TEAM: G

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAYOORSTHAN

Original Writ Jurisdiction

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

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

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

MOST RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

MAYOORSTHAN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents……………………………………………………………………….1

List of abbreviations……………………………………………………………………3

Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………………4

Statement of Jurisdiction……………………………………………………………...9

Statement of Facts……………………………………………………………………..10

Issues Raised…………………………………………………………………………..12

Summary of Arguments………………………………………………………………13

Arguments Advanced…………………………………………………………………14

(1)Whether the writ petition filed before the High Court of Mayoorsthan under article 226
of The Constitution is Maintainable? .......................................................................... 14

1.1 There is no locus standi………………………………………………………... 14

1.2 There is no violation of fundamental rights …………………………………… 16
1.3 The Act is legally competent…………………………………………………… 17

(2)Whether The Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act is
in violation of Article 14 of The Indian Constitution?................................................. 18

2.1 The Act is not arbitrary in nature………………………………………………... 18

2.2 The Act passes the Twin Test and hence not in violation of Article 14………… 19
2.3 The Act does not violate the principles of Natural Justice……………………… 19

(3)Whether The Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation is in

violation of Article 19 (1) (a) of The Indian Constitution?........................................... 22

3.1 The Art. 19 (1)(a) in Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation
is subject to restrictions under Art.19(2)…………………………………………….22

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 2

3.2 Section 8(4) & 10(4) of the act is not in violation of art19(1)(a)……………………. 24

(4)Whether The Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation is in

violation of Article 21 of The Indian Constitution?..........................................................26

4.1 Propagation of False news threatens Art.21………………………………………….26

4.2 The Act is reasonable………………………………………………………………….30

4.3 There is no Double Jeopardy……………………………………………………….....31

Prayer……………………………………………………………………………………….33

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVATIONS EXPANSION
HON’BLE Honorable
A.I.R All India Reporter
S.C.C Supreme Court Cases
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
Anr. Another
Ors. Others
S.C.R Supreme Court Reporter
v. Versus
& And
PARA Paragraph
Cri. Criminal
AP Andhra Pradesh
UP Uttar Pradesh
Govt. Government
Art. Article
IT Information technology
Sec Section
UoI Union of India
F.R Fundamental Rights
Const Constitution
GAU Gauhati
Pat Patna

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

[Link] CASES CITATION

Ashok kumar Pandey v State of West Writ Petition (criminal) N0

1.
Bengal 199 of 2003

2. Bihar S. E Board v Subhash Chana A.I.R. 1970 S.C.1269

3. Chiranjit Lal Chaudhary v UOI&ORS 1951 A.I.R. 49

Dr. D. C Saxena v Hon'ble Chief Justice

4. 1966 S.C.C 216
of India,
Fertilizer Corporation Union v Union of
5. 1981 S.C.R. (2) 52
India

6. Govind v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRI. L.J 1244

7. Kiran Bedi v Committee of Inquiry 1988 A.I.R. 2252

8. Kathi Raning Rawat v Saurashtra, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 123

9. Kapan v Jagmohan A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 126

10. Manekha Gandhi v UOI, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 59

11. Manjouli Dev v UOI, S.C.C. 2014 GAU 403

Writ Petition (civil) No 410 of

12. Mohd Saeed Siddiqui v State of U.P
2012
Radha Mohan Lal v High court of
13. 2003,S.C.C. 427
Rajasthan,

14. Radhakrishna v Osmania University A.I.R. 1974 A.P 283

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 5

15. Romesh Thappar v State of Madras, 1950 A.I.R. 124

16. R. M Malkarni v State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.1972 S.C. 157

17. S.K Sinha v Patna University A.I.R. 1965 Pat. 253

18. S. S Ahuwalia v UOI, 2006 Bom. CR. 157

Writ Petition(criminal) No
19. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
167 of 2015

20. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 SCR 284

21. Venkata Raman v UOI, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 375

Prasar Bharath broadcasting cooperation

22. A.I.R. 2000
v Debya jote Bose

23. Janatha Dal v H.S Chaudhary A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 892

24. State of M.P v Sanjay Kumar Pathak 2008 S.C.C. 456

S.B Trading Co. Ltd v Shyamlal

25. A.I.R. 1951
Ramachandra

26. A.K Gopalan v State of Madras A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 27

27. Satwan Singh Sawhney v [Link] 2008 S.C.R. (2) 621

28. Deena Dayal v UOI & Ors 1984 S.C.R. (2) 525

29. [Link] v Union of India A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 212

30. Indira Sawhney v Union of India A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 497

National Legal Service Authority v Union

31. 2014 S.C.C. 438
of India

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 6

32. Rajibala v State of Hariyana

Prasayant J in Sharma Transport v Govt.

33. Appeal (civil) 4998
of A.P

34. Union of India v Int Trading Co A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2526

35. V. Shivamurthy v State of A.P (2008) 11 S.C. 294

36. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 S.C.R. (2)375

37. Chitaman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 118

38. Narendra Kumar v Union of India 1960 S.C.R. (2) 375

39. State Of Madras v V.G Rao A.I.R. 1952 S.C 196

Writ Petition (c) No. 34097 of

40 M.P Chothy v State of Kerala
2015

41 State of Rajasthan v G.C Chawla 1959 A.I.R. 544

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 7

BOOKS REFERRED

1. M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7TH Ed. LEXIS NEXIS.2016)

2. DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (21ST Ed. LEXIS NEXIS
.1960)

3. NARENDER KUMAR, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (8TH Ed. ALLAHABAD LAW

AGENCY.2011).

4. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, CONTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (3RD Ed. EASTERN BOOK
COMPANY.2017).

5. K.C. JOSHI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (3RD Ed. CENTRAL LAW

PUBLICATIONS.2016).

6. [Link], THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (3RD Ed. ASIA LAW HOUSE.2008).

7. [Link] OF INDIA (13TH Ed. EASTERN BOOK COMPANY.1982).

8. DR.J.N. [Link] LAW OF INDIA (8TH Ed. ATLANTIC PUBLISHER.2008).

9. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA (8TH Ed. LEXIS

NEXIS.2012).

10. DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2ND Ed. LEXIS NEXIS.2007).

11. [Link], CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4TH Ed. UNIVERSAL PUBLICATIONS.

2004). STATUTES REFERED

12. P. M BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING Co. [Link]

13. [Link], CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4TH Ed. UNIVERSAL

PUBLICATIONS. 2004

14. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, CONTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA(3RD Ed. EASTERN

BOOK COMPANY.2017)

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 8

15. DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (21ST Ed.

LEXIS NEXIS .1960)

16. M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7TH Ed. LEXIS NEXIS.2016)

17. K.C. JOSHI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA(3RD Ed. CENTRAL LAW

PUBLICATIONS.2016).

18. JUSTICE B. P. BANERJEE, WRIT REMEDIES ([Link] NEXIS, 1998). \

19. GEORGE JOHNSON, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (2nd Ed. LAW BOOKS CENTRE,
2000).
20. B.M .GANDHI, INDIAN PENAL CODE (4TH Ed. EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, 1996).

21. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (34TH Ed. LEXIS NEXIS
PUBLICATIONS, 2016).

22. SURYA NARAYAN MISRA, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (20TH Ed. CENTRAL LAW
PUBLICATIONS, 1995).

23. [Link], THE INDIAN PENAL CODE ([Link] LAW

PUBLICATIONS, 2000).
24. The INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 as AMENDED BY THE FINANCE
ACT, 2017/ Latest Edition
25. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: ACT II OF 1974
26. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973[AMENDED up to ACT 34 OF 2019]

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 9

STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Constitution Of India, 1950

2. Indian Penal Code, 1869

3. Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

4. Information Technology Act, 2000.

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. [Link]

2. [Link]

3. [Link]

4. [Link]

5. [Link]

6. Law finder live

7. [Link]

8. [Link]

9. Legal Service [Link]

10. [Link]
11. [Link]
12. [Link]
13. [Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 10

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE HO’BLE

COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF [Link] PETITIONER
HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE COURT AS THERE IS A VIOLATION OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. THEREFORE THE PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROTECTS THE
CITIZEN FROM ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WHICH IS
APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE.

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 11

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

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

3. Several allegations of illegalities, irregularities, corruption and nepotism were directed against the
Government, Chief Minister and certain Cabinet Ministers in light of fake and unreliable news
mainly fueled by social media messages. Investigations against the alleged persons and the
resignation of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet Ministers were demanded. The State Government
readily agreed to the demands for investigations and officially wrote to the Central Government
seeking investigations into the allegations by the Central Agencies, but turned down the demands
for resignation of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet ministers.

4. On 07/08/2020, the Government of Mayoorsthan appointed a Committee to study the social impact
of fake news and the studies suggested the implementation of preventive measures like enactment
of penal provisions at the government level to safeguard the authenticity of the news shared
through online platforms, and based on this report, the “Mayoorsthan Protection from Online
Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill 2020” was piloted in the State Legislative Assembly on
02/10/2020. The opposition Parties strongly opposed the bill and staged a walk out and the

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 12

5. bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 20/10/2020 without any opposition. And the
governor of the State gave assent to “Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and
Manipulation Act 2020” on 02/11/2020.

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

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

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

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 13

ISSUES RAISED

1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE

ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE
HIGH COURT OF MAYOORSTHAN?

2: WHETHER MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOODS AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020 IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION?

3: WHETHER MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOODS AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020 IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 (1)( A) OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION?

4: WHETHER MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOODS AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020 IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION?

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 14

SUMMARYOF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF

MAYOORSTHAN UNDER ARTICLE226 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

The writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, because: The writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is largely discretionary in nature and an extraordinary
jurisdiction that can be exercised only when there is an evident prima facie violation of the
fundamental rights. No fundamental right as claimed by the petitioner has been violated by the
implementation of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, 2020.
The Act is legally competent and the claims rose by the petitioner lack locus standi.

II. THAT THE ACT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF INDIAN

CONSTITUTION

Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, 2020 does not violate
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. It withstands the Twin Test and hence the classification is
reasonable. The Act is note arbitrary in nature. Also it does not violate the principle of Natural
Justice

III .THAT THE ACT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 (1) (a) OF INDIAN
CONSTITUTION

The impugned act does not contravene the Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution by any
means. The right to freedom of Speech and Expression carries with it the right to publish one’s
ideas opinions and other views with complete freedom. However, Article 19 (2) lays down
reasonable restrictions to the freedom of expressing to safeguard Public Interest which is
necessary and not in anyways violated by the Act.

IV .THAT THE ACT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF INDIAN

CONSTITUTION

The impugned act does not violate article 21 of the Indian constitution. The act is just, fair and
reasonable

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 15

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[Link] WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE
226 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

[Link] writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, because: The writ jurisdiction
under Article 2261 of the Indian Constitution is largely discretionary in nature and an
extraordinary jurisdiction that can be exercised only when there is an evident prima facie
violation of the fundamental rights. No fundamental right as claimed by the petitioner has been
violated by the implementation of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and
Manipulation Act, 2020. The Act is legally competent and the claims rose by the petitioner lack
locus standi.

1.1The petitioner has no locus standi

2. A public interest litigation (PIL) can be filed in any High Court or directly to SC. According to
guidance of the SC a petition for PIL can be submitted by any member of public provided that there
should be a personal injury or injury to a disadvantaged section of the population for whom access to
legal justice is difficult. In the instant case there is no injury and none of the provisions make
unreasonable classification and hence the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition.

[Link] Premikanta Singh v. State of Manipur 2, the court clearly stated that a legal representation can be
made only for unrepresented groups and interests who include proper environmentalists, consumers,
racial and ethnic minorities. Since the petitioner in case belonged to none of these categories, the
court held that they had no locus standi. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 3, it was held that the strict
rule of locus standi applicable to private litigation is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives
the right to locus standi to any member of public acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in
instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury but who is not a mere busy body or
a meddlesome interloper.

2
Premikanta Singh v State of Manipur, LAWS (GAU)-2005-2-1
3
S.P Gupta vs Union of India, A.I.R.1982 S.C. 149

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 16

[Link] interest litigation is a highly effective weapon. It is a unique phenomenon in the

constitutional jurisprudence that has no parallel in the world. In the passage of time petitions has
been filed for private corporate gain making it public interest litigation or ‘paisa income litigation’

5. The writ petition filed because of personal animosity can never by stretch of imagination be
considered as public interest litigation.

6. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal4, it was held that it must be the carefully
observed public who approaches the court in such cases is acting bonafide and is not moving for
personal gain or for oblique consideration. Further Andeerabie has warned that political pressure
groups who could not achieve their arms through the administration process and we might add,
through the political process “may try to use the courts further their arms”.

7. An act is said to be unconstitutional if it is not within the scope of legislative authority either as it
is attempting o accomplish something prohibited by the constitution or to accomplish something by
means of repugnant to constitution, ie, the laws procedures of act whales constitution. Here the act is
passed after understanding the subject thoroughly by a committee also in paragraph 10 of moot
preposition it is clearly mentioned that how fake news has affected the election in India; the
respondents further contends that this writ petition is filed in a malafide intention as they could not
achieve their aims through the administrative process.

8. The SC in Manjouli Dev v. Union of India 5 held that the authority of petitioner to file a PIL has to
be tested in the bonafide intention and whether any legal wring/ legal injury suffered by those whom
the petitioner wishes to protect.

9. The writ petition filed is based on pure on pure apprehension. As stated in Kapan v Jagmohan 6 a
writ petition is liable to be dismissed if it is premature. A court confines itself to the facts at hand and
does not delve into assumptions5. In the present case it is clear from the facts, about the immediate
need of such an Act and it is just the assumptions of the petitioner that the Act would violate the
fundamental rights before the Act was properly implemented.

4
Ashok Kumar Pandey v State of West Bengal, Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003
5
Manjouli Dev v. Union of India S.C.C. 2014 GAU 403
6
Kapan v Jagmohan, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 126

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 17

10. A petitioner should have legal standing to file a writ petition 7. The requirement of locus
standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory because the legal capacity of the party to any
litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to
be primarily ascertained at the threshold 8. That is the applicant must have a legal right.9

1.2 There is no violation of fundamental rights

11. Article 14 uses two expressions "equality before the law" and “equal protection of the law".
The phase "equality before the law" finds place in almost all the written constitutions that
guarantee fundamental rights. "Equal protection of the law 10" is a more positive concept
implying equality of treatment in equal circumstances. However one dominant idea common to
both the expressions is that of a equal justices. But in the present case there is no trace of equality
being violated in equal circumstances. Thus the Act is not in violation of Article14.

12. Six rights are been guaranteed by Article19. However they are not absolute. If people were
given complete and absolute liberty without any social control the result would be really.
Patanjali Shastri , J. in A.K Gopalan Case 11, observed, " man as a rational being desires to do
many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with
the exercise of similar desires by other individuals. The guarantee of each of the above rights is
therefore, restricted by the constitution itself be conferring upon the State a power to impose by
law reasonable restrictions as may be necessary in the larger interest of the community. Thus the
Act is not in violation of Article as reasonable restrictions can be imposed.

13. Article 2112 states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty13 except
according to the procedure established by law 14. The personal liberty is the freedom of the
individual to do as he pleases limited only by the authority of politically organized society to

7
Prasar Bharathi Broadcasting Corpn. Of India v. Debyajoti Bose, A.I.R. 2000 Cal 43.
8
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 892: (1992) 4 S.C.C. 305.
9
State of MP v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 456: (2007) 12 J.T. 219
10
S.B Trading Co. Ltd v Shyamlal Ramachandra , A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 539
11
A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 27
12
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, 1978 S.C.R. (2) 621
13
Satwant SinghSawhney v D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, 1967 S.C.R. (2) 525
14
Deena Dayal etc. V. Union of India and Ors, 1984 S.C.R. (1) 1

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 18

regulate his actions to secure the public health, safety or morals or of others recognized social
interests. There are numerous situations which has lead Mayoorsthan to the passing of this Act
where online platforms were misused and misleaded people by providing wrong information
which affected the safety, morals and health of the public society. As the Act was passed
according to the procedure established by the law it is not violative of Article 21 and is also
constitutional in value.

1.3 The Act is legally competent

14. The legislative competence may be limited by specific List entries, or be restricted by other
constitutional limitations and prohibitions. It cannot over-step the area of its legislative
capability. In our case, since the communication and broadcasting comes under the Union List
and since this Act is passed by the State, there is an over step in the area of the legislative
capability of the Central Government by the State. But the provisions

15. The doctrine of pith and substance15 states that within their respective spheres the state and
the union legislatures are made supreme, they should not encroach upon the sphere demarcated
for the other. However, if one among the state and the Centre does encroach upon the sphere of
the other, the courts will apply the Doctrine of Pith and Substance. If the pith and substance i.e.,
the true object of the legislation pertains to a subject within the competence of the legislature that
enacted it, it should be held to be intra vires although it may incidentally encroach on the matters
not within the competence of the legislature.

16. In the present case, though the State Government encroaches upon the sphere of the Central
Government, as per doctrine of pith and substance the true object of the legislature that, is public
list and public order, pertains within the competence of its own legislature, the Act can be
considered as intra vires. In State of Rajasthan v. G Chawla16 the court held that amplifiers do
not come under entry 31 of list I. The court justified its point by stating- ‘though amplifier is an
apparatus of broadcasting and communication, the legislation in its pith and substance would lie
with the state government and not the central government and hence the writ petition was
considered legally competent.

[Link] vs State Of Kerala, Writ Petition(C).No.34097 OF 2015

16
State of Rajasthan v G. Chawla, 1959 AIR 544

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 19

II. THAT THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE

FALSEHOODS AND MANIPULATION ACT 2020 IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

17. It is submitted by the respondents that the act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. The Constitution of India guarantees the Right to Equality through Article 14 to 18 17.
Equality is one of the magnificent corner stone of Indian democracy 18. Article 14 guarantees to every
person, including non-citizens and transgender, the Right to Equality before law or Equal Protection
of Law.19 The underlying object of Article 14 is to secure to all persons citizens or non-citizens, the
equality of status and opportunity referred to in the preamble to our constitution and it embodies the
principle of non-discrimination.

2.1 That the policy decision has not been framed arbitrarily

18. The respondents submit that the act has not been framed arbitrarily 20. The act was passed in
order to prevent stresses which are the effects of misinformation and to safeguard people of the
State of Mayoorsthan, from the menace caused from spread of false news.

19. The respondents humbly submit that the act is based on a strict reason which is evident from
facts. There are incidents where false information and fake news misguided the public or even
affected them religiously, financially or mentally. The act passed by the State of Mayoorsthan is
based on scientific research, necessity and reason and is therefore not arbitrary and thus not
violate the provisions under Art.14 of the Constitution of India. This act was also passed for
public safety, public order and to preserve peace and tranquility. The act passed by the State of
Mayoorsthan is based on detailed research and the enforcement of such an Act in Mayoorsthan at
the present condition was really necessary. Fake news spread had affected the social as well as
the mental conditions of people very badly. Fake news spread injected anti religious messages
among people often leading to riots and patriotic fervour. It even affected the election results. As
stated in Section 3 21 of the Act all those messages that
 Affected public safety, public health, public tranquillity and public finances

17
M. Nagaraj v Union of India,A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 212
18
Indira Sawhney v Union of India, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 477
19
National Legal Service Authority v Union of India , (2014) 5 S.C.C. 438
20
Rajibala v. State of Haryana
21
Sec 3 of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act,2020

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 20

 Spread halted and ill wellbeing among the citizens

 Affected the conduction of election
 Diminished the public confidence in bringing up a any duty or function of the State
are considered as fake news. Here all the categories stated are valid because, these were the main
areas that are often affected due to fake news propagation. Hence it is clear that the Act was not
created on arbitrary basis of the Sate but with a clear and a very relevant motive. In Kathi Raning
Rawat v. Saurashtra22, the Saurashtra State Public Safety Act was held to be reasonable ,tangible
and rational because the act was for public safety, public order, preservation of peace and
tranquillity though it faced a lot of opposition stating that the Act was in violation of
fundamental rights and also other offences. In the present case, the Mayoorsthan Protection of
Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act is also with the motive of public safety and public
tranquillity and hence this Act can be held as reasonable and hence it is not arbitrary in nature.

[Link] recently, Pasayat J in Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P 23 has observed as

follows: The expression ‘arbitrarily’ means: in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done
capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of
things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on the will
alone.

2.2 The Act passes the twin test and hence it is not in violation of Article 14

21. According to Article.14, to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from any
impugned action it should really satisfy the test of Reasonable classification /Twin test 24. That is,
Art.14 forbids class legislation and it does not forbid reasonable classification. Article 14
violates only when there is no reasonable classification.25

22
Kathi Raning Rawat v Saurashtra, 1952 S.C.R. 435
23
Pasayat J in Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P, Appeal (civil) 4998 of 2000
24
Union of India v International Trading Company, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2526
25
V. Sivamurthy v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008)11 S.C. 294

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 21

22. In Sec(4) of the Act there is a clear statement which tells that the Act is only meant for bot
users. Hence here we find an intelligible differentia 26 between bot users and those who do not
use bot.

23. Article 14 guarantees equal protection of law and it neither means the law needs to be general
in character not that it should be applicable to everyone. For safety and security, different laws
for varying places and legitimate control policies enacting law lie at the best interest of the State.
Hence reasonable classification is not only permitted but also necessary. Here the reason for such
a classification is that, online is the fastest, mode of communication and the most important
medium through which fake news is being spread 27. Also 60 % of population are active in social
media. Hence as a initial step of prevention online mode must be given the most restrictions.
Here since there is an intelligible differentia along with rational relation to the object sought to
be achieved. The classification here is reasonable and hence not a violation of Article 14.

2.3 The Act is not in violation of Natural Justice

24. “Speaking Order” means every order must contain reasons in support of it. In India though
there is no statutory requirement of giving reasons, the court have spelt out a general obligation
to given reasons treating it as a part of Natural Justice. Though ‘ Right to Reason’ is an
indispensable part of sound Judicial System and one of the statutory requirement of Natural
Justice, there are a few exceptional cases wherein hearing shall be excluded. One of that is
impracticability. In our situation it is highly impractical to apply the principles of Natural Justice.
That is giving each citizen of the State a chance to give reason is impractical. In Bihar S.E Board
v. Subhash Chana28 and Radhakrishna v Osmania University29 the Court held that it was
impractical to haer all the students and quashed the case filed by the students stating that there
was a violation of Natural Justice.

25. The second exception is that Natural Justice can be excluded if the action is a preventive
action. In the case, the Communication Direction as well as the Stop Communication Direction is
send as a preventive measure from the further spread of the fake news. In this case the Act states

26
State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar , 1952 SCR 284
27
Shreya Singhal v Union of India ,Writ Petition (crime) No 167 of 2015
28
Bihar S.E Boardv Subhash Chana, A.I.R 1970S.C 1269
29
Radhakrishna v OsmaniaUniversity, A.I.R 1974 A.P 283

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 22

that the person to whom the direction is send may not know and have no reason to know the
reason for which he was send this direction. Here it cannot be considered as a violation of
Natural Justice since both the directions are a preventive action.

26. Article 14 guarantees equality to all persons and this act which tries to uphold that equality.
The problem of fake news is not just a Mayoorsthan problem it is global challenge and the state
is trying to fight against this problem with all its powers. Mayoorsthan is a state with 99%
literacy rate and almost 60 % of its population are active in social media 30, so fake news affects
millions of people in the state. The state is only trying to protect its people from this danger.

27. Equality can only be ensured with truth and facts. Without truth equality dies, and through
this act the state government of Mayoorsthan is trying to protect this truth and equality.

28. Late last year rumours on social medias of strangers abducting children from villages were
enough to trigger mob attack where at least 20 people were killed. These people lost their lives
because truth did not win but fake news did. these people were denied equal protection of law
that was guaranteed in Article 14 of the Indian constitution.

29. It can be argued that section 7 (1)31 of Mayoorsthan online protection from online falsehood
and manipulations act 2020 is in violation of Article 14, in that the selection of the
communication officer is arbitrary, but my lord section 12 of the act clearly states that “the
Government may, by notification in the Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this
act” my lord the rules and the procedure for selection for this post will be given later on32.

30
¶1 pf the moot prepositioj
31
Section 7(1) of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020
32
Section 12 of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 23

[Link] MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOODS AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020 IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 (1)(a) OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

30. It is humbly submitted before the honorable High Court of Mayoorsthan that the
Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020 is not in violation
of Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

3.1 The Art. 19 (1)(a) in Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and
Manipulation is subject to restrictions under Art.19(2)

31. Art .19 of the indian constitution ensures us some rights like freedom of speech and
expression, to assemble peacefully wiyhout arms, to form associations or unions, to move freely
throughout the territory of India, to recide or settle in any part of india and to practise any
proffession or to carry on any occupation trade or bussiness. But all these rights are subjected
certain restrictions on the grounds of soverienity and integrity of India, friendly relations with
foreign state, security of the state, public order, decency and morality,contempt of court,
defamation and incitement to an offence.

32. In para 633 of the facts it is clearly mentions that how a screen play was used to harm the
relegoius harmony. A similar type of incident is mentioned in para 7 of the facts related to a
false news claiming that the Indian Muslims celebrated a cricket match won by pakisthan.
These false news will surely come under the perview of reasonable restrictions imposed under
Art.19(2) of the Constitution of India.

33. In People’s Union of Civil Liberty v Union of India 34 case a PIL was filed by the PUCL
against frequent telephone tapping. The vaidity of section 5(2) of the Indian telegraph act 1885
was challenged. But it was observed as that the occurrence of public emergency and the interest
of public safety is the sine qua non for the application of provisions of section 5(2). If any of the
two conditions are present, the govt. has the power to exercise its power under the said section.

33
¶ 6 of moot preposition
34
People’s Union of Civil Liberty v Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 24

34. In para 1135 of the fact it is clearly held that how ,isinformation in India has lead to violent
mob killings and thereby harming public order. In Romesh Thappar v State of Madras 36, the SC
held that public order is different from law and order and anything that disturbs public peace
disturbs public order.

35. In [Link] v State of State of Maharashtra 37,the SC held that on grounds of

reasonable restriction under morality and decency, it prohibits the sale distribution or exhibition
of obscene words.

36. In the case of Chintanman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh 38, it was held that
reasonableness39 demands proper balancing of the fundamental rights of the people and the
concerns of the State. Further, it was held that it is the judiciary, and not the legislature, which
has to finally judge the reasonableness of the restriction. Furthermore, it was held that
restriction can be imposed by law only and not an executive order.

37. All citizens of India are entitled to their right to freedom of speech and expression under Art
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India but the right is right is subject to limitations 40 imposed by
Article 19 (2) that empowers the State to put reasonable restrictions in regard with matters
concerning the security of the State. The six freedoms under Article 19 are not absolute and it is
in the evident interest in restricting speech that directly lead to violence and erosion of public
morality.

38. The propagation of fake messages through the social media platforms ignoring the need to
check for authenticity and validity of the facts shared,often leading to social unrest,public
disorder and posing a serious threat to the National Security was observed in and around the
State of Mayoorsthan41, and these invokes for restrictions in the right to freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

35
¶11 of Moot Preposition
36
Romesh Thappar v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
37
[Link] v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881
38
Chintanman Rao v State of M.P, A.I.R.1951 S.C.118
39
State of Madra v V. G Row, 1952 A.I.R.196
40
Narenda Kumar v. Union of India, 1960 S.C.R. (2) 375
41
Moot proposition¶8(sharing of old pictures with false captions), ¶10(violent mob attacks during election
process),¶11 whatsapp lynching, triggering of religious and casteist sentiments),misinformation concerning Covid-
19 outbreak, ¶15( allegations against ministers).

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 25

39. In the case of Radha Mohan Lal v high Court of Rajasthan42 ,it was observed that free
expression cannot be equated or confused with a licence to make unfounded and irresponsible
allegations43.

40. The speeches or expression on the part of an individual which incite or encourage the
commission of violent crimes,such as murder 44,cannot be but matters that undermine the
security of the State45. No State can tolerate utterances which threaten the overthrow of an
organised government by unlawful and unconstitutional [Link] maintenance of democracy is
the foundation of free speech,society is equally entitled to regulate freedom of Speech and
Expression by a democratic nation46.

41. In a prominent case47,it was observed that a law may be constitutional even though it applies
to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons 48.

1.1 Sec 8(4) and10(4) is not in violation of Article 19(1)(a)

42. The Section 8(4) and Section 10(4) states that a person shall be held liable even if the person
does not know or has no reason to believe that the statement was [Link] legal principle of
ignorantiajuris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses not) or
ignorantialegisneminemexcusat (ignorance of law excuses no one) which means that if someone
breaks the law, he or she is still liable even if they had :no knowledge of the law being broken.
This principle was favoured in many prominent cases.

43. The correct rationale behind the ignorance rule is not that everyone is supported to know the
law but that if it were allowed as a defence,then every offender would plead the ignorance.

42
Radha Mohan Lal v High Court of Rajasthan(2003) 3 SCC 427
43
Moot proposition ¶ 15( allegations were made against Chief Ministers and Cabinet ministers mainly fueled by
social media messages).
44
Moot Proposition ¶8
45
RomeshThappar v State of Madras(1950) AIR 124
46
[Link] v Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216
47
ChiranjitLalChowdari v. Union of India and Ors. (1951), A.I.R. 49
48
Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constituion of India.

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 26

44. An exception for the doctrine of ‘ignorantia juris non excusat’ is mentioned in the State of
Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George case, here the court held that there will be an excuse if there
is no statutory compulsion to publish the law in the official gazette. But in Mayoorsthan
Protection From Online Falsehood And Manipulation Act it is cleary mentioned in section 1
(3)49 that the act will only come into force after publishing in official gazette. So that restriction
cannot be imposed in this case.

45. No provision in Indian law specifically deals with “fake news.” However, the following
offenses under India’s Penal Code criminalize certain forms of speech that may constitute as
“fake news” and apply to hence refers to online or social media content transmitted without the
approval of fact checking consultancies. Under section 295A, Section 499, Section 503, Section
504, section 203 of IPC50 states that if a person intended to propagate a misleading information
then he shall be held liable.

46. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Mayoorsthan that the
impugned act is not in violation of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India unless
otherwise according to the reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19 (2) of the
Constitution of India.

49
Section 1(3) of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation A ct, 2020
50
The Indian Penal Code,1860

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 27

[Link] THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUION OF INDIA

4.1 Propagation of False news threatens Art.21

47. Art.21 says that “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except
according to a procedure established by law.”It is a fact that the procedure established by law
should be just, fair and reasonable. i.e it should obey the principles of natural justice.

48. It is clear that Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act is just,
fair and reasonable. The above mentioned statement can be proved by considering Art.19 of the
Indian Constitution. It ensures us certain freedoms including the Right to freedom of speech and
expression which is an integral part of Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehood
Manipulation Act 2020. Along with ensuring the rights it also mentions about some restrictions
which are on the grounds of soverienity and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly
relations with foreign state, public order, decency and morality, defamation etc. The expression
of public order includes utterance directly aimed at creating disorder and also having tendency to
do so51. In case of decency and morality, decency is the quality of fairness, respectability and of
upright and proper behaviour. Morality is a way to express something or say something that is
decent. Then about defamation, it is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to
someone’s reputation and published as a result of negligence and malice 52. Some of the examples
of these situations are , it is a common sight that many people are brutally insulted on social
media without any reason especially public figures. Many people even try to create divisions in
the society by intentionally spreading false news and messages related to caste, reliegion,
politics, diseases and so on. Such news are often defaming, insulting, indecent, immoral and
disturbing the public order especially in a state like Mayoorsthan with 60% of the people active
in social media.

51
M.S Mallika Tiwari, Fast Forward Justice, Analysis of Public Order As a Ground of Reasonable Restrictions
(24/1/21,10.15) [Link]
Article-191a/
52
Roy, Legal Service India, Freedom of Speech and Expression in Indian
[Link]
with-reference-to-morality-and-
[Link]#:~:text=Decency%20or%20morality%3A,are%20words%20of%20wide%20meaning.

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 28

49. People often trust messages coming from family and friends as real. It is common for people
to fall prey to this social evil without even knowing it. So if an act like Mayoorsthan Protection
From Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act is passed, we can let our friends and society who
believes our posts are real, that the news we spread was fake and was shared by mistake which
stops further sharing and misunderstandings. This is actually a protection of trust, relations and
public order. The enforcement a strict is law is the only remedy to curb the impact of fake news.

50. A study conducted by the School of Media Studies of Mayoorsthan University showed that a
88% of the 1st time voters agreed that fake news was really a problem. Many recent surveys
found that majority of the access news through social media platforms. From these circumstances
it is clear that the act is just, fair and reasonable.

51. In para 11 of the moot preposition, it is clearly stated how misinformation in India leads to
violent mob killings that occurred over an 18 month period between mid 2018 and start of 2019
to see the real effects of rumour and falsehood: these mob killings are nick named as “Whatsapp
Lynchings”. These killings were on a direct result of rumours about child abductions. The
victims were mostly strangers passing through communities and not known to locals. In para 853
in the moot preposition it shows that, according to a study conducted by BBC, it is found that
contents shared via whatsapp had led to murder. At least 31 people were killed in 2017 and 2018
as a result of mob attacks fuelled by rumours on whatsapp and social media.

52. When we discuss about Art.21 it is a right provided to every person. If a fake news is spread
through social media it may or may not be determinable to the life and personal liberty of
another person. So the state has the duty to protect the life and liberty of every person.
Reputation is one of the important aspects of life. The Supreme Court in Smt. KiranBedi v.
Committee of Inquiry case held that “good reputation is an element of personal security and is
protected by the constitution, equally with the right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property 54.
53. In N.H.R.C v. State of Arunachal pradesh the SC held that state is bound to protect the life
and liberty of every person or otherwise, and it cannot permit anybody or group of persons to
threaten other person or group of persons 55. No state government worth the name can tolerate

53
¶8 of moot preposition
54
KiranBedi v. Committee of Inquiry,1988 AIR 2252
55
N.H.R.C v. State of UttarPradesh, 1996 AIR SC 1234

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 29

such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons; it is the duty bound to protect
the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its
Constitutional as well as statutory obligations.

54. In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Mathew J observed that, “The right to privacy well,
therefore, necessarily have to go through a case by case development. Hence assuming that the
Right to Personal Liberty, the right to Speech create an independent Fundamental Right of
privacy56 as an emanation from them that one can characterise as a Fundamental Right, we do
not think the right is absolute. He also observed that assuming all the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed to a person has their own penumbral zenes the Right to Privacy must be a subject to
restrictions on the basis of compelling pub Jnt.

55. In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 57, it was held that the Right to Privacy is implicit on
Right to Life to the citizens of this country by Art.21. it is a right to be let alone. A citizen has
the right to safeguard his privacy. His family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing
and education among other matters none can publish anything concerning the above matters
without his consent, whether mandatory or truthful. If he does so he will be violating one’s right
to privacy: however the above rule is subject to exception, once the publication is based upon
some public records, then the right to privacy no longer exists.

56. In R.M Malkarni v State of Maharashtra the SC held that telephonic conversation of an
innocent person will be protected by courts against wrongful, high handed influence but the
protection is not for guilty58.

57. In the current case, section 7(1) is not in violation of Art.21. As appointment of any officer of
the state as the communication officer, it is stated in sec.12 that the government may by notice in
the gazette, make rules to carry out provisions where the qualifications regarding appointment
may be given. Further sec 10(1) of the act is not violative of Art.21,as the issuing of correction
direction is just a warning so as to stop the spread of fake news. A punishment is prescribed only
when the person to whom the correction direction is issued and who without reasonable excuse
will be liable to punishment.

56
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, CRI LJ 1244
57
R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu,1994 S.C.C.(6)632
58
R.M [Link] of Maharashtra,1972 AIR SC 157

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 30

58. “Tech Travel Eat” is one of the leading YouTube channels is Malayalam. Last year [Link]
Bhakthan and his wife Swetha Bhakthan, content creators of Tech Travel Eat had faced brutal
comments and fake news from YouTube. They created a video based on this incident and said
that they are going to file a case. After some days he had done another video painfully saying
that there is no proper laws for preventing and punishing these types of cruel crimes which
actually stood as defaming and disturbing their reputation.

59. In Tahseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India, the court held that there cannot be a higher right
than right to live with dignity and to be treated with humaneness. No citizen can assault the
human dignity of another, for such an action would comatose the majesty of law. In a civilized
society, it is the fear of the laws that prevents crimes. When the preventive measures face failure,
the crimes take place and then there have to be remedial and punitive measures. Steps to be taken
at every stage for implementation of law is extremely important. Hence guidelines are necessary
to be prescribed59.

60. In S.S Ahuwalia v. UOI, the apex court held that it is the duty of the state to create a climate
where members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste and creed live together and
therefore, the State has a duty to protect their life, liberty, dignity and worth of an individual
which should not be jeopardized or endangered 60. From the facts of the State of Mayoorsthan v.
Council of Civil Liberty case itself it is evident that religious harmony is seriously threatened
through the propagation of false news.

61. We may empathetically note that it is axiomatic that it is the duty of the state to ensure that
the machinery of law and order functions efficiently and effectively in maintaining peace so as to
preserve our quintessentially secular and social fabric in a democratic set-up governed by rule of
law61

62. In section 8 (1)62 of the act, it is said that a correction direction is issued to a person who
communicates a false statement in or outside Mayoorsthan, on issuing the direction, if the person
communicated the statement by mistake he can rectify it. If he does not have an intention to

59
Tahseen S Punnawalla v. UOI 7 SCC 192, SC:2018
60
S.S Ahuwalia v. Union of India, 2002 (6) Bom CR 157
61
[Link] , AIR 2018 SC 3354
62
Section 8(1) of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act,2020

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 31

spread a fake statement it will not stand as a hurdle to his Right to Privacy. By issuing such a
direction the intention of the person who created the false statement will not work.

63. Fundamental rights are not absolute in nature. It can be taken away in times of reasonable
situations. Capital Punishment is an example of such a case. Legislature has the right to restrict
things that leads to offence. Parliamentary supremacy holds the legislative body has absolute
sovereignty and is supreme over all government bodies including executive and judicial bodies.

4.2 Restrictions are Reasonable

64. In K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Justice D.Y Chandrachude’s opinion co-signed by
Justice Khedar, Justice R.K Agrawal and Justice [Link] remind us of the test of
reasonableness of Art.21. The requirements are: There must be a law in existence, the pursuit of
a legitimate state aim to ensures that the law does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness, the
means which are adopted by legislature are proportional to the object and needs sought to be
fulfilled by the law also.

65. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, lists out polenta set of legitimate aim which forms the grounds
for reasonable restrictions. They are: other fundamental rights, legitimate rational curelyint,
public interest include scientific, historical, statistical purpose, criminal offences, anonymous
data and taxes.

66. In para 8 of the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood Manipulation Act, it is stated
that how a devastating earthquake in Pakistan administered Kashmir in 2005 and a suicide attack
in Pakistan was turned to unprecedented Indian Air Strikes in Pakistan territory and in para 7 it is
stated that how fake news propagated the idea that Indian muslims are anti-national and people
were killed.

67. There are evidently disrupting national security and also incitement to criminal offence hence
reasonable.

4.1 There is no Double Jeopardy

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 32

68. Double jeopardy means the punishment of a person twice for the same offence. Protection
against double jeopardy or autrofois convict is a FR guaranteed under Art.20(2) of the
Constitution of India.

69. Art.20(2) says “no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than
once”. But it is subject to certain restrictions and it is to be note that Art.20(2) does not apply to a
continuing offence. It is clear that the propagation of false news is a continuing offence. In
section 6(2) of the act punishment is prescribed for receiving or agrees to receive any material
benefit for knowingly providing service for the propagation of false news. In section 1191)(a) of
the act punishment is given for disobeying the correction direction. Also as stated in section 8(1)
of the act issuing of correction direction is just a warning for speading fake news not a
punishment.

63
70. In Venkataraman v Union of India the SC explained the docrine of double jeopardy.
In the case an officer was dismissed from the service due to a mere enquiry by the enquiry
officer. He was later on charged for committing the offence under Prevention of Corruption
Act. In this case the court held that there is no double jeopardy amount to prosecution.

71. In C.J Palu v Asst. Collector case the SC held that, No confiscation made or penalty imposed
under this act shall prevent the infliction of any other punishment to which the person affected
thereby is liable under the provisions of this act or any other law

63
Venkataraman v Union of India, A.I.R 1954 S.C 375

(Memorandum for Respondents)

 33

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, Court may please
adjudge and declare that,

1. The writ petition filed under Article 226 is maintainable in the court of law
2. Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act,
2020 is in violation of Article 14 of Indian Constitution
3. Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act,
2020 is in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution
4. Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act,
2020 is in violation of Article 21 of Indian Constitution

And the Court may pass any order that deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good faith.

(Memorandum for Respondents)