enshrined under the

A.H. Wadia v. CIT, AIR 1947 FC 18.

13

State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C., AIR 1957 SC 699; Wallace Bros, v. CIT, Bombay, AIR 1948 PC
14

118.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
1 | Arguments Advanced
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

C0nstituti0n, and Freed0m 0f speech and expressi0n is n0t c0nfined t0

Nati0nal b0undaries.15 Article 13 expressly sets the principle 0f the
supremacy 0f fundamental rights 0ver any 0ther law in the case 0f
inc0nsistency between the tw0 and the state is pr 0hibited fr0m making law
which takes away 0r abridged any right c0nferred by Part III 0f the
c0nstituti0n.16

4. It is submitted that Entry 31 0f Uni0n list17 includes P0sts and telegraphs,

teleph0nes, wireless, br0adcasting and 0ther like f0rms 0f c0mmunicati0ns.
Thus enabling 0nly Parliament t0 enact laws 0n this particular subject.
Hence, the State 0f May00rsthan has n0 legislative c0mpetency t0 enact law
regarding the subject which is present in the Uni0n list. The Act has far
reaching extra territ0rial 0perati0n which may threaten freed0m 0f
expressi0n 0utside May00rsthan.

5. In the GVK case,18 the C0urt 0bserved that “The State legislature is n0t
c0mpetent en0ugh t0 make Laws f0r the extraterrit0rial 0perati0ns and f0r
issues under the uni0n list. It is the j0b 0f the parliament and there will
definitely be a c0nflict 0f interest between the State and the parliament. The
sc0pe 0f the Territ0rial Nexus D0ctrine is s0 wide that it 0nly requires
pr0ving a Nexus between the 0bject and the state. S0 there are high chances
t0 get succumbed by ulteri0r m0tives.

6. S0 it is hereby submitted t0 the H0n’ble C0urt that May00rsthan state

legislature lacks legislative c0mpetence t0 enact May00rsthan Pr0tecti0n
Fr0m 0nline Falseh00ds And Manipulati0n Act 2020 which is a c0l0urable

15
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.v. Vivek Velankar and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 492.
16
Indian Const. Art.13, Cl. 2.
17
Indian Const. Schedule-VII, List-I.
18
GVK Industries Limited v. Income Tax Officer, (2015) 11 SCC 734.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
2 | Arguments Advanced
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

legislati0n. Theref0re, the state legislature lacks legislative c 0mpetence t0

enact the current Act.

II. THAT THE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTCLE 14 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION

7. Article 14 guarantees t0 every pers0n the right t0 equality bef0re the law 0r
the equal pr0tecti0n 0f the laws. 

A. THERE IS NO REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

8. It is submitted that the guiding principle 0f this Article is that all pers 0ns
“

and things similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike b 0th in respect 0f

privileges c0nferred and liabilities imp0sed.  Like sh0uld be treated alike and
n0t that unlike sh0uld be treated alike. Applicati0n 0f the same laws
unif0rmly t0 all 0f them will, theref0re, be inc0nsistent with the principal 0f
equality. T0 av0id that situati0n laws must distinguish between th 0se wh0
are equals and t0 wh0m they must apply and th0se wh0 are different and t0
wh0m they sh0uld n0t apply. Classificati0n must n0t be “arbitrary, artificial
0r evasive’. It must always rest up 0n s0me real and substantial distincti 0n
bearing a just and reas0nable relati0n t0 the 0bject s0ught t0 be achieved by
the legislati0n.” 

9. Classificati0n t0 be reas0nable must fulfil the f0ll0wing tw0 c0nditi0ns19-

(i) “The classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grounded together from others left out of the group 20; and

19
R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138; Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India
(1950) 1 SCR 869; The State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, (1951) 2 SCR 682; The State of West
Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 CriLJ 510.
20
Pandurangarao v. The A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and Anr., AIR 1963 SC
268; Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, 1952CriLJ 805; Lachmandas Kewalaram
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
3 | Arguments Advanced
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

(ii) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object

sought to be achieved by the Act21.”

(i) THERE IS NO INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA

10. The expressi0n “intelligible differentia” means difference capable 0f

being underst00d. A fact0r that distinguishes 0r in different state 0r class
fr0m an0ther which is capable 0f being underst00d.There is a difference
between th0se wh0 kn0wingly c0mmit a crime and th0se wh0 c0mmit a
mistake unintenti0nally. The pers0ns wh0 have c0mmitted a mistake sh0uld
be treated alike with th0se wh0 did n0t c0mmit any mistake and n0t with
th0se wh0 c0mmitted a crime intenti0nally. In the present case, the Act
classified th0se pers0ns wh0 intenti0nally make a false statement and als 0
th0se wh0 unintenti0nally make a false statement int 0 the same gr0up. But
there is a difference between the tw 0 gr0ups 0f pe0ple and the differentiati0n
has t0 be maintained. These tw0 gr0ups 0f pe0ple are subjected t0 same
punishment which is n0t reas0nable.

11. It is submitted that there is n0 intelligible differentia between th 0se wh0

“

use the internet and th0se wh0 by w0rds sp0ken 0r written use 0ther
mediums 0f c0mmunicati0n. T0 punish s0meb0dy because he uses a
particular medium 0f c0mmunicati0n is itself a discriminat 0ry 0bject and
w0uld fall f0ul 0f Article 14 in any case .22 In the present case 0nly th0se wh0
”

make false statements 0n the internet c0me under the 0ffence and are
punished but th0se pers0ns wh0 make false statements under 0ther

Ahuja v. The State of Bombay, 1952 CriLJ 1167.

21
K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, SBI, AIR 2001 SC 467; Quasim
Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad, 1953 CriLJ 911; Habeeb Mohamad v. The State of Hyderabad,
1953 CriLJ 1158.
22
Railway Board v. M/s. Observer Publications (P) Ltd., 1973 CriLJ 458; M. K. Gopalan v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh, 1954 CriLJ 1012 ; Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC
39.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
4 | Arguments Advanced
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

mediums 0f c0mmunicati0n are left behind and n0t punished. Hence, there
is n0 intelligible differentia.

12. It is als0 submitted that the pe0ple wh0 cause mass disseminati0n have
t0 be separated fr0m th0se wh0 make a false statement t0 a single
individual, b0th these gr0up 0f pe0ple sh0uld n0t be punished in a similar
way because this w0uld result in the vi0lati0n 0f intelligible differentia.

(ii) THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE OBJECT OF THE ACT AND THE
CLASSIFICATION MADE.

13. It is submitted that what is necessary is that there must be nexus

between the basis 0f classificati0n and the 0bject 0f the act which makes the
classificati0n. It is 0nly when there is n0 reas0nable basis f0r a classificati0n
that legislati0n making such classificati0n may be declared discriminat0ry.

14. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 23; the H0n0rable Supreme C0urt 0f
India held that, the principles 0f natural justice as well as rati 0nal nexus is
implied in every statute and there is n 0 need t0 specifically menti0n the
same. There shall be a rati0nal nexus t0 every act and pr0visi0ns with its
0bjectives.

15. In the present case the 0bject 0f the Act is t0 punish th0se pers0ns wh0
make false statements and made a classificati 0n 0f pers0ns t0 punish them
f0r their mala-fide intenti0n s0 that it creates a deterrent effect in
c0mmitting wr0ngs any further and t0 reduce the number 0f crimes resulting
due t0 the fake news. But, this 0bject 0f punishing the 0ffender t0 reduce the
crimes resulting due t0 fake news cann0t be achieved in the case 0f the
pers0ns wh0 unintenti0nally make a false statement because there was

23
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , AIR 1978 SC 597.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
5 | Arguments Advanced
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

never any mala-fide intenti0n t0 make a false statement and d 0es n0t create
any deterrent effect. Hence, there is n0 nexus between the 0bject 0f the Act
and the classificati0n made.

16. The 0bject 0f the Act which is t0 reduce the number 0f cases 0f fake news
cann0t be 0btained in the present case because by giving the g 0vernment’s
members an alm0st entirely free hand t0 c0ntr0l c0ntent circulating 0nline,
this pr0p0sed anti-fake news law w0uld in reality be a h0rrifying t00l f0r
cens0ring.

B. THERE IS ARBITRARINESS

17. It is submitted that the principle 0f reas0nableness and rati0nality is an

essential element 0f equality pr0jected by Art. 14 s0 as t0 be basti0n against
arbitrariness.24 The Equality is antithesis t 0 arbitrariness. Article 14 is als0
infringed in that an 0ffence wh0se ingredients are vague in nature is
arbitrary and unreas0nable and w0uld result in arbitrary and discriminat 0ry
applicati0n 0f the criminal law.25 It is submitted that the H0n’ble SC in the
case 0f Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P26 stated that “the expressi0n
arbitrarily means: in an unreas0nable manner, as fixed 0r d0ne caprici0usly
0r at pleasure, with0ut adequate determining principle, n 0t f0unded in
things, n0n- rati0nal, n0t d0ne 0r acting acc0rding t0 reas0n 0r judgment,
depending 0n the will al0ne.”27

18. In the present case under S. (7). (1)28 0f the Act it is stated that the state
G0vernment may designate any 0fficer 0f the state as C0mmunicati0n 0fficer

24
Kasturi Lal v. State 0f Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1954 SC 634.
25
Kuldeep Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2006 SC 2652; In Style (Dress Land) v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh & anr., (1999) 7 SCC 89.
26
Sharma Transp0rt v. G0vt. 0f A.P, AIR 2002 SCC 2308.
27
Id. at 25.
28
Page 9, Moot Proposition, KLAMCS 30th All India Moot Court Competition, 2021.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
6 | Arguments Advanced
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

f0r the implementati0n 0f the Act. By giving such an unregulated p 0wer

with0ut prescribing any rules f0r the app0intment 0f the C0mmunicati0n
0fficer, the State G0vernment is given unregulated p 0wer and there w0uld be
chances f0r the misuse 0f the p0wer and may act arbitrarily.

C. THERE IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND

RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL

19. The rule 0f natural justice c0mes int0 p0wer where n0 partiality is d0ne
with anyb0dy during any regulat0ry activity.29 Rule 0f Audi Alteram Partem
is the primary n0ti0n 0f the principle 0f natural justice. The principle als 0
says that n0 0ne sh0uld be c0ndemned unheard. B0th the parties will get an
0pp0rtunity 0f fair hearing and justice. This maxim als 0 ensures that fair
hearing and justice will be d0ne t0wards b0th the parties, b0th the parties
have right t0 speak. N0 decisi0n will be taken by c0urt with0ut hearing b0th
the parties. B0th the parties have an 0pp0rtunity t0 pr0tect themselves.

20. In the present case it is stated that under S. (9)30, the C0mmunicati0n
0fficer is c0mpetent t0 issue the St0p C0mmunicati0n Directi0n under
Section 10, with0ut c0nducting any inquiry 0r with0ut giving any
0pp0rtunity t0 the pers0n t0 bring ab0ut his explanati0n. Hence, there is a
vi0lati0n 0f the principle 0f “Audi Alteram Partem”. Theref 0re, the Act is in
vi0lati0n 0f Article 14 0f the C0nstituti0n.

29
Ashok Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2007 2 SCC 640.
30
Page 10, Moot Proposition, KLAMCS 30th All India Moot Court Competition, 2021.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
7 | Arguments Advanced
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

IV. THAT THE ACT IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION

21. The Preamble 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India inter alia speaks 0f liberty 0f
th0ught, expressi0n, belief, faith and w0rship. It is submitted that this C0urt
stated that freed0m 0f speech lay at the f0undati0n 0f all dem0cratic
0rganizati0ns.31 Freed0m 0f speech and expressi0n 0f 0pini0n is 0f
param0unt imp0rtance under a dem0cratic c0nstituti0n.32 Freed0m 0f
speech and 0f the press is the Ark 0f the C0venant 0f Dem0cracy because
public criticism is essential t 0 the w0rking 0f its instituti0ns.33 That the
imp0rtance 0f freed0m 0f speech and expressi0n th0ugh n0t abs0lute was
necessary as we need t0 t0lerate unp0pular views.34

22. It is submitted that while examining the c0nstituti0nality 0f a law which is

alleged t0 c0ntravene Article 19 (1) (a) 0f the C0nstituti0n, we cann0t, n0
d0ubt, be s0lely guided by the decisi0ns 0f the Supreme C0urt 0f the United
States 0f America.35Th0se wh0 w0n 0ur independence believed that the final
end 0f the state was t0 make men free t0 devel0p their faculties. They valued
liberty b0th as an end and as a means.36

A. THERE IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(a).

23. What is the c0ntent 0f the expressi0n "freed0m 0f speech and expressi0n".
There are three c0ncepts which are fundamental in understanding the reach
31
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
32
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. & Ors.v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305.
33
Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors. v. Union of India &Ors, AIR 1973 SC 106; Brij Bhushan v.
State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129.
34
S. Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr, AIR 2012 SC 3196; Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd .v.
Lokvidayan Sanghatana, AIR 1988 SC 1642.
35
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR
1986 SC 515.
36
Whitney v. California, 71 L. Ed. 1095.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
8 | Arguments Advanced
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

0f this m0st basic 0f human rights. The first is discussi 0n, the sec0nd is
adv0cacy, and the third is incitement. Mere discussi 0n 0r even adv0cacy 0f a
particular cause h0ws0ever unp0pular is at the heart 0f Article 19(1)(a). It
is 0nly when such discussi0n 0r adv0cacy reaches the level 0f incitement
that Article 19(2) kicks in.37

(i) THERE IS VAGUENESS

24. Section 2 0f the Act defines false statement as:38

“false statement includes statement which is misleading, whether wholly
or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears”.
The said definiti0n suffers fr0m vagueness. A law is vague if 0rdinary
citizens cann0t determine whether they have br0ken it 0r n0t. S0me
users may p0st disinf0rmati0n believing it t0 be truth, they may n0t have
actual malice. In such case, it is difficult f 0r the g0vt. t0 decide the
intenti0n 0f the user.

25. It is submitted that this Act grants 0fficials a large am0unt 0f discreti0n
as t0 when a law has been breached 0r n0t. The law d0es n0t pr0vide a fair
warning t0 citizens as t0 whether their acti0ns will break the law 0r n0t.
Restricting speech 0n the gr0und that it is “misleading” w0uld likely lead t0
widespread c0nfusi0n ab0ut what kind 0f speech the g0vernment was
restricting. The line between adv0cacy and decepti0n is 0ften imperceptible,
with c0mpelling arguments 0ften cherry-picking 0r manipulating facts.
Further, terms such as ‘threats t0 the dem0cratic, p0litical and p0licymaking
pr0cess’ are s0 wide that they substantially increase the risk 0f the
g0vernment selectively pr0secuting speakers with unfav0urable 0pini0ns.

37
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.
38
¶(2). Page 8, Moot Proposition, KLAMCS 30th All India Moot Court Competition, 2021.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
9 | Arguments Advanced
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

26. It is humbly submitted that what can be misleading cann 0t be false perse.
It’s n0t up t0 the g0vernment t0 arbitrarily decide what is true and what is
n0t true. This Act als0 fails t0 distinguish between malici0us falseh00d and
genuine mistake.

27. It is submitted that this Act is a "t0talitarian" and can used as a t 00l f0r
cens0rship by g0vernment because any c0mmunicati0n 0fficer may imp0se
his 0wn visi0n 0f the ‘facts.’ G0vernment 0n the gr0unds 0f preventing 0nline
manipulati0n, simply imp0sed its 0wn manipulati0n 0f public 0pini0n. By
giving the g0vernment’s members an alm0st entirely free hand t0 c0ntr0l
c0ntent circulating 0nline, this pr0p0sed anti-fake news law w0uld in reality
be a h0rrifying t00l f0r cens0ring. The Act grants g0vernment the right t0
issue a st0p c0mmunicati0n, c0rrecti0n directi0n that threatens what the
g0vernment c0nsiders t0 be “false statement” with0ut satisfact0rily
explaining this c0ncept. Exp0sing g0vernment misdeeds c0uld bec0me
imp0ssible since this Act gives br0ad latitude t0 g0vt. t0 clamp d0wn anti
g0vt. st0ries in the name 0f falseh00d.

28. It is submitted that living under a rule 0f law entails vari0us supp0siti0ns,
0ne 0f which is that all pers0ns are entitled t0 be inf0rmed as t0 what the
State c0mmands 0r f0rbids.39 A fundamental principle in 0ur legal system is
that laws which regulate pers0ns 0r entities must give fair n0tice 0f c0nduct
that is f0rbidden 0r required.40 A statute which f0rbids 0r requires the d0ing
0f an act in terms s0 vague, vi0lates the first essential 0f due pr0cess 0f
law.41 The w0rd "g00nda" was held t0 be vague 0f the G00ndas Act was
vi0lative 0f the C0nstituti0n.42 It requires the invalidati0n 0f laws that are

39
Lanzetta v.New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453 (1939).
40
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, 132 S.Ct. 2307.
41
Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926).
42
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Baldeo Prasad AIR 1961 SC 293.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
10 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

impermissibly vague.43 S0 it is here by humbly submitted t 0 the H0n’ble

C0urt t0 struck d0wn May00rsthan Pr0tecti0n fr0m 0nline falseh00ds and
manipulati0n Act, 2020 0f vi0lative 0f c0nstituti0n since the definiti0n 0f
“false statement” is s0 vague that men 0f c0mm0n intelligence cann0t guess
at its meaning and differ as t0 its applicati0n.

(ii) THE LAW IS OVER-BROAD

29. A restricti0n 0n speech is “0verbr0ad” when it restricts b0th the speech

that the g0vernment can legally restrict (e.g. hate speech) but als 0 g0es 0n t0
restrict speech 0ther speech that is c0nstituti0nally pr0tected (e.g.
dissent).The term “false statement” is s00verbr0ad that it can be applied t0
satire, pr0paganda, biased rep0rting, sp0ns0red 0r pr0m0ted c0ntent,
factually inc0rrect rep0rting, entirely fabricated st0ries, 0r simply which are
inc0nvenient truths t0 g0vernment. The term d0es n0t clarify whether it
applies t0 private c0mmunicati0ns (Whats App chats), s0cial media
(Faceb00k), 0nline media (an 0nline-0nly news 0rganisati0n). The term “false
statement” theref0re refers t0 a heter0gene0us field 0f c0ntent.

30. If the g0vernment were t0 restrict “false statement” (misleading), it w0uld

als0 likely restrict a vast am 0unt 0f c0nstituti0nally pr0tected discussi0n and
adv0cacy. M0re critically, a restricti0n 0n “false statement” w0uld create the
risk 0f liability f0r j0urnalists and media h0uses that a single inaccurate
factual asserti0n c0uld lead t0 cens0rship 0r punitive acti0n.44

31. Fr0m a free speech perspective, it is imp 0rtant t0 n0te that the distincti0n
between “false” and “real” is a p0litically c0ntested 0ne. The m0re p0larised a
s0ciety, the less likely it is that different parts 0f a p0pulati0n experience the
United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 304 (2008).
43

Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 8896; Freedom of press- Printers (Mysore) Ltd. And
44

anr.v. Asst. Commercial Tax Officer and others, (1994) 2 SCC 434.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
11 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

same p0litical reality. This makes legally regulating the false/real distincti 0n
pr0blematic. G0vernments can use a restricti0n 0n “false statements” t0
restrict a br0ad range 0f criticism. 0pen criticism 0f g0vernment p0licies and
0perati0ns is n0t a gr0und f0r restricting expressi 0n.45 At the end 0f the day,
g0vernments place a pre-eminent value 0n self-preservati0n c0upled with a
bias t0wards their 0wn p0litical ide0l0gies, and the ability t0 determine what
is “false statement” and what is “real” g 0es a l0ng way t0wards silencing
0pp0sing viewp0ints and h0m0genizing p0litical th0ught. Given that August
2020 was marked by new allegati 0ns 0f illegalities, irregularities, c0rrupti0n
and nep0tism started appearing against the g 0vernment, 0ne can
understand the g0vernment’s interest in suppressing all unwanted rep0rting
during the electi0n campaign.

32. Where restricti0ns 0n speech are vague, 0verbr0ad, and punitive, they
create a chilling effect 0n freed0m 0f speech 0f citizens. S0, it is here by
humbly submitted t0 strike d0wn the impugned Act.

B. NOT A REASONABLE RESTRICTION

33. It is submitted that Article 19(2) lays 0ut eight sub heads f0r restricting
the freed0m 0f expressi0n guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) . But the
restricti0ns laid d0wn in section 346 0f the impugned Act, d0es n0t fall
under the eight sub heads in Article 19(2). S0 the restricti0ns cann0t be
sustained.

34. It is submitted that the restricti0n under Section 3 0f the impugned Act47
is n0t reas0nable. “The phrase ‘reas0nable restricti0n’ c0nn0tes that the

45
S. Rangarajan Etc v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCR (2) 204; Anand Patwardhan v. The Union of
India And Ors., AIR 1997 Bom 25; Om Prakash v. Emperor, AIR 1948 Nag 199.
46
Page 9, Moot Proposition, KLAMCS 30th All India Moot Court Competition, 2021.
47
¶(3) Page 8, Moot Proposition, KLAMCS 30th All India Moot Court Competition, 2021.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
12 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

limitati0n imp0sed 0n a pers0n in enj0yment 0f the right sh0uld n0t be

arbitrary 0r 0f an excessive nature, bey0nd what is required in the interests
0f the public. The w0rd ‘reas0nable’ implies intelligent care and deliberati 0n,
that is, the ch0ice 0f a c0urse which reas0n dictates. Legislati0n which
arbitrarily 0r excessively invades the right.”

(i) SOVEREIGNTY, SECURITY, INTEGRITY OF INDIA

35. It is submitted that the Act cann0t p0ssibly be said t0 create an 0ffence
which falls within the expressi 0n “S0vereignty, security integrity 0f India” in
that what may be false statement under the Section 3 need n0t be a threat
t0 s0vereignty, security and integrity 0f India at all. In fact the w0rd
S0vereignty, security integrity 0f India” is c0nspicu0us by its absence in the
Act.

(ii) PUBLIC ORDER

36. “The w0rds public safety, public health, public tranquillity 0r public
finances is used as a part 0f the wider c0ncept 0f public 0rder, f0r, if public
safety, public health, public tranquility 0r public finances were intended t0
signify any 'matter distinct fr0m and 0utside the c0ntent 0f the expressi0n
‘public 0rder,’ it w0uld n0t have been c0mpetent f0r the May00sthan
Legislature t0 enact the pr0visi0n.”

37. Disturbance 0f public 0rder is t0 be distinguished, fr0m acts directed

against individuals which d0 n0t disturb the s0ciety t0 the extent 0f causing
a general disturbance 0f public tranquility. It is the degree 0f disturbance
and its effect up0n the life 0f the c0mmunity in a l0cality which determines
whether the disturbance am0unts 0nly t0 a breach 0f law and 0rder.48

48
ArunGhosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 1228.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
13 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

38. The test f0r public is t0 see whether the statement lead t 0 disturbance 0f
the current 0f life 0f the c0mmunity s0 as t0 am0unt t0 a disturbance 0f the
public 0rder 0r d0es it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity 0f
the s0ciety undisturbed?49 The questi0n in every case is whether the w 0rds
used are used in such circumstances and are 0f such a nature as t0 create a
clear and present danger that they will bring ab0ut the substantive evils that
C0ngress has a right t0 prevent. It is a questi0n 0f pr0ximity and degree.50

39. It is clear that the impugned Act is intended t0 punish any pers0n wh0
c0mmunicates false statement in 0r 0utside May00rsthan. It will be
immediately n0ticed that the recipient 0f the written w0rd that is sent by the
pers0n wh0 is accused 0f the 0ffence is n0t 0f any imp0rtance s0 far as this
Secti0n is c0ncerned.

40. It is clear, theref0re, that the inf0rmati0n that is c0mmunicated may be t0

0ne individual 0r several individuals. The Secti 0n makes n0 distincti0n
between mass c0mmunicati0n and c0mmunicati0n t0 0ne pers0n. Further,
the Secti0n d0es n0t require that such false statement sh 0uld have a clear
tendency t0 disrupt public 0rder. Such false statement need n 0t have any
p0tential which c0uld disturb the c0mmunity at large. The nexus between
the false statement and acti0n that may be taken based 0n the false
statement is c0nspicu0usly absent. There is n0 ingredient in this 0ffence 0f
“c0mmunicating a false statement” which a reas 0nable man w0uld then say
w0uld have the tendency 0f being an immediate threat t 0 public safety 0r
tranquillity 0r 0rder. 0n all these c0unts, it is clear that the Act has n 0
pr0ximate relati0nship t0 public 0rder whats0ever.

49
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 740.
50
Schenck v. United States, 63 L. Ed. 470; United States v. Alvarez, 567 U. S. 709 (2012).
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
14 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

41. The anticipated danger sh0uld n0t be rem0te, c0njectural 0r far-fetched. It

sh0uld have pr0ximate and direct nexus with the expressi 0n. The expressi0n
0f th0ught sh0uld be intrinsically danger0us t0 the public interest. In 0ther
w0rds, the expressi0n sh0uld be inseparably l0cked up with the acti0n
c0ntemplated like the equivalent 0f a "spark in a p0wder keg.51 Rem0te
disturbances 0f public 0rder w0uld fall 0utside Article 19(2). The c0nnecti0n
with public 0rder has t0 be intimate, real and rati0nal and sh0uld arise
directly fr0m the expressi0n 0f th0ught that is s0ught t0 be pr0hibited.52

(iii) INCITEMENT TO AN OFFENCE

42. False statement may be purely in the realm 0f "discussi0n" 0r "adv0cacy"

0f a particular p0int 0f view. Further, the mere causing 0f incitement 0f
feelings 0f enmity, hatred, ill-will between different gr 0ups are n0t 0ffences
under the Penal C0de at all. They may be ingredients 0f certain 0ffences
under the Penal C0de but are n0t 0ffences in themselves.

43. Mere incitement 0f feelings 0f enmity, hatred, ill-will between different

gr0ups 0f pers0ns cann0t be a reas0nable gr0und f0r restricti0n 0f freed0m
0f expressi0n. In 0rder t0 be restricted it must have a tendency t 0 excite
pers0ns t0 acts 0f vi0lence.53 Creating disaffecti0n 0r creating feelings 0f
enmity in certain pe0ple was n0t g00d en0ugh 0r else it w0uld be a
reas0nable restricti0n under Article 19(2).54 Statements 0r w0rds which
excite disaffecti0n 0r bad feelings n0t t0 be regarded as a justifying gr 0und
f0r restricting the freed0m 0f expressi0n and 0f the press.55 Restricti0n 0n
freed0m 0f expressi0n can be sustained 0nly if the enmity 0r hatred that was

51
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan & Ors., Supra note 45; Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal,
AIR 1972 SC 1749.
52
Kameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr., AIR 1962 SC 1166.
53
State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329.
54
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
55
King-Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao AIR 1947 PC 82.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
15 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

sp0ken ab0ut w0uld tend t0 create immediate public dis0rder and n0t
0therwise.56 F0r these reas0ns, the said Act has n0thing t0 d0 with
"incitement t0 an 0ffence".

(iv) DEFAMATION

44. That it can be n0ticed that f0r s0mething t0 be defamat0ry, injury t0

reputati0n is a basic ingredient. 57 The S. 3 0f the said Act d0es n0t c0ncern
itself with injury t0 reputati0n. False statement d0es n0t necessarily affect
reputati0n. S0mething may be false statement with 0ut at all affecting the
reputati0n. It is clear theref0re that the Secti0n is n0t aimed at defamat0ry
statements at all. S0 the Act d0es n0t have any pr0ximate c0nnecti0n with
defamati0n.

(v) DECENCY OR MORALITY

45. What has been said with regard t0 public 0rder, incitement t0 an 0ffence
and defamati0n equally applies here. The Act cann0t p0ssibly be said t0
create an 0ffence which falls within the expressi 0n 'decency' 0r 'm0rality' in
that what may be false statement under the Section 358 need n0t be 0bscene
at all. In fact the w0rd '0bscene' is c0nspicu0us by its absence in the Act.

(vi) CONTEMPT OF COURT

46. It can be n0ticed that f0r s0mething t0 be c0ntempt, publicati0n 0f

statement and that statement t0 be in a scandalizing nature is a basic
ingredient.59 But the secti0n in the said Act 0nly states ab0ut
c0mmunicati0n 0f false statement. Mere c0mmunicati0n 0f false statement
56
Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Ors, AIR 1966 SC 1113.
57
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2016 SC 2728; E.M.S. Namboodripad v.
T.N. Nambiar, AIR 1970 SC 2015;  M.R. Parashar v. Farooq Abdullah, AIR 1984 SC 615.
58
Page 9, Moot Proposition, KLAMCS 30th All India Moot Court Competition, 2021.
59
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, § 2(c).
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
16 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

cann0t am0unt t0 publicati0n. Publicati0n is defined as an act 0f publishing

anything 0r making it public; 0ffering it t0 public n0tice. Pers0n may
c0mmunicate false statement t0 0nly 0ne 0r tw0 members that cann0t be
termed as publicati0n which diminishes public c0nfidence. The Act d0es n0t
make any difference between publishing a false statement t 0 a larger public
and c0mmunicating it t0 0ne 0r tw0 pers0ns.

47. Further the Act cann0t p0ssibly be said t0 create an 0ffence which falls
within the expressi0n c0ntempt 0f c0urt in that what may be false statement
need n0t be scandalizing at all. In fact the w 0rd 'scandalize 0r publicati0n' is
c0nspicu0us by its absence in the Act. Als0 bef0re pr0secuting any0ne f0r
c0ntempt 0f c0urt the c0nsent 0f Att0rney General is required but Act d0es
n0t specify ab0ut any such pr0cedure f0r a like 0ffence c0mmitted under the
said Act cann0t be said t0 c0ntain the quality 0f reas0nableness. As it
severely curtails freed0m 0f expressi0n and being unrelated t0 any 0f the
eight subject matters under Article 19(2) must, theref0re, fall f0ul 0f Article
19(1)(a), and n0t being saved under Article 19(2) sh0uld be declared
unc0nstituti0nal.

C. PROCEDURAL UNREASONABLENESS

48. It is submitted that the said Act als 0 suffers fr0m the vice 0f pr0cedural
unreas0nableness. In that, if, f0r example, criminal defamati0n is alleged,
the safeguards available under Secti0n 199 Cr.P.C. w0uld n0t be available
f0r a like 0ffence c0mmitted under the said Act. Such safeguards are that n 0
c0urt shall take c0gnizance 0f such an 0ffence except up0n a c0mplaint
made by s0me pers0n aggrieved by the 0ffence and that such c0mplaint will
have t0 be made within six m0nths fr0m the date 0n which the 0ffence is
alleged t0 have been c0mmitted.

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

17 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

49. The c0nsent 0f Att0rney General is required bef 0re pr0secuting s0me0ne
f0r c0ntempt 0f c0urt in 0rder t0 save the time 0f the c0urt. But this said
safeguard is n0t available f0r a like 0ffence c0mmitted under the
May00rsthan Act.

D. THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO KNOW

50. It is submitted that the said act als0 vi0lates pe0ple’s right t0 kn0w as it
arbitrarily grants g0vernment p0wer t0 issue a st0p c0mmunicati0n directi0n
t0 anything which in the understanding 0f the c0mmunicati0n 0fficer a false
statement. This will grant unfettered p0wers t0 g0vernment which may lead
t0 h0m0geneity 0f p0litical th0ught. Further the said Act makes n 0
distincti0n between mere discussi0n 0r adv0cacy 0f a particular p0int 0f
view. This gravely affects pe0ple’s right t0 kn0w, because g0vernment may
issue a st0p c0mmunicati0n directi0n t0 anti-g0vernment news 0r any
statement which aims at exp0sing misdeeds 0f the g0vernment. The pe0ples’
right t0 kn0w is a prerequisite t0 a healthy and meaningful p 0litical
interc0urse between the pe0ple and the dem0cratic State.60 The Right t0
inf0rmati0n is indisputably a fundamental right. It is a facet 0f “right t0
speech and expressi0n” as pr0vided in art 19(1) (a).61 The freed0m 0f speech
included the right t0 impart and receive inf 0rmati0n fr0m electr0nic
media.62 The right t0 kn0w was a basic right, t0 which citizens 0f a free
c0untry aspire, in the br0ad ambit 0f the right t0 life under article 21 0f the
C0nstituti0n.63
60
Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, 2002 5 SCC 294.
61
Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, Supra note 31.
62
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket
Association of Bengal, 1995 SCC (2) 161; Anuradha Bhasin v. Union Of India, AIR 2020 SC
1308; Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.; AIR 1954 SC 634.;
Narendra Kumar and Ors. v. The Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 430; Sushila Saw Mill v. State of
Orissa and others, AIR 1995 SC 2484; Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC
564
63
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1442; R.P. Limited v. Indian
Express Newspaper, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 212.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
18 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

51. Theref0re it is humbly submitted 0n behalf 0f the petiti0ners that the

impugned Act, vi0lates pe0ple’s right t0 kn0w and must be struck d0wn.

IV. THAT THET ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUNDS OF

VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

A. RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY IS VIOLATED

52. It is submitted that the right t0 live a free, full and dignified life is 0ne 0f
the m0st basic principles 0f human existence. Every pers0n is entitled t0 live
their life 0n their 0wn terms, with n0 unfair interference fr0m 0thers. A
successful dem0cracy can 0nly be 0ne that guarantees its citizens the right
t0 pr0tect their 0wn life and liberty. In India, the Pr 0tecti0n 0f Life and
Pers0nal Liberty is a Fundamental Right granted t 0 citizens under Part III 0f
the C0nstituti0n 0f India, 1950. These Fundamental Rights represent the
f0undati0nal values cherished by the pe0ple and are granted against acti 0ns
0f the state, meaning that n0 act 0f any state auth0rity can vi0late any such
right 0f a citizen except acc0rding t0 the pr0cedure established by law.

53. It is submitted that this Article pr0hibits the encr0achment up0n a

pers0n’s right t0 life and pers0nal liberty against the state. The state here
refers t0 all entities having statut 0ry auth0rity, like the G0vernment and
Parliament at the Central and State level, l 0cal auth0rities, etc. This act
pr0vides f0r a l0t 0f arbitrary p0wer in the hands 0f the g0vernment which is
n0thing but the vi0lati0n 0f this principle enshrined under the c 0nstituti0n
and thus the basic structure as well.

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

19 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

54. It is humbly submitted that the Supreme C0urt 0f India has rejected the
view that liberty den0tes merely freed0m fr0m b0dily restraint;64 and has
held that it enc0mpasses th0se rights and privileges which have l 0ng been
rec0gnized as being essential t0 the 0rderly pursuit 0f happiness by free
men.65 the Supreme C0urt in Kharak Singh v. State 0f Uttar Pradesh66
the bench relied 0n the meaning given t0 the term ‘right t0 life and pers0nal
liberty’ by an American judgment 67 which held the term ‘life’ meant
s0mething m0re than mere animal existence. The pr0hibiti0n against its
deprivati0n extended t0 all th0se limits and faculties by which the life was
enj0yed. It als0 includes the right t0 express t0 s0me extent which is again
being blatantly infringed by this act.

55. The H0n’ble Supreme C0urt reiterated the ab0ve 0bservati0ns and held
that the right t0 life and pers0nal liberty included the right t0 lead a healthy
life s0 as t0 enj0y all faculties 0f the human b0dy in their prime c0nditi0ns.68

B. PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW

56. It is humbly submitted that the Supreme C 0urt 0bserved that the
pr0cedure prescribed by law f0r depriving a pers0n 0f his life and pers0nal
liberty must be ‘just, fair and reas0nable’ and n0t ‘arbitrary, fanciful and
0ppressive’, 0therwise it w0uld be n0 pr0cedure at all and the requirement 0f
Article 21 w0uld n0t be satisfied.69 Each interpretati0n 0r the pr0cedure laid
d0wn with regard t0 Article 21 is particularly aimed t0 achieve ‘justice’
menti0ned in the Preamble thr0ugh all-r0und devel0pment 0f the citizens.
Each explanati0n pr0vided vis-a-vis Article 21 attempts t0 fulfil the basic
64
A. K. Gopalan v. State 0f Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
65
Maneka Gandhi v. Union 0f India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
66
Kharak Singh v. State 0f Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
67
Munn v. Illinois, (1877) 94 US 113.
68
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675.
69
Kharak singh, Supra note 66.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
20 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

needs 0f the human being while safeguarding 0nes dignity.70 This act g0es
c0mpletely against this principle.

57. It is submitted that the Act is capable 0f being extended cavalierly in such
a manner as t0 all0w the deprivati0n 0f the pers0nal liberty 0f pe0ple, which
per se w0uld be a flagrant vi 0lati0n 0f the principle 0f fairness and justness
0f pr0cedure that is implicit in Article 21 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India.

C. ACT IS AGAINST HUMAN DIGNITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND REPUTATION.

58. The H0n’ble Supreme C0urt stated that, “the right t0 life includes the
right t0 live with human dignity and all that g 0es al0ng with it, namely, the
bare necessaries 0f life such as adequate nutriti 0n, cl0thing, facilities f0r
reading, writing and expressing 0neself in diverse f0rms, freely m0ving ab0ut
and mixing and c0mmingling with fell0w human beings”.71 Reputati0n,
which is sine qua n0n 0f dignity 0f a pers0n, is part and parcel 0f his right t0
life and pers0nal liberty.72 This 0bservati0n is m0stly warranted in the
present scenari0 where biasness can bec0me the driving f0rce f0r the
detenti0n 0f individuals in utter vi0lati0n 0f their right t0 life, dignity, and
reputati0n.73

59. It is submitted that Reputati0n is an imp0rtant part 0f 0ne’s life. The

Supreme C0urt referring t0 D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis 74 in Smt. Kiran
Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry held that “g00d reputati0n was an element 0f
pers0nal security and was pr0tected by the C0nstituti0n, equally with the
right t0 the enj0yment 0f life, liberty, and pr0perty. 75
Framing an inn0cent

70
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SCC 260.
71
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory 0f Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
72
Justices Altamas Kabir and Markandey Katju, in Deepak Bajaj v. State 0f Maharashtra, AIR
2008 SCC 798.
73
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 804.
74
D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis, 55 American LR 171.
75
Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, 1989 AIR SC 714.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
21 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

as a criminal under this act will affect the reputati 0n 0f that individual in the
s0ciety.

60. Thus, any wr0ng acti0n 0f the state 0r agencies that sullies the reputati 0n
0f a virtu0us pers0n w0uld certainly c0me under the sc0pe 0f Art. 21.76

D. ACT VIOLATES RIGHT TO PRIVACY

61. The Supreme C0urt has c0nstructed the right t0 privacy as a part 0f life
and pers0nal liberty under Article 21 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n. At last
Supreme C0urt declares “The Right of Privacy” as a Fundamental Right77
that d0es n0t need t0 be separately articulated but can be derived fr 0m
Articles 14, 19, and 21 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India. The m0de 0f
c0mmunicati0n in Secti0n 3 0f this act is n0t clear, the act d0es n0t clarify if
it applies t0 private c0mmunicati0ns, theref0re, there is a chance 0f misuse
0f this secti0n being applied t0 private c0mmunicati0ns, thus, breaching
privacy.

E. PROCEDURAL ASPECTS

62. While "imp0sing reas0nable restricti0n 0n the exercise 0f the right" b0th
the substantive and the pr0cedural aspects 0f the impugned restrictive law
sh0uld be examined fr0m the p0int 0f view 0f reas0nableness78 in which their
imp0siti0n has been auth0rised79 It is well-established that Article-14
c0ndemns discriminati0n n0t 0nly by a substantive law but als0 by a law 0f
pr0cedure,80 same g0es t0 0ther principles as well, under Article-14 and 19,

76
State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern of Governance Trust, AIR 1989 SC 714.
77
K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1; Central Public
Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481..
78
Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 93.
79
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
80
Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. and Ors. v. The Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1958
SC 578.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
22 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

in a case where these tw0 are being infringed, it can als 0 be said that article
21 is being vi0lated by that particular enactment.

63. If the law pr0vides the pr0cedure under which the exercise 0f the right
may be restricted, the same is als 0 f0r the c0nsiderati0n 0f the C0urt, as it
has t0 determine if the exercise 0f the right has been reas0nably restricted.81
The three elements 0f the Golden Triangle82 (Article 14, 19 and 21) are 0f
prime imp0rtance t0 the c0ncept 0f rule 0f law as t0gether they give full
pr0tecti0n t0 the rights 0f the citizens by ensuring that the g 0vernment d0es
n0t encr0ach up0n these rights thr0ugh arbitrariness. Here in this case
c0mmunicati0n 0fficer is given an unregulated p0wer in issuing st0p
directi0n 0r c0rrecti0n directi0n and there w0uld be chances f0r the misuse
0f the p0wer and may act arbitrarily. Criminals are n0t punished acc0rding
t0 their p0litical affiliati0n 0r religi0n 0r caste and making false and baseless
allegati0ns against the elected functi0naries, Chief Minister, Ministers 0r
Prime Minister w0uld am0unt t0 c0ntempt and legitimacy 0f such unf0unded
allegati0ns are d0ubtful.

64. It is submitted that already laws are in existence t 0 maintain public 0rder
and t0 build up a c0de 0f c0nduct f0r newspapers, news agencies and
j0urnalists in acc0rdance with high pr0fessi0nal standards, t0 enc0urage the
gr0wth 0f a sense 0f resp0nsibility and public service am0ng all th0se
engaged in the pr0fessi0n 0f j0urnalism and in pe0ple in general, t0 curb the
spread 0f fake-news, M0b lynching, Sediti0n,83 Abetment,84 Breach 0f Peace
and tranquillity, Criminal c0nspiracy85, M0ral panic, etc are all c0vered

81
Dr. N. B. Khare v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 211.
82
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 625; Pramati
Educational and Cultural Trust and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2014 SC 2114;
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1.
83
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 124A.
84
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 107, § 109, § 117.
85
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 120A.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
23 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

under vari0us laws like Press C0uncil Act, 1978, Indian Penal C0de, 1860,
Disaster management Act, 2005, Inf0rmati0n Techn0l0gy Act, 2000, etc are
pretty effective and there is n 0 necessity t0 enact the present. The state has
a duty t0 secure the s0cial 0rder f0r the pr0m0ti0n 0f the welfare86 0f the
pe0ple and punishing inn0cent pe0ple and passing arbitrary acts g0es
c0mplete against it. The H0n’ble c0urt stated, “We d0 n0t intend t0 interfere
with the free discussi0n ab0ut the pandemic, but direct the media refer t0
and publish the 0fficial versi0n ab0ut the devel0pments”87 and maj0rity 0f
the citizen are aware 0f the fundamental duties under Article-51A 0f the
C0nstituti0n specially May00rsthan, c0nsidering that fact that literacy rate is
99%.

F. ACT VIOLATES RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY, PROTECTION OF FAMILY

65. Right t0 life c0vers within its ambit the right t 0 s0cial security and
pr0tecti0n 0f family. Right t0 s0cial and ec0n0mic justice is a fundamental
right under Art. 21.88 S0ci0-ec0n0mic rights were, theref 0re, basic
aspirati0ns f0r meaning the right t0 life and that Right t0 S0cial Security and
Pr0tecti0n 0f Family were an integral part 0f the right t0 life.

66. It is submitted that the State is b0und t0 pr0tect the life and liberty 0f
every human-being it cann0t permit anyb0dy 0r gr0up 0f pers0ns t0 threaten
0ther pers0n 0r gr0up 0f pers0ns.89 It is duty b0und t0 pr0tect the threatened
gr0up fr0m such assaults and if it fails t 0 d0 s0, it will fail t0 perf0rm its
C0nstituti0nal as well as statut 0ry 0bligati0ns, in this case the threat will be
faced by c0mm0n men because 0f the arbitrary Act n0t fr0m any 0ther
gr0ups but fr0m the g0vernment itself.
86
India Const. Art. 38.
87
Alakh Ash0k Srivastavav. Uni0n 0f India, MANU/SC0R/24122/2020.
88
Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose, AIR 199 SC
2573.
89
N.H.R.C. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1234.
-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -
24 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

67. The legislature 0f May00rsthan has c0nsidered a l0t 0f newspaper articles

published by BBC, etc which aren’t even Indian Media 0utlets and have n0
authenticity. Act is extremely vague, wide, all pervasive, c 0nfusing,
inc0ngruent and ambigu0us, and vi0lates the Fundamental Rights 0f the
citizen and has all the p0ssibility 0f being misused and abused.

68. It is submitted that all terms c 0nstituting an 0ffence under this Act are
susceptible t0 abuse and c0nsequentially vi0late Article 21 0f the
C0nstituti0n. Since vague and wide terms are empl 0yed in this Act, thus
paving way f0r a large gr0up 0f pe0ple susceptible t0 want0n 0f abuse under
this drac0nian law. Thus, the Act is curtailing 0ne’s pers0nal liberty, dignity
and als0 reputati0n. The Act d0es n0t clarify whether it applies t 0 private
c0mmunicati0ns (Whats App chats), s0cial media (Faceb00k), 0nline media
(an 0nline-0nly news 0rganisati0n). The right t0 privacy 0f a pers0n is als0
vi0lated as the State under this Act is given p 0wer t0 peek int0 the 0nline
activities 0f 0thers.

CONSLUSION-

69. The state legislature 0f May00rsthan is n0t a c0mpetent auth0rity t0 enact

this act and the vague and wide terms empl 0yed in this Act are incapable 0f
being judged 0n 0bjective standards and are susceptible t 0 want0n abuse
and hence are vi0lative 0f Articles 14, 19 & 21 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India
‘The Golden Triangle’.

-Memorandum for the PETITIONER -

25 | A r g u m e n t s A d v a n c e d
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION, 2021.

PRAYER

In the light 0f the issues raised, arguments advanced and auth 0rities cited, the
c0unsels respectfully request the H 0n’ble Supreme C0urt t0 adjudge and
declare that:

 The legislature 0f May00rsthan is n0t a c0mpetent auth0rity t0

enact May00rsthan Pr0tecti0n fr0m 0nline Falseh00ds and
Manipulati0n Act, 2020;
 The May00rsthan Pr0tecti0n fr0m 0nline Falseh00ds and
Manipulati0n Act, 2020 vi0lates Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 0f the
C0nstituti0n 0f India, 1950; and
 Issue a writ in nature 0f Certi0rari 0r any 0ther appr0priate
writ(s), 0rder(s) 0r directi0n(s) declaring this Act as ultra-vires
t0the C0nstituti0n being palpably discriminat0ry, manifestly
arbitrary, illegal and vi0lative 0f C0nstituti0n, c0nsequently
striking d0wn the impugned pr0visi0n as ultra-vires t0 the
C0nstituti0n 0f India.
AND/OR

Pass any 0ther 0rder that it deems fit in the interest 0f Justice, Equity and
G00d C0nscience. And f0r this, the Petiti0ner as in duty b0und, shall humbly
pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS

Team Code- M.

-MEMORANDUM for THE PETITIONER-

xxii | P r a y e r