6 P

MMC-6
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA
In the Matter of :
Mr. Vaibhav Dixit ................................................................................... Petitioner
v.
Union of Scindia and Funbook .............................................................. Respondent
And
Mr. Vaibhav Dixit ................................................................................... Petitioner
v.
The People ................................................................................................ Respondent
And
Ms. Sylvia................................................................................................. Petitioner
v.
Union of Scindia ...................................................................................... Respondent
WRIT PETITION NOS /2018 &WRIT PETITION NOS ------ /2018
CLUBBED WITH
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NOS. /2018
MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER

ii
7TH MAHAMANA MALAVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................ v-x

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... xi
STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................... xii-xiii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................. xiv
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................... xv
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 1-20
1. THAT THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 ............. 01-04
1.1 Violation of fundamental rights is a ground for maintainability ....................................01-03

1.1.1 The right to privacy of Mr. Dixit has been violated by Funbook ....................... 01-
02
1.1.2 Persistent adverse news report on the e-portal of THE PEOPLE violates
reputation of Mr.Dixit ............................................................................................. 02
1.1.3 There has been a violation of right to reputation of Ms. Sylvia .............................. 03
1.2 Alternative remedy does not bar issue of writ under Article 32 ......................................... 03
1.3 The court is competent to provide relief ......................................................................... 03-04
2. THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SCINDIA TO PROTECT THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS ..............................................................................04-12
2.1 That the right to privacy is Fundamental right under Art 21 of the constitution of Scindia
…………………………………..………………………………………………....…04-08
2.1.1 Privacy is a sine qua non of human dignity .................................................. 04-05
2.1.2 Informational privacy is an essential aspect of right to privacy .................. 05-08
2.2 It is the state’s failure for non protection of the personal data of its citizen from being
shared by any website .......................................................................................................... 09-12
2.2.1 Non-existence of any Law in the Republic of Scindia on non erasure (Right to
Forgotten) of personal data of individual ............................................................................ 09-10
ii
2.2.2 That the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 is
unconstitutional .................................................................................................................... 10-12
3. THAT THE RIGHT TO ERASURE AND FORGOTTEN IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND
HAS BEEN VI2-16
3.1 That the right to erasure and be forgotten is a basic ingredient of right to dignified
life 12-15
3.1.1. That the non erasure of sensitive personal data by Funbook is violation of right to
lead a dignified life of Mr. Dixit ........................................................................................... 13-14
3.1.2. That the Funbook has committed breach of Trust............................................... 14-15
3.2 That the article published in 'The People' is irrelevant and is subject to erasure........... 15
3.3 That the search engine results about Ms. Sylvia is a breach of her dignity and must be
delinked ............................................................................................................................... 15-16
4. THAT THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND HAS BEEN
VIOLATED ........................................................................................................................................... 16-20
4.1 Reputation is indispensable for dignified life .............................................................16-18

4.2 Right to reputation is a natural and personal right inherent in Article 21 .................. 18-19
4.3 That the right to reputation is harmed by the Non Erasure and disclosure of identity
………………………………………………………………………..…………….19-20
4.3.1 That the existing news on “The People’s” online portal harms the reputation of
Mr.Vaibahv Dixit ................................................................................................................ 19-20
4.3.2 That the disclosure of identity harms the right to reputation of Ms. Sylvia .............. 20
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................... 21
iii
ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION
¶ : Paragraph
AIR : All India Reporter
Art. : Article
BLJR : Bihar Law Journal Report
Const. : Constitution
DNS : Domain Name System
Hon'ble : Honorable
ISP : Internet Service Provider
IT : Information Technology
LR : Law Reporter
PIL : Public Interest Litigation
SC : Supreme Court
SCC : Supreme Court Cases
SPD : Sensitive Personal Data
UK : United Kingdom
URL : Uniform Resource Locator
US : United State
W.P. No. : Writ Petition Number
iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. {Name Redacted} v. The Registrar General, W.P. No. 62038 of 2016 ................... 10
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150 .............................................. 12
3. Balfour v. Attorney General, [1991] 1 NZLR 519 ......................................................18
4. Bell-Booth Group Ltd v. Attorney-General, [1989] 3 NZLR 148 ............................. 18
5. Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986) ................................................................... 5
6. Bryce v. Rusden, (1886) 2 TLR 435............................................................................ 17
7. Byrraju Ramalinga Raju v. The State CBI,Criminal Petition No. 5454 of 2009 ....... 8
8. Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 988 .......................... 2
9. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1051 ................................ 8
10. Chappell v. Mirror Newspapers, (1984) Aust Torts Reports ¶80-691...................... 18
11. Coffee Board v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 870 .......................... 3
12. Corlie Mullin v. Administrator and Union Territory of Delhi, A.I.R. 1981 S.C.
746 ................................................................................................................................. 13
13. Cornwall v. Rowan, [2004] SASC 384 ..................................................................... 18
14. D.F. Marion v. Davis 217 Ala 16 : 114 So 357 : 55 A.L.R. 171 (1927) ...................18
15. D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 610 .............................................. 2
16. De Crespigny v. Wellesley, (1829) 5 Bing 39............................................................. 17
17. Delaney v. News Media Ownership Ltd, [1976] 1 NZLR 322 .................................. 17
18. District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 S.C.C.
496 ................................................................................................................................. 11
19. Dixon v. Holden (1869) 7 L.R. Eq. 488...................................................................... 17
20. E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr, A.I.R 1974 S.C.
555 ................................................................................................................................. 11
21. Facebook v. Cambridge Analytica............................................................................... 6
22. Foaminol Laboratories Ltd v. British Artid Plastics Ltd [1941] 2 All ER 393
…………………………………………………………………………………….…18
23. Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., A.I.R.
1981 S.C. 746 .............................................................................................................. 8
v
24. Fulton v. Globe & Mail Ltd, (1997) 152 DLR (4th) 377 ............................................. 18
25. Gambotto v. John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, (2001) 104 IR 303 ............................. 18
26. Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148........................... 4
27. Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González
(2014), Case C-131/12 .................................................................................................. 16
28. Gorman v. Barber, (2004) 61 NSWLR 543 ................................................................ 17
29. Hallett J; Malik v. Bank of Credit & Commerce International SA (in liq), [1998] AC
20 .................................................................................................................................. 18
30. Hemant Gupta C.J., Mohammed Quadeer and others v. Commissioner of Police,
1999 (3) A.L.D. 60 ....................................................................................................... 18
31. Hill v. Church of Scientology (1995) 126 D.L.R. (4th) 129 ....................................... 17
32. Huzra Bee v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P.
No.9060/2017 ............................................................................................................... 18
33. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 861 .......................................... 5
34. In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni
and Others, (1983) 1 S.C.C. 124 .................................................................................. 18
35. Jharkhand Party v. State of Jharkhand, 2005 (2) B.L.J.R. 1559 .................................. 9
36. Jones v. Sutton, [2004] NSWCA 439 .......................................................................... 17
37. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., WRIT
PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012 ............................................................. 2,3,13,15
38. Karnataka v. Puttaraja, 1998 CrLJ 3683 (Mad) .......................................................... 16
39. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, A.I.R 1980
S.C.1992........................................................................................................................ 12
40. Kharak Singh v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295.................................................. 5
41. King and Mergen Holdings Pty Ltd v. McKenzie (1991) 24 NSWLR
305 ................................................................................................................................ 17
42. Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. Committee of Inquiry, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 714 .............. 18
43. Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 S.C.C. 398 .................................... 8
44. KK Kochunni v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1959 S.C.725 ............................................. 3
45. Laksh Vir Singh Yadav vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1021/2016 ................................ 9
46. M.C Mehta v. Union of India, (2003) 10 S.C.C. 561 ................................................... 2
47. M.S.M. Shrama v. Shri Sri Krishna sinha and Others, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 395 .............. 9
vi
48. M/S Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R 2002 SC 322….12
49. Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation, A.I.R 1993 S.C.
935 .............................................................................................................................. 12
50. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 S.C.R. (2) 621 ........................................ 11,13
51. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, (2012) 8 S.C.C. 1 ........................ 18
52. Midland Metals Overseas Pty Ltd v. The Christchurch Press Co Ltd, [2002] 2 NZLR
289 .............................................................................................................................. 18
53. Morosi v. Mirror Newspapers, [1977] 2 NSWLR 749 ............................................. 17
54. Munn v. Illinois, 153 (1877) 94 US 113 ..................................................................... 13
55. Murphy J; Sattin v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (1996) 39 NSWLR 32 ...................17
56. Myer Stores Ltd v. Soo, [1991] 2 VR 597................................................................... 17
57. Nt 1 And Anr. v. Google llc (2018) All ER (D) 45 (apr) .......................................... 15
58. Olga Tellis v Bomaby Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180 ...................... 2
59. Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, (2014) 5 S.C.C. 417 ............................... 18,20
60. Pathumma and Ors.v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 771 .......................... 18
61. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 301 ............... 4
62. Plato Films Ltd v. Speidel, [1961] A.C. 1090 ........................................................... 17
63. Waddell J; Melbourne v. R, (1999) 198 C.L.R. 1 .................................................... 17
64. McHugh J; O’Hagan v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (2001) 53 N.S.W.L.R. 89 ....... 17
65. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 996.................. 1
66. PUCL v Union of India, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 568 .......................................................... 2
67. PUCL v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 207 ......................................................... 5
68. Pullman v. Walter Hill & Co Ltd, [1891] 1 QB 524 .................................................. 17
69. R. Rajagopal v. State of TamilNadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632 .......................................... 4
70. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 S.C.C. 1 ...... 5
71. Rogers v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (2003) 16 C.L.R. 327....................................... 17
72. Rosenblatt v. Baer 383 US 75; 86 S Ct 669 (1966) ...................................................... 17
73. Singleton v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [No 1], [1983] 2 NSWLR 722..........................17
74. Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd, [1968] 2 QB 157 ............................................................ 17
75. Smith v. Mc Quiggan, (1863) 2 SCR(NSW) (L) 268................................................... 17
76. Spring v. Guardian Assurance plc, [1995] 2 AC 296 ................................................... 18
vii
77. Sri S. Santhanam, I.A.S. And Anr. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Chief
Secretary to Government and Ors, 1993 (3) A.L.T. 666............................................. 18
78. State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani , A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3357 .................................. 19
79. State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, Appeal (Crl.) 506 of 1997 ................................... 16,20
80. State of Madras v. ChampakamDorairajan, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 226 .............................. 5
81. State of Madras v. V.G Row, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 196 .................................................... 1
82. State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others, (2007) 3
S.C.C. 587 ................................................................................................................ 18,19
83. State of Punjab v. Gurmit singh, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1393 ............................................. 16
84. Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, (2001) 7 S.C.C 545, 548, ......................................... 12
85. Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 2728 ................................ 17
86. Sullivan v. Moody, (2001) 207 CLR 562 ..................................................................... 17
87. Swatanter Kumar v.The Indian Express Ltd. & Ors., I.A. No.723/2014 in CS(OS)
No.102/2014 ................................................................................................................. 20
88. Tame v. New South Wales, (2002) 211 CLR 317........................................................ 20
89. The State v. T. Makwanyane and M. Mchunu, 1995(3) S.A. 391 ............................... 16
90. Toogood v. Spyring, (1834) 1 C.M. & R 181 .............................................................. 17
91. Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2013) 10 S.C.C. 591........ 18
92. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, A.I.R 1985 S.C. 1416 .............................................. 11
93. Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3011 ............................................... 2
94. Wade v. State of Victoria, [1999] 1 V.R. 121 .............................................................. 17
95. Walter v. Alltools Ltd, (1944) 171 L.T. 371 ................................................................. 17
96. Оm Prakash v. State of UP, 2006 Cr.L.J. 2913 (SC) .................................................... 20
STATUTES
1. The African Bill Of Rights, 1948 ................................................................................ 18
2. The Civil Law (Wrongs) Act, 2002 (U.K) .................................................................. 18
3. The Constitution Of Turkey, 1982................................................................................ 18
4. The Defamation Act 2005 (SA) .................................................................................... 18
5. The Constitution of India, 1950 ................................................ 1,3,8,9,14,15,17,19,20
6. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rule, 2011 .................... 10,14
viii
7. The Information Technology Act, 2000 ......................................................................... 14

8. The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, 1976................................. 18
9. The New Zealand Bill Of Rights, 1990 .......................................................................... 18
10. The Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 .................................................................................19
11. The Human Rights Act,1998(U.K.) ............................................................................... 17
12. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, 1948 ..................................................... 17
CONSTITUTION
2. The Constitution of India, 1950 .................................................... 1,3,8,9,14,15,17,19,20

3. The Constitution of Turkey,1982 .................................................................17
ARTICLES & JOURNALS
1. Adam Moore, Toward Informational Privacy Rights, 44 San Diego Law Rev.
812,(2007) ................................................................................................................... 7
2. Alan Wertheimer and Franklin Miller ,The Nature of Consent in The Ethics of
Consent- Theory and Practice , Oxford University Press, 4 (2009)....................... 7
3. Daniel Solove, 10 Reasons Why Privacy Matters’ tech privacy (Mar 20, 2019, 10.04
PM) https://www.teachprivacy.com/10-reasons-privacy-matters/ ..........................6
4. Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity- An Answer to Dean
Prosser, New York University, School of Law, (1964)......................................... 14
5. Jack M Balkin, Information Fiduciaries and the First Amendment, 49(4) UC DAVIS
LAW REVIEW (2016) ........................................................................................... 15
6. Justice A.K.Ganguly, Access to Justice ,Cuttak Conference, (Mar. 28, 2019, 12:55
PM),http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1023/1/019_Access%20to
%20Justice.pdf ......................................................................................................... 9
7. Justice B.N. Srikrishna, “A Free and Fair Digital Economy Protecting Privacy,
Empowering Indians”, https:// meity.gov.in /writereaddata/ files/ Data_Protection _C
ommittee_Report.pdf .................................................................................................7
8. Justice Fazil Karim, Judicial Review of Public Action 588-589 (2006) ....................8
9. Michael J. Kelly,,&” David Satola, The Right to be Forgotten, University of Illinois
Law Rev. 1 (2017).......................................................................................................13
ix
10. Polonetsky “et al.” Tene “et al.” Finch, 56 Santa Clara Law Rev. 605, (2016 ........ 14
11. Ray Watterson, What is Defamatory Today? 67 ALJ 811, 812 (1994) ...................... 17
12. Tamar Frankel, Fiduciary Law, 71(3) CALIFORNIA LAW REV. 795, (1983) ........... 15
13. Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 (5), Harvard Law Rev. 195-196
(1890) ............................................................................................................................ 7
14. White Paper of the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India,
(Mar. 15, 2019, 9.15 P.M.) http://meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/ white_ paper _ on
_data_protection_in_india_18122017_final_v2.1.pdf ............................................... 14
BOOKS
1. Balkin & Davis, Law of Torts (3rd edn,2004) ............................................................. 17

2. David Rolph, Reputation, Celebrity and Defamation Laws 31 (2016) .................... 3,17
3. Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India 371 (8th ed., 2008) ....... 8
4. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India 350 (4th ed. 1967)................................... 4
5. Harold Luntz & David Hambly, Torts: Cases and Commentary (5th edn, 2002) ..... 17
6. K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law and Criminology 568 (2002) ............................................. 1
7. K.D. Gangrade, Social Legislation in India 23 (1978) ................................................. 1
8. M. R. Biju, Human Rights in A Developing Society 153 (2005) ................................ 1
9. William Blackstone, Commentary of the Laws of England 101 (4th ed. 1899) ........ 19
MISCELLANEOUS
1. 77 Corpus Juris Secundum 268 (Robert J. Owens et al., eds.) .................................. 19

2. B.R.Ambedakar ,Identity, (Mar. 25, 2019, 10.44 P.M)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/b_r_ambedkar_396096?src=t_identity ............ 20
3. House of Commons, Justice Committee, The Committee‘s opinion on the European
Union Data Protection framework proposals, 1 HC 572, 26 (1 November
2012) ...................................................................................................................... 13
4. Letter By Lord Acton To Archbishop Mandell Creighton, (Apr. 5, 1887),
https://History.Hanover.Edu/Courses/Excerpts/165acton.Html ................................... 9
x
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court is competent to hear to the petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Scindia.
As the matter involves determining the extent of fundamental rights provided under Part
III of the Constitution of Scindia, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia constituted a
constitution bench to hear the matter which has all the jurisdiction to hear it.
xi
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE BACKGROUND
The Republic of Scindia formerly a British colony, after gaining independence formed the
world’s lengthiest Constitution comprising of unique attributes from many other nations. The
basic features of its constitution are the principles of democracy, secularism and socialism but
despite all advancements a majority of the population in the country still professes archaic
beliefs on privacy, personal relationships and the institution of marriage.
STORY OF MR. VAIBHAV DIXIT
Mr. Vaibhav Dixit, a resident of Dehri, the owner of Meliance Industries and Company, a
telecom operating company is a well-known business tycoon. He is also a suspected to be
involved in an offence relating to tax evasion in Scindia and laundering money in France. In
the year 2007, Mr. Vaibhav Dixit made his account on Funbook, a popular social networking
website based in France with one of its branch offices in Dehri, capital of Scindia, where he
mentioned his personal details like age, sex, date, place of birth etc. In 2008, he installed the
mobile version of Funbook which asked for several permissions like permission to access the
gallery of the smart phone without which it could not be opened. Mr. Dixit granted
permission for the same. On Nov.7, 2017, Mr. Vaibhav Dixit made a request to Funbook to
delete his account and accordingly his account was deleted within 7 days, i.e., November 14,
2017.
On November 16, 2017, when investigative agencies reached Funbook for Mr. Dixit’s
involvement in tax evasion and money laundering case, Funbook shared the personal data of
Mr. Dixit with the investigative agencies including screenshots of the chat between Mr. Dixit
and Ms. Sylvia, a resident of France and an ex-employee of Mr. Vaibhav Dixit’s company,
which was stored in the gallery of the smartphone of Mr. Dixit.
Mr. Dixit infuriated by this act of Funbook approached the Supreme Court of Scindia on
December 5, 2017, contending that his Fundamental Right to Privacy has been violated by
Funbook. Mr. Vaibhav Dixit also raised his concern regarding the non-existence of any law
in the Republic of Scindia on this point and failure of the state to protect the personal data of
its citizens from being shared by any website. A related challenge has also been made by Mr.
Dixit to the constitutional validity of The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines)
xii
Rules, 2011 under which powers are vested with the Central government of the Republic of
Scindia to seek data from intermediaries.
THE RAPE CHARGES
When Ms. Sylvia paid a visit to the Republic of Scindia on December 30, 2017, Mr. Dixit On
New Year’s Eve, called Sylvia at Hotel Residency where Both of them had certain drinks and
they got intimate with each other. The very next morning, i.e. on January 1, 2018, Ms. Sylvia
approached police station to lodge an FIR against Mr. Dixit for committing the offence of
rape. The Trial court found Mr. Dixit guilty of the offence of rape and convicted him on May
15, 2018 but in appeal the High Court of Dehri acquitted Mr. Dixit of all the charges brought
against him by the judgment dated December 20, 2018.
NEWS PORTAL OF “THE PEOPLE”
The overall findings of the Trial Court in the case of Mr. Vaibhav Dixit was published by one
leading news paper “The People” around May 2018 and it was available on the e-newspaper
portal of it which could easily be accessed by anyone. Enraged by this Mr. Vaibhav Dixit
approached the High Court of Dehri contending that existing news available in the public
domain in digital form relating to the alleged rape case whose judgment has now been
overturned by the High Court is a violation of his Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of
the Republic of Scindia. The matter is pending before the High Court of Dehri.
MS. SYLVIA’S GRIEVANCES
Ms. Sylvia, while searching on internet when typed her name on the search engine, many web
links relating to her case instituted against Mr. Dixit popped up on her laptop screen from
which any man of ordinary prudence could easily identify her from those web pages. Keeping
her reputation, dignity, work and future marriage prospects in mind, Ms. Sylvia approached
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia contending that disclosure of her identity by the search
engines is a clear cut violation of the safeguards provided to her by the laws of the Republic
of Scindia.
THE WRITS AND CONSOLIDATED HEARING
Finding the issues pertaining to same question of law of “Right to erasure and Right to be
forgotten” in all the three petitions, i.e. two filed before the Supreme Court and one before
the High Court, the Supreme Court of Scindia on an application filed by the petitioners
proceeded to club the petitions and listed it for preliminary hearing before a full bench of the
Supreme Court of Scindia.
xiii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. THAT THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32.

2. THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SCINDIA TO PROTECT THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
3. THAT THE RIGHT TO ERASURE AND FORGOTTEN IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND
HAS BEEN VIOLATED.
4. THAT THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND HAS BEEN
VIOLATED.
xiv
S UMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[1] THAT THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION
OF SCINDIA.
It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the writ
petitions are maintainable as there is violation of fundamental right to privacy enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of Scindia . It is further submitted that the instant cases
involve determining the extent of Article 21 in respect of right to privacy, right to be
forgotten as well as right to reputation guaranteed under constitution of Scindia.
[2] THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SCINDIA TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF PRIVACY.
It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Right to
privacy has been held to be constitutionally protected fundamental right and the state is under
an obligation to provide effective protection to citizens in matters which amount to gross
violation of privacy. It is further submitted that the instant cases involve determining the
aspect of informational privacy under right to privacy as well as determining the
constitutionality of IT (Intermediary and Guidelines) Rules, 2011.
[3] THAT THE RIGHT TO ERASURE AND FORGOTTEN IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF RIGHT
TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY.
It is humbly submitted by the Counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the right to
erasure and forgotten is a fundamental right secured under right to live with dignity ensured
under Article 21 of the Constitution of Scindia.
[4] RIGHT TO REPUTATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND HAS BEEN VIOLATED.

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Right to
Reputation is a fundamental right. It is further submitted by the counsels that Right to
Reputation is sine qua non for dignified life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution
of Scindia.
xv
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT:-
[1] THAT THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA
[¶1] It is humbly submitted that maintainability of writ petition for enforcement of

fundamental rights can be questioned only on the ground of laches, where disputed questions
of facts are involved or enforcement of private or contractual rights is sought to be enforced.
None of the exceptions mentioned above exists in the present case. The petition has been
filed in time, questions of facts are not involved and fundamental rights are sought to be
enforced. In this regard it is submitted that the violation of the fundamental rights is a ground
for maintainability [1.1], alternative remedy does not bar the issuance of writ under Article 32
[1.2] and the court is competent to provide relief. [1.3]
[1.1] Violation of fundamental rights is a ground for maintainability
[¶2] There is a right to move the Supreme Court, by appropriate proceedings, for the
enforcement of the Fundamental Rights enumerated in the Constitution.1 Right to access to
the Supreme Court is a fundamental right.2 The Supreme Court of Scindia is protector and
guarantor of the Fundamental Rights and play the role of a ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ and they
must always regard it as their solemn duty to protect the said Fundamental Rights ‘zealously
and vigilantly’.3 In this regard, it is further submitted that the right to privacy of Mr. Dixit has
been violated by Funbook, [1.1.1] persistent adverse report on e-portal of The People violates
the right to reputation of Mr. Dixit. [1.1.2] and there has been a violation of right to
reputation of Ms. Sylvia. [1.1.3].
[1.1.1] The right to privacy of Mr. Dixit has been violated by Funbook.
[¶3] It is humbly submitted that Informational privacy is an individual’s right to control
dissemination of his personal information. This aspect of the right to privacy has assumed
particular significance in this information age and in view of technological advancements.
1
INDIA CONST. art. 32 cl.1; see also, K.D. GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 568 (2002); M.
R. BIJU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN A DEVELOPING SOCIETY 153 (2005); K.D. GANGRADE, SOCIAL
LEGISLATION IN INDIA 23 (1978).
2
State of Madras v. V.G Row, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 196.
3
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 996. 1
The dignity of the individual encompasses the right of the individual to develop to the full
extent of his potential. However, this development can only be if an individual has autonomy
over fundamental personal choices and control over dissemination of personal information
which may be infringed through an unauthorized use of such information. It is further
submitted that the present IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which is not in
compliance with fundamental rights, is unconstitutional.
[¶4] In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that Funbook had the authority to share the
collage only with the permission of Mr. Dixit which means that in case Mr. Dixit refused to
share it, Funbook had no authority to share it. Mr. Dixit had given the permission to access
the gallery only because without it, the mobile version of Funbook could not be used.
However, it can be seen that even after Mr.Dixit deleted his account, his personal data was
stored by Funbook and further shared with the investigating agencies without his knowledge,
which is a sheer violation of his fundamental right to privacy, right to delinked or forgotten as
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of Scindia.
[1.1.2]Persistent adverse news report on the e-portal of THE PEOPLE violates reputation of
Mr.Dixit
[¶5] Article 21 imposes positive obligation upon the State to ensure that individuals have an
opportunity for better enjoyment of their life and dignity.4 The right to life does not mean a
right to mere survival or an animal existence but living with human “dignity”. 5 Art. 21 takes
all those aspects of life which are essential to make a person's life meaningful and even State
can’t violate it.6
[¶6] In the instant case, the judgment of the Dehri High court on Dec 20, 20187 has
overruled the judgment of May 15, 2018, given by the trial court, which proves that Mr. Dixit
is not guilty of the crime he was accused of. However, the news regarding the case still
remains in the public domain which can be accessed by anyone. Therefore it is contended that
the right to reputation of Mr. Dixit has been violated by The People.
[1.1.3 ]There has been a violation of right to reputation of Ms. Sylvia
4
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746; Vishakha
v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3011; D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 610;
Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 988; Olga Tellis v Bomaby Municipal
Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180; PUCL v Union of India, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 568; M.C Mehta v. Union of
India, (2003) 10 S.C.C. 561.
5
Karak Singh v. State of U.P A.I.R.1964 (1) SCR 332.
6
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.,W.P. (Civil) No. 494 0f 2012.
7
¶ 13, Page 15, STATEMENT OF FACTS, 7 TH MAHAMANAMALAVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION -2019. 2
[¶7] A good reputation is part of the innate dignity of the individual,8 a social and a public
phenomenon.9 Every man is guaranteed ‘inherent dignity of the human person’, and it paves
path for right to reputation.10Reputation relates to privacy of a person which is a fundamental
right.11
[¶8] It is humbly submitted that in the instant case, the right of reputation of Ms. Sylvia is
jeopardised and it is clear that the flashing of Ms. Sylvia’s information on the web pages has
put her reputation, dignity, work and future marriage prospects in jeopardy and disclosure of
her identity by the search engines is a clear cut violation of the safeguards provided to her by
the laws of the Republic of Scindia under Article 21 of the Constitution.
[1.2] Alternative remedy does not bar issue of writ under Article 32.
[¶9] When a breach of fundamental right is made in the petition, the provisions of other
remedies do not stand in the way of exercising power under Art. 3212 of the Constitution of
Scindia. It is wholly erroneous to assume that before the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
could be invoked, the applicant must either establish that he has no other remedy adequate or
otherwise or that he has exhausted such remedies as the law affords and has yet not obtained
proper redress, for when once it is proved to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that by
state action the fundamental right of a petitioner under Art. 32 has been infringed, it is not
only the right but also the duty of the Supreme Court to afford him, by passing appropriate
order in that behalf.13 The mere existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot per
se be a good and sufficient ground for throwing out a petition under Art.32 if the existence of
a fundamental right and breach, actual or threatened, of such right is alleged and prima facie
established on the petition.14
[1.3] The court is competent to provide relief.
[¶10] Art.32 itself is a fundamental right and the Supreme Court, as guardian of the
fundamental rights, has the powers for enforcement of those rights through writs. This
Hon’ble Court has inherent powers issue orders to do complete justice under Art. 142. This
constitutional provision empowers the court to frame remedies for ensuring justice in
particular cases and ordinary law does not and cannot place constraints on its constitutional
8
Hill v. Church of Scientology, (1995) 126 D.L.R. (4th) 129.
9
Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 US 75; 86 S Ct 669 (1966).
10
DAVID ROLPH, REPUTATION, CELEBRITY AND DEFAMATION LAWS 31 (2016).
11
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI, W.P. (Civil) No. 494 0f 2012.
12
Coffee Board v. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 870.
13
KharakSingh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295.
14
KK Kochunni v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1959 S.C.725. 3
powers. The Supreme Court in exercise of its constitutional powers can overcome
inadequacies and weakness of law and procedure, coin new remedies and add parties to case
where need be.
[¶11] It is humbly submitted that the petitioners are seeking enforcement of fundamental
rights and challenging constitutionality of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011,
imposition of restrictions and laying down guidelines on fundamental rights and invokes
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court vested in it under Art. 32 and other provisions of the
constitution. The Writs are thus maintainable.
[2] THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SCINDIA TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
[¶12] The Republic of Scindia being a democratic, secular and socialist country, clearly
enshrined in its preamble, guarantees certain fundamental rights to its individual 15 and it is
the state’s duty and responsibility not only to adhere with the constitution of the Republic of
Scindia but also to protect the rights of individual. Since long, Article 32 and 226 is providing
remedy to violation of the fundamental rights by way of writs. However art. 13(1) and (2)
also defines that law inconsistent or contrary to the fundamental right pro tanto void would
not, by itself, prevent “the state” from violating fundamental rights 16. Here in the instant
petitions it is humbly submitted that right to privacy is Fundamental right under Art 21 of the
constitution of Scindia [2.1] and it is the state’s failure for non protection of the personal data
of its citizen from being shared [2.2].
[2.1] That the right to privacy is Fundamental right under Art 21 of the constitution of
Scindia
[¶13] As Republic of Scindia is a democratic country17, fundamental Rights are sine qua non
for every citizens and individuals. Right to privacy has been held to be constitutionally
protected fundamental right18 vested within right to life and personal liberty under Art. 21 of
15
INDIA CONST. part 3.
16
H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 350 (4th ed. 1967).
17
¶ 2, Page 13, STATEMENT OF FACTS, 7 TH MAHAMANA MALAVIYA NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION -2019.
18
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148; See also, R. Rajagopal v. State of
TamilNadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 301;
KharakSingh v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295; Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of
India, (2012) 5 S.C.C. 1. 4
the constitution of Scindia.19 The counsel humbly cites the case of I.R. Coelho v. State of
Tamil Nadu20 apex Court observed that the Rights were not limited; narrow rights, but
provide a broad check against the violations and the excesses by the State authorities. These
rights have been declared as sacrosanct, inalienable and indivisible.21. In this regard it is
submitted that privacy is sine qua non for dignified life [2.1.1], informational privacy is an
essential aspect of right to privacy and has been violated [2.1.2],
[2.1.1] Privacy is a sine qua non of human dignity
[¶14] Privacy attaches to the person since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the human
being”22. It is humbly submitted that “Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity.
Privacy has both a normative and descriptive function. At a normative level privacy sub-
serves those eternal values upon which the guarantees of life, liberty and freedom are
founded. Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of
family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. The counsel humbly cites
the case of Bowers v.Hardwick23 in which the US court held that most legal theorists defend
the penumbral theory of privacy rights "emanating" from a variety of Supreme Court decision
involving liberty, expression and due process.
[¶15] In these instant petitions, it is humbly submitted that the dignity of the petitioners have
been compromised and the data related to them has been circulated in the public sphere
disregarding the consequences it may have on their personality. The expression "Dignity"
carries with it moral and spiritual imports. It also implies an obligation on the part of the
Union to respect the personality of every citizen and create the conditions in which every
citizen would be left free to find himself/herself and attain self fulfillment and this is what is
expected in these petitions.
[2.1.2] Informational privacy is an essential aspect of right to privacy

[¶16] It is humbly submitted that informational privacy confers upon an individual’s right to
control in what manner his personal information is disseminated. It has become mandatory in
today’s age of massive technological advancements, to protect the dignity of the individual
by giving autonomy over fundamental personal choices and control over dissemination of
19
Kharak Singh v. State of UP, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295; Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1975
S.C.1378; PUCL v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 207.
20
A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 861.
21
State of Madras v. ChampakamDorairajan, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 226.
22
MANU/SC/1044/2017.
23
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). 5
personal information. In this regard it is further submitted that non-erasure of Mr. Dixit’s
sensitive personal data by Funbook is a violation of his informational privacy [2.1.2.1]
secondly that the element of consent becomes mandatory under right to privacy [2.1.2.2] that
the existing news made available by The People in the public domain in digital form is a
violation of his privacy rights [2.1.2.3] and disclosure of Ms. Sylvia’s identity by the search
engines is a clear cut violation of her right to privacy [2.1.2.4]
[2.1.2.1] Non-erasure of Mr. Dixit’s sensitive personal data is a violation of his

informational privacy.
[¶17] It is humbly submitted that in this digital age, individuals are constantly generating
valuable data which can be used by non-State actors to track their moves24, choices and
preferences. Data is generated not just by active sharing of information, but also passively,
with every click on the ‘world wide web’. It is further submitted that an individual has the
right to control one’s life while submitting personal data for various facilities and services. It
is but essential that the individual knows as to what the data is being used for with the ability
to correct and amend it. The hallmark of freedom in a democracy is having the autonomy and
control over our lives which becomes impossible, if important decisions are made in secret
without our awareness or participation.25
[¶18] Here in this instant case the act of sharing sensitive personal data of Mr. Dixit by
Funbook with the investigative agency of Republic of Scindia26, without his permission, has
raised the serious question of privacy of Mr. Dixit. Mr. Dixit have given permission to the
mobile version of the Funbook to access the gallery because without granting permission it
could not be opened, though in the special feature of Funbook where it makes collage of all
the picture stored in the gallery Mr. Dixit have refused to share his personal data to Funbook
by not sharing it. The act of denial from sharing the pictures from his gallery shows his non
willingness to share any data to Funbook and hence to anyone. The counsel here submits that
Mr. Dixit tried to protect his privacy but Funbook without consent of Mr. Dixit shared his
data even after deleting his account.
24
Lisa Lambert,,&“ Paresh Dave, Facebook shares drop as data privacy fallout spreads, REUTERS (Mar. 15,
2019, 9.23 PM ), https://in.reuters.com/article/facebook-data-cambridge-analytica-idINKBN1OI25F.
25
Daniel Solove, 10 Reasons Why Privacy Matters, TECH PRIVACY (Mar. 20, 2019, 10.04 PM)
https://www.teachprivacy.com/10-reasons-privacy-matters/.
26
[2.1.2.2] That the element of consent becomes mandatory under right to privacy
[¶19] The notice and choice framework to secure an individual‘s consent is the bulwark on
which data processing practices in the digital economy are founded. It is based on the
philosophically significant act of an individual providing consent for certain actions
pertaining to her data. Consent has been viewed as an expression of a person‘s autonomy or
control, which has the consequence of allowing another person to legally disclaim liability for
acts which have been consented to.27
[¶20] The counsels also seeks attention of the court that the question of consent by Mr. Dixit
is not relevant in this regard and even before deleting his account he has given permission to
access to his gallery just because the mobile version of the Funbook doesn’t work without
it28, The counsel here seeks attention of the court in the recent admission by Facebook 29that the
data of 87 million users, including 5 lakh Indian users, was shared with Cambridge Analytica
through a third-party application that extracted personal data of Facebook users who had
downloaded the application as well as their friends, is demonstrative of several such harms
users did not have effective control over data. Equally, the state collects and processes
significant amounts of personal data of citizens, with much of such processing being related
to its functions. Despite the fact that the State is able to exercise substantial coercive power,
and despite ambiguous claims to personal data that may not be necessary for its functions, the
State remains largely unregulated on this account.30
[2.1.2.3] That the existing news made available by The People in the public domain in
digital form is a violation of his privacy rights.
[¶21] According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Privacy has been defined as, “right to be left
alone”31; right of a person to be free from any unwarranted publicity; right to live freely from
any unwarranted interference by the public in matter with which public is not necessarily
concerned”.
[¶22] As per the facts of the case, Mr. Vaibhav Dixit found that the matter relating to the
27
Adam Moore, Toward Informational Privacy Rights, 44 SAN DIEGO LAW REV. 812,(2007) ,,&” Alan
Wertheimer and Franklin Miller ,The Nature of Consent in The Ethics of Consent- Theory and Practice , Oxford
University Press, 4 (2009).
28
COMPETITION -2019.
29
LAMBERT,,&“ DAVE, supra note 26.
30
Justice B.N. Srikrishna, A Free and Fair Digital Economy Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians, (Mar. 11,
2019, 10.55 PM), https://meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Data_Protection_Committee_Report.pdf.
31
Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 6 S.C.C 632; Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 (5),
HARVARD LAW REV. 195-196 (1890). 7
findings of the Trial Court which was published by the “The People” around May 2018 was
available on the e- newspaper portal of it which could easily be accessed by anyone. It is
further contended that the existing news available in the public domain in digital form
relating to the alleged rape case whose judgment has now been overturned by the High Court
is a violation of his Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Republic of Scindia .
This amounts to clear cut violation of his privacy since sensitive information which can have
detrimental effects to his personality still remains in the public domain.
[2.1.2.4] Disclosure of Ms. Sylvia’s identity by the search engines is a clear cut violation of
her right to privacy
[¶23] The right to the enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege, of ancient
origin, and necessary to human society.32 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has read Right to
Basic Necessities33into the Right to Life and Liberty under A.21.34 This right inherently
ensures a dignified life to citizens of India,35 which not only entails an assurance of fulfilling
their primary needs, but also guarantees all those conditions to the citizens which make life
worth living. Art. 21 of the Constitution has been given a qualitative concept to Life, 36 and it
safeguards the basic human rights required of every civilization.37
[¶24] In the instant case, Ms. Sylvia found that as soon as she typed her name on the search
engine, many web links relating to her case instituted against Mr. Dixit popped up on her
laptop screen. Not only this, any man of ordinary prudence could easily identify her from the
web pages. Counsel humbly submits the fact that the flashing of Ms. Sylvia’s information on
the web pages by websites is clearly sabotaging her reputation, dignity, work and future
marriage prospects.38
[2.2] It is the state’s failure for non protection of the personal data of its citizen from
being shared.
[¶25] The Counsels humbly cite Lord Acton where he says, “Power tends to corrupt, and
32
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 S.C.C. 398.
33
Byrraju Ramalinga Raju v. The State CBI,Criminal Petition No. 5454 of 2009.
34
DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 371 (8th ed., 2008).
35
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746.
36
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1051.
37
JUSTICE FAZIL KARIM, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC ACTION 588-589 (2006).
38
absolute power corrupts absolutely39. It is humbly submitted that access to justice is an inbuilt
content of Art14, Art19 and Art2140 which guarantees equality before law and equal
protection of laws, right to freedom and right to life. Hon'ble Supreme Court is considered as
the custodian of the Constitution of Republic of Scindia as interprets the Constitution to pay
regards to intent of the founding fathers by safeguarding the fundamental rights of The
People and protecting the Constitution from any unconstitutional Acts by exercising the
power of judicial review. There is independence, supremacy and the guardianship of the
constitution by the Supreme Court.41Hence, the judiciary has every right to interfere in the
matters of the legislature in order to protect the intention of framers of the constitution. 42 The
counsels here submit that there is non- existence of any law for non erasure of personal data
[2.2.1], and that the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rule, 2011 is unconstitutional. [2.2.2]
[2.2.1] That there is non-existence of any Law in the Republic of Scindia on non erasure
(Right to Forgotten) of personal data of individual.
[¶26] Right to be forgotten or Delinked is a right where a person can ask the search engine to
de-list any certain URL from search, contains his/her name or information which is irrelevant
or no longer relevant or excessive. Its aim is to protect user’s privacy and so to protect the
information to be misinterpreted or abused. In 195443 the honorable Supreme Court brought a
new right, which was left by our constitutional makers, known as Right to Privacy44.
[¶27] The court time to time has realized the urgent need of the data protection laws with the
emerging digital world. The counsels seek attention of the court in a judgment delivered by
the honorable Delhi High Court45 and in a writ petition honorable Karnataka High Court46 also
endorsed the “Right to be forgotten”. The personal data is something which is directly
associated with one’s right to privacy and reputation guaranteed under right to life but even
then there is no such laws which are present under the laws of Scindia.
[2.2.2] That the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 is
39
Letter By Lord Acton To Archbishop Mandell Creighton, HANOVER (Mar. 15, 2019, 9.55 P.M),
https://History.Hanover.Edu/Courses/Excerpts/165acton.html.
40
Justice A.K.Ganguly, Access to Justice, CUTTACK CONFERENCE (Mar. 28, 2019, 12:55 PM),
http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1023/1/019_Access%20to%20Justice.pdf.
41
(2016) 5 S.C.C. 1.
42
Jharkhand Party v. State of Jharkhand, 2005 (2) B.L.J.R. 1559.
43
M.S.M. Shrama v. Shri Sri Krishna sinha and Others, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 395.
44
INDIA CONST. art.21
45
Laksh Vir Singh Yadav vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1021/2016.
46
{Name Redacted} vs The Registrar General, W.P. No. 62038 of 2016. 9
unconstitutional.
[¶28] The Counsels humbly submit that the Information Technology (Intermediaries
Guidelines) Rules, 2011 are in contradiction with the constitution of Scindia. Further in this
regard it is humbly submitted that the IT Rules, 2011 is in contradiction with Article 19
[2.2.2.1], that the IT Rules, 2011 is in contradiction with Article 21 and Due process [2.2.2.2]
and that the IT Rules, 2011 is in contradiction with Article 14 [2.2.2.3].
[2.2.2.1] That the IT Rules, 2011 is in contradiction with Article 19.

[¶29] Counsels humbly cite Ajay Goswami v. Union of India47, in which the Supreme Court
opined (in obiter) that the internet, as a unique medium of expression, deserved a different
standard of protection than other mediums that have preceded it. Rule 3 (2) of the
Intermediary Guidelines prohibits, inter alia, content which “grossly harmful”, “harassing”,
“invasive of another’s privacy”, “hateful”, “disparaging”, “grossly offensive” or “menacing”,
in addition to content which is simply illegal, and should be actionable ex post rather than
prohibited ex ante. Most of the terms employed are not legal standards, but merely subjective
indicators of personal sensitivities, while still others though legal do not figure in Article 19.
Since the whole scheme of the Intermediary Guidelines is premised on these extra-
constitutional grounds, they are, as a whole, subject to being to being struck down.
[¶30] The restriction is unreasonable because Intermediary Guidelines unjustifiably abridge
the right to speak and receive information on the internet. Through the Intermediary
Guidelines, the Scindian state creates a system by which the right to free speech can be
systematically violated by private and undisclosed entities and even empowers them to do so,
without imposing any constitutional safeguards whatsoever. As a result, the Intermediary
Guidelines are also liable to be struck down for their failure to recognize and account for the
role of private interests while empowering them with the right to curtail fundamental rights.
[2.2.2.2] That the IT Rules, 2011 is in contradiction with Article 21 and Due process.
[¶31] Counsels humbly submits that the IT rules, 2011 possess adverse Impact on Privacy
and consequently on Free Speech. Counsels humbly cites the case of People’s Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India,48 the Supreme Court held that Article 21 privacy protected
individuals against the interception and monitoring of private communications by the state in
the absence of sufficient safeguards. Also, an individual’s privacy interests in information
47
W.P.(Civil) 384 of 2005, Epuru Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors, W.P.(Crl.) 284-285 of 2005.
48
PUCL v. Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 568. 10
relating to him are not dissolved merely because information is not confidential or because
another entity has some property interest in that information.49 The counsel seeks attention of
the court regarding power granted to government agencies to obtain information including
sensitive personal data or information for the purpose of verification of identity, or for
prevention, detection, investigation even without consent of the provider50, and to corporate
bodies under rule 6(2) for the disclosure of sensitive personal information to any third party
and rule 7 for the transfer of such data to any other corporate body is a threat to the privacy of
individual.
[¶32] The Intermediary Guidelines include no limits whatsoever on the scope of disclosures
those government agencies can demand or expect to retain, in contravention of Article 21.
Specifically, Rule 3 (4), which requires unlimited data retention, minimum of ninety days of
content taken down as well as “associated records”, violates users rights to privacy. Further,
Rule 3 (7), which makes any information held by an intermediary subject to being disclosed
to the government upon request, is also inconsistent with the requirement that the right to life
and personal liberty be violated only in accordance with fair, just and reasonable procedures.
[¶33] It is further more submitted that this rules are in non-compliance with Due Process and
Natural Justice Requirements. Natural justice was not a rigid or mechanical term, but one that
referred to those practices and principles that would ensure “fair play in action”51 and
“compelling state interest”. Natural justice required the satisfaction of the audi alteram
partem rule52, requirement of due notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond53.
[2.2.2.3] That the IT Rules, 2011 is in contradiction with Article 14.

[¶34] The guarantee of “equal protection of laws” requires equality of treatment of persons
who are similarly situated, without discrimination inter se. In E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil
Nadu54 the Supreme Court held that arbitrary or unfair actions necessarily run counter to
Article 14. Arbitrary actions are actions which are unreasonable;55 In addition, Article 14 also
requires that state action be reasonable, fair56 and guided by public interest57.
49
District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 S.C.C. 496.
50
Rule 6(1) of IT(Intermediary guidelines) Rule, 2011.
51
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 S.C.R. (2) 621.
52
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, A.I.R 1985 S.C. 1416.
53
M.C. Mehta v. Union of Indi, A.I.R 1999 S.C. 2583.
54
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr, A.I.R 1974 S.C. 555.
55
M/S Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 322; Sube Singh v. State of
Haryana, (2001) 7 S.C.C. 545.
56
Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 935.
57
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, A.I.R 1980 S.C.1992. 11
[¶35] Intermediaries who are not similarly situated are treated alike. Rule 2 (i) imports the IT
Act’s omnibus definition of the term “intermediary”, such that all classes of intermediaries,
ranging from intermediaries who control the architecture of the internet and the
hardware (such as ISPs and DNS providers). Reasoned state action must recognize that their
liabilities must necessarily vary with the specific type of service that each provides. The
Intermediary Guidelines fail to do so, and are consequently incompatible with Article 14.
[¶36] Finally, the Intermediary Guidelines fail to account for the public interest because they
directly restrict the public’s freedom of speech and expression, without any justifiable reason,
and privilege and constitutional sensitivities. Safeguards must apply to power-bearers to the
degree and in the manner required in relation to the nature of the power, rather than its holder,
if fundamental rights are to be legislatively preserved58.
[3] THAT THE RIGHT TO ERASURE AND FORGOTTEN IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND HAS
BEEN VIOLATED.
[¶37] Right to live with dignity can be inherently derived from right to life and personal
liberty, by several judgments,59 under Art21 of the Constitution of Scindia. The right to be
forgotten refers to the ability of individuals to limit, de-link, delete, or correct the disclosure
of personal information on the internet that is misleading, embarrassing, irrelevant, or
anachronistic.60 The right flows from the general obligation of data fiduciaries to not only
process lawfully, but also in a manner that is fair and reasonable. The right to be forgotten
therefore provides a data principal the right against the disclosure of her data when the
processing of her personal data has become unlawful or unwanted.61 Further, in this regard it
is humbly submitted that the right to erasure and be forgotten is a basic ingredient of right to
dignified life [3.1], that the article published in 'The People' is irrelevant and is subject to
erasure [3.2] and that the search engine results about Ms. Sylvia is a breach of her dignity and
must be delinked. [3.3]
[3.1] That the right to erasure and be forgotten is a basic ingredient of right to dignified
life.
58
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150.
59
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981) S.C.C. 516; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India A.I.R. 1978
S.C. 597, 1978 S.C.R. (2) 621.
60
Michael J. Kelly,,&” David Satola, The Right to be Forgotten, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REV. 1 (2017) .
61
House of Commons, Justice Committee, The Committee‘s opinion on the European Union Data Protection
framework proposals, 1 HC 572, 26 (1 November 2012). 12
[¶38] It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Article 21 of the constitution of
Scindia not only provides the right to life but also ensures that this right to life does not
become a mere animal existence.62 It is inalienable, most important, human, fundamental,
transcendental right63 and includes the right to live with dignity.64 Further, in this regard it is
humbly submitted that the non erasure of sensitive personal data by Funbook is violation of
right to lead a dignified life of Mr. Dixit [3.1.1] and that the Funbook has committed breach
of Trust. [3.1.2]
[3.1.1] That the non erasure of sensitive personal data by Funbook is violation of right to
lead a dignified life of Mr. Dixit.
[¶39] The counsels humbly submit that the right to be forgotten emerging from Article 21 has
been expressly recognized in the recent judgment of K.S Puttaswami v. Union of India65
where Justice Chandrachud opined that the State must ensure that information is not used
without the consent of users and that it is used for the purpose and to the extent it was
disclosed.
[¶40] The counsel seeks to rely on Sensitive Data Protection Rule issued under Section 43A
of the IT Act which holds that a body corporate is liable for compensation for any negligence
in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures while dealing
with sensitive personal data or information.66 They define sensitive personal data67 and mandate
the implementation of a policy for dealing with such data.68 Further, various conditions such as
consent requirement,69 lawful purpose,70 purpose limitation,71 subsequent withdrawal of
consent,72.etc., have been imposed on the body corporate collecting such information.
[¶41] Counsels seek reliance on Report on Data Protection by Sri krishna Committee which
states “it is the law which will provide the conditions for validity of consent, requiring it to be
62
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295; Munn v. Illinois, 153 (1877) 94 U.S. 113.
63
14 INDIAN BAR REV.,100 (1992).
64
Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597; Oliga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and
Others, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180; Corlie Mullin v. Administrator and Union Territory of Delhi, A.I.R. 1981 S.C.
746.
65
A.I.R. 2015 S.C. 3081.
66
SPD Rules, Art. 43 A Information Technology Act, 2000, No.21, Act of Parliament, 2000.
67
Rule 3, SPD Rules.
68
Rule 4, SPD Rules.
69
Rule 5(1), SPD Rules.
70
Rule 5(2), SPD Rules.
71
Rules 5(4) and (5), SPD Rules.
72
Rules 5(4) and (5), SPD Rules. 13
free, informed, clear, specific and capable of being withdrawn committee report.”73
Identifiability in circumstances where the individual is directly identifiable from the presence
of direct identifiers such as names74 is perhaps uncontroversial and will obviously be included
within the scope of any definition of personal data. The processing of certain types of data
(usually relating to an integral part of an individual‘s identity) 75could result in greater harm to
the individual.
[¶42] Counsels humbly submits that the non erasure of sensitive data after Mr. Dixit deleted
Funbook is a breach of his fundamental right to privacy as the consent has been withdrawn
from the Funbook and the data is expected to be erased. There was no necessity or purpose
left to store the data by the Funbook.
[3.1.2] That the Funbook has committed breach of Trust.
[¶43] Counsels humbly submit that privacy assists in preventing awkward social situations
and reducing social frictions. Most of the information about individuals can fall under the
phrase “none of your business”. On information being shared voluntarily, the same may be
said to be in confidence and any breach of confidentiality is a breach of the trust.76
[¶44] It is further submitted that notwithstanding any contractual relationship, an individual
expects that his/her personal data will be used fairly, in a manner that fulfils her interest and
is reasonably foreseeable. This is the hallmark of a fiduciary relationship.77 All fiduciaries,
irrespective of the exact nature of the contractual relation, must uphold trust and loyalty
placed in them by the data principal.78
[¶45] This takes the form of a duty of care, i.e. to act in the best interest of the principal. Such
a duty is mandated in order to ensure that no abuse of power ensues from the unequal nature
of the fiduciary relationship.79 Counsels finally submit that there was relationship of
confidence and trust existing between Mr. Dixit and Funbook, but through giving all the
personal data including screenshots to the state officials Funbook breached the trust and
confidence of Mr. Dixit.
[3.2] That the article published in 'The People' is irrelevant and is subject to erasure.
73
White Paper of the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India, MEITY (Mar. 15, 2019,
9.15P.M.).http://meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/white_paper_on_data_protection_in_india_18122017_final_v2
.1.pdf.
74
Polonetsky “et al.” Tene “et al.” Finch, 56 S ANTA CLARA LAW REV. 605, (2016) .
75
Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity- An Answer to Dean Prosser, 39 N.Y.U. L. Rev.
962 (1964).
76
K.S Puttaswami v. Union of India, W.P.No.(Civil) 494 of 2012.
77
Tamar Frankel, Fiduciary Law, 71(3) CALIFORNIA LAW REV. 795, (1983).
78
Jack M Balkin, Information Fiduciaries and the First Amendment, 49(4) UC DAVIS LAW REV. (2016).
79
Id. 14
[¶46] Counsels humbly submit that the right to be forgotten puts individuals in control of the
information they put out, and to seek erasure of data concerning them. Justice Kaul stated
“The right of an individual to exercise control over his personal data and to be able to control
his/her own life would also encompass his right to control his existence on the Internet”
places reliance on the Article 17 of the European Union Regulation (2016) that created the
right to erasure. European Court in Google vs. Mario Costajea80 ordered the Google to
remove the links relating to Mario Costeja on its website and hence Right to be forgotten
came into existence.
[¶47] It is further submitted that there is no justification for making all truthful information
available to the public. The public does not have an interest in knowing all information
whether it is true or false. Which celebrity had intimate relationships with whom, might be of
interest to the public but has no element of public interest and may therefore be a breach of
privacy. Thus, truthful information that breaches privacy may also require protection 81 and so
82
that an appropriate delisting order should be made.
[¶48] The counsels seek reliance on the case of Lakshya Veer Yadav v. Union of India83 in
which hon’ble Delhi HC had issued a notice to Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) recognizing
the right to be forgotten. Due to the Article published, Mr. Dixit is facing the detriment to his
reputation as he was released from all charges through High Court; the information related to
his conviction is making people remember him inaccurately and is creating hindrances in living
a life of dignity.
[3.3] That the search engine results about Ms. Sylvia is a breach of her dignity and must
be delinked.
[¶49] Article 21 of the Constitution of Scindia provides the right to life and personal liberty
including the right to live with dignity. The operator of a search engine is obliged to remove
from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name
links to web pages, published by third parties and containing information relating to that
person, also in a case where that name or information is not erased beforehand or
simultaneously from those web pages.84
80
62012 C.J. 0131.
81
K.S Puttaswami v. Union of India, W.P.No.(Civil) 494 of 2012.
82
Nt 1 And Anr. v. Google llc (2018) All ER (D) 45 (apr).
83
W.P.(C) 1021/2016.
84
European Court of Justice. Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección
de Datos, Mario Costeja González (2014), Case C-131/12. 15
[¶50] Counsels rely on the judgment of Karnataka HC in the case of Sri Vasunath v.The
Registrar General85 in which Hon’ble HC recognised the right to forgotten and it was stated
that it should be the endeavour of the Registry to ensure that any internet search made in the
public domain ought not to reflect the petitioner’s daughter’s name in the cause-title or the
body of the order of petition.
[¶51] “This is in line with the trend in Western countries of 'right to be forgotten' in sensitive
cases involving women in general and highly sensitive cases involving rape or affecting the
modesty and reputation of the person concerned.”The anonymity of the victim of the crime
must be maintained as far as possible throughout86 and a person who had been subjected to a
sexual offence as victim in the judgment to protect that person from social ostracism87. The
publication and information spread by the search engine related to the rape case of Ms.
Sylvia, disclosing her identity has caused the breach of the fundamental right of Ms. Sylvia
possessing an infringement of her dignity and the safeguards ensured by the constitution of
Scindia.
[4] THAT THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND HAS BEEN VIOLATED
[¶52] Article 21 of the Constitution of Scindia guarantees Right to life. Right to life is a
human right88 and most important of all rights.89 The Counsels argue that Art. 21 do not
“give” a person right to life. It “protects” and “guarantees” one’s right to life. One’s right to
life is inherent to one by virtue of our birth. The existing news on “The People’s” e-
newspaper portal about Mr. Vaibhav Dixit and the disclosure of the identity of Ms. Sylvia by
the search engines are the clear cut violation of the safeguards provided to them by the laws
of the Republic of Scindia. In this regard, it is humbly submitted that- reputation is
indispensable for dignified life [4.1], that the reputation is a natural and personal right
inherent in Article 21 [4.2] and that the right to reputation is harmed by non erasure and the
disclosure of identity [4.3].
85
W.P. No. 62038 of 2016.
86
State of Punjab v. Gurmit singh, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1393.
87
State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, Appeal (Crl.) 506 of 1997.
88
See UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 1948, art. 3; THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT,1998(U.K.), art. 2.
89
The State v. T. Makwanyane and M. Mchunu, 1995 (3) S.A. 391. 16
[4.1]Reputation is indispensable for dignified life.

[¶53] A good reputation is part of the innate dignity of the individual,90 a social and a public
phenomenon.91 Every man is guaranteed ‘inherent dignity of the human person’, and it paves
path for right to reputation.92 Reputation has been described as “highly prized but
intangible”93, “nebulous yet much cherished”94 and one of the few safe harbours in the law of
defamation”.95 It is “not a commodity having market value”96, is man’s “property”97 and
“what other people think he is”.98
[¶54] The Counsels humbly cite the case of Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India,99 where
the Indian Supreme Court categorically held inter alia that right to reputation is a
“fundamental right”. A good reputation is an element of “personal security” and is protected
by the Constitution “equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property”.100
[¶55] The international instruments101, national laws102 and judgments103 affirm the
90
Hill v. Church of Scientology (1995) 126 D.L.R. (4th) 129.
91
Rosenblatt v. Baer 383 US 75; 86 S Ct 669 (1966).
92
DAVID ROLPH, REPUTATION, CELEBRITY AND DEFAMATION LAWS 31 (2016).
93
BALKIN & DAVIS, LAW OF TORTS (3rd ed. 2004).
94
HAROLD LUNTZ & DAVID HAMBLY, TORTS: CASES AND COMMENTARY (5th ed. 2002).
95
Ray Watterson, What is Defamatory Today? 67 ALJ 811, 812 (1994).
96
Rogers v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (2003) 16 C.L.R. 327.
97
Dixon v. Holden (1869) 7 L.R. Eq. 488.
98
Plato Films Ltd v. Speidel, [1961] A.C.. 1090; See, e.g., Re T and Director of Youth & Community Services,
[1980] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 392 at 395 per Waddell J; Melbourne v. R, (1999) 198 C.L.R. 1 at 15–16; 164 ALR 465;
73 ALJR 1097 per McHugh J; O’Hagan v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (2001) 53 N.S.W.L.R. 89 at 91 per
Meagher JA; Levine 2002, 5; Veeder 1904, 33; Pound 1915, 447. For examples of older authorities, see, e.g., De
Crespigny v. Wellesley, (1829) 5 Bing 392 at 405–6; 130 ER 1112 at 117–18 per Best CJ; Toogood v. Spyring,
(1834) 1 CM & R 181 at 193; (1834) 149 ER 1044 at 1049 per Parke B; Smith v. Mc Quiggan, (1863) 2
SCR(NSW) (L) 268 at 270 per Stephen CJ; Bryce v. Rusden, (1886) 2 TLR 435 at 439 per Huddleston B;
Pullman v. Walter Hill & Co Ltd, [1891] 1 QB 524 at 527 per Lord Esher MR. For examples of more recent
authorities, see, e.g., Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd, [1968] 2 QB 157 at 171–2 per Diplock LJ; Delaney v. News
Media Ownership Ltd, [1976] 1 NZLR 322 at 326–8; Gorman v. Barber, (2004) 61 NSWLR 543 at 550 per
Mason P.
99
A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 2728.
100
D.F.Marion v. Minnie Davis, 55 American LR 171.
101
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, arts. 10, 12; KONSTYTUCJA
RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ, Apr. 2, 1997, art. 47 (Pol.); UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, art.5,
12; THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS, §1 (a), AFRICAN BILL OF RIGHTS, § 12; CONSTITUTION OF TURKEY, art. 13;
NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS,§§8-11; HUMAN RIGHTS ACT (U.K.), art. 5.
102
§ 139D, CIVIL LAW (WRONGS) ACT, 2002; § 30, DEFAMATION ACT 2006 (NT); § 33, DEFAMATION ACT 2005
(NSW); § 33, DEFAMATION ACT 2005 (Qld); § 33, DEFAMATION ACT 2005 (SA); § 33, DEFAMATION ACT 2005
(Tas); § 33, DEFAMATION ACT 2005 (Vic); § 33, DEFAMATION ACT 2005 (WA); see, also, Morosi v. Mirror
Newspapers, [1977] 2 NSWLR 749; Singleton v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [No 1], [1983] 2 NSWLR 722;
Chappell v. Mirror Newspapers, (1984) Aust Torts Reports ¶80-691; King and Mergen Holdings Pty Ltd v.
McKenzie (1991) 24 NSWLR 305; Jones v. Sutton, [2004] NSWCA 439.
103
Walter v. Alltools Ltd, (1944) 171 L.T. 371; 61 T.L.R 39; [1944] W.N. 214 at 214 per Lawrence LJ; Myer
Stores Ltd v. Soo, [1991] 2 VR 597 at 603–4; (1991) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-077 at 68,624 per Murphy J; Sattin
v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (1996) 39 NSWLR 32 at 34ff per Levine J; Wade v. State of Victoria, [1999] 1
V.R. 121; Sullivan v. Moody, (2001) 207 CLR 562 at 580–81; 183 ALR 404; 75 ALJR 1570; Aust Torts
Reports ¶81-622 per curiam; Tame v. New South Wales, (2002) 211 CLR 317 at 335 per Gleeson CJ, at 342 per
Gaudron J, at 361 per McHugh J, at 425 per Callinan J; 191 ALR 449; 76 ALJR 1348; Aust Torts Reports ¶8117-
importance of a good reputation to the dignity of the individual. Basing their arguments on
the above cited authorities and case laws, the Counsels humbly submit before this Court that
the Right to Reputation is intrinsically linked with the dignity, self-esteem, honour, glory and
eminence.
[4.2] Right to reputation is a natural and personal right inherent in Article 21.
[¶56] Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation.104 When a dent is
created in the reputation, humanism is paralyzed.105 A good reputation is an element of
personal security.106
[¶57] A man's reputation is a part of his identity, as his body and limbs are.107 Post Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India,108 the Supreme Court expanded the phrase “personal liberty” in its
interpretation of A. 21 to the widest amplitude.109 Reputation is, the Counsels humbly submit,
a personal right, and the right to reputation is put among those absolute personal rights equal
in dignity and importance to security from violence.110 Detraction from a man's reputation is an
injury to his personality111, and thus an injury to reputation is a personal injury, that is, an injury
to an absolute personal right, his health and his reputation.112
[¶58] The Supreme Court referring to D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis113 in Smt. Kiran Bedi v.
Committee of Inquiry114 held that “good reputation was an element of personal security and
672; Cornwall v. Rowan, [2004] SASC 384 at [684]–[696]; Spring v. Guardian Assurance plc, [1995] 2 AC
296; [1994] 3 All ER 129; [1994] 3 WLR 354; Bell-Booth Group Ltd v. Attorney-General, [1989] 3 NZLR 148;
Balfour v. Attorney General, [1991] 1 NZLR 519; Midland Metals Overseas Pty Ltd v. The Christchurch Press
Co Ltd, [2002] 2 NZLR 289; Fulton v. Globe & Mail Ltd, (1997) 152 DLR (4th) 377; Butler 2000b; Foaminol
Laboratories Ltd v. British Artid Plastics Ltd [1941] 2 All ER 393 at 399 per Hallett J; Malik v. Bank of Credit
& Commerce International SA (in liq), [1998] AC 20; [1997] 3 All ER 1; [1997] 3 WLR 95; Gambotto v. John
Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, (2001) 104 IR 303 at 312 per Peterson J; Enonchong 1996.
104
Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2013) 10 S.C.C. 591.
105
Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, (2012) 8 S.C.C. 1.
106
D.F. Marion v. Davis 217 Ala 16 : 114 So 357 : 55 A.L.R. 171 (1927), In Board of Trustees of the Port of
Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others, (1983) 1 S.C.C. 124, State of Maharashtra v.
Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others, (2007) 3 S.C.C. 587.
107
Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. Committee of Inquiry, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 714.
108
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India., A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597.
109
Pathumma and Ors.v. State of Kerala and Ors., A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 771.
110
Huzra Bee v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.9060/2017., Hemant Gupta
C.J., Mohammed Quadeer and others v. Commissioner of Police, 1999 (3) A.L.D. 60, Sri S. Santhanam, I.A.S.
and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Chief Secretary to Government and Ors, 1993 (3) A.L.T. 666.
111
77 CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM 268 (Robert J. Owens et al., eds.).
112
I William Blackstone, Commentary of the Laws of England 101 (4th ed. 1899); see, also, Sri S. Santhanam,
I.A.S. And Anr. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Chief Secretary to Government and Ors, 1993 (3) A.L.T.
666; Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, (2014) 5 S.C.C. 417.
113
SS American L.R. 171.
114
A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 714. 18
was protective by the Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and
property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property.”
[¶59] In State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust115, the Court held that
good reputation was an element of personal security and was “protected by the constitution”,
equally with the right to the enjoyment of life. In State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani116the
Apex Court ruled that it was amply clear that one was entitled to have and preserve one’s
reputation and one also had the right to protect it.
[¶60] Basing over the arguments on the above, cited authorities and case laws, the Counsels
humbly submit before this Court that the Right to Reputation is a natural and personal right
which is inherited under Article 21 of the constitution of Scindia.
[4.3] That the right to reputation is harmed by the Non Erasure and disclosure of
identity.
[¶61] The non- erasure of any derogatory news and the disclosure of the identity by the
search engines attracts the violation of the right to reputation. Here, in this regard the
counsels humbly submit that existing news on “The People’s” online portal harms the
reputation of Mr.Vaibahv Dixit [4.3.1] and that the disclosure of identity harms the right to
reputation of Ms. Sylvia [4.3.2].
[4.3.1] That the existing news on “The People’s” online portal harms the reputation of
Mr.Vaibahv Dixit.
[¶62] It is humbly submitted that the non erasure of the news by “The People’s” online news
portal about the case of Mr. Vaibhav Dixit is the violation of the right to reputation.
Reputation is directly associated with a person’s personal as well as social life. The existing
news about Mr. Dixit is of the alleged rape offence over Mr. Dixit which has already been
decided by Hon’ble High Court of Dehri and hon’ble high court has observed that the
evidence was insufficient to prove the guilt of Mr. Dixit and therefore leading to his acquittal.
[¶63] It is further submitted that the existence of such news confuses any prudent men as the
news is of the findings of the Trail Court in which conviction was awarded to Mr. Dixit. But,
the present can never be hampered by the actions of past and here in this case the findings of
the trail court is directly affecting the reputation of Mr. Dixit by harming his social status.
[¶64] Counsels further submit that in the name of right to information or the freedom of
115
A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 777.
116
A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3357. 19
speech and expression, the news agency is misusing its freedom of press and such news
which have no existence in present and is of no relevance today must be erased immediately.
[4.3.2] That the disclosure of identity harms the right to reputation of Ms. Sylvia.
[¶65] Unlike a drop of water which loses its identity when it joins the ocean, man does not
lose his being in the society in which he lives. Man’s life is independent. He is born not for
the development of the society alone, but for the development of his self.117 Identity is
something which is directly related to any person’s ascribed or achieved status and helps in
further social classification of his/ her status. The Counsels humbly submit that in this case,
searching of the name of Ms. Sylvia leads to the popping of the web links relating to her case
instituted against Mr. Dixit which is derogatory in nature and causes harm to her reputation as
any person of ordinary prudence could easily identify her from such web pages.
[¶66]The counsels further submit that it is also necessary to postpone the publications which
are on different websites, so that the adverse publicity against her can be avoided. Even if
some amount of fairness is attached to the publication, still the Court can proceed to prevent
the same on the basis of the excessive prejudice.118
[¶67] Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v.
119
Puttaraja categorically stated that the social object of preventing social
victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence would be appropriate that
in the judgments, be it of the Supreme Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of
the victim should not be indicated. We have chosen to describe her as 'victim' in the
judgment. A similar finding was made by the Apex court in the case of Оm Prakash v.
120
State of UP wherein the court emphasized on the rule of caution and not disclosing
the identity of victim in judgments.
[¶68] Thus, on reliance of the arguments made and authorities cited, the counsels humbly
submit that such disclosure of identity is a clear cut violation of the safeguard provided by the
Constitution of Scindia including the right to reputation.
117
B.R.AMBEDKAR,Identity, (Mar. 25, 2019, 10.44 P.M)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/b_r_ambedkar_396096?src=t_identity.
118
Swatanter Kumar v.The Indian Express Ltd. & Ors., I.A. No.723/2014 in CS(OS) No.102/2014.
119
1998 CrLJ 3683 (Mad).
120
2006 CrLJ 2913 (SC). 20
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That the writs are maintainable.
2. That the right to privacy is a fundamental right and has been violated.
3. That the guidelines should be issued for the formation of data protection laws.
4. That the IT (Intermediaries & Guidelines) Rules, 2011 are unconstitutional.
5. That the right to erasure and forgotten is a fundamental right and has been violated.
6. That the right to reputation is a fundamental right and has been violated.
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON ’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,

MMC-6
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER.
21

6 P

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

6 P

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

MMC-6

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA

Mr. Vaibhav Dixit ................................................................................... Petitioner

Union of Scindia and Funbook .............................................................. Respondent

Mr. Vaibhav Dixit ................................................................................... Petitioner

The People ................................................................................................ Respondent

Ms. Sylvia................................................................................................. Petitioner

Union of Scindia ...................................................................................... Respondent

WRIT PETITION NOS /2018 &WRIT PETITION NOS ------ /2018

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NOS. /2018

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................ v-x

1.1 Violation of fundamental rights is a ground for maintainability ....................................01-03

4.1 Reputation is indispensable for dignified life .............................................................16-18

AIR : All India Reporter

BLJR : Bihar Law Journal Report

DNS : Domain Name System

ISP : Internet Service Provider

PIL : Public Interest Litigation

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

SPD : Sensitive Personal Data

URL : Uniform Resource Locator

W.P. No. : Writ Petition Number

7. The Information Technology Act, 2000 ......................................................................... 14

2. The Constitution of India, 1950 .................................................... 1,3,8,9,14,15,17,19,20

ARTICLES & JOURNALS

1. Balkin & Davis, Law of Torts (3rd edn,2004) ............................................................. 17

1. 77 Corpus Juris Secundum 268 (Robert J. Owens et al., eds.) .................................. 19

1. THAT THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32.

[4] RIGHT TO REPUTATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND HAS BEEN VIOLATED.

MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT:-

[¶1] It is humbly submitted that maintainability of writ petition for enforcement of

[2.1.2] Informational privacy is an essential aspect of right to privacy

[2.1.2.1] Non-erasure of Mr. Dixit’s sensitive personal data is a violation of his

[2.2.2] That the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 is

[2.2.2.1] That the IT Rules, 2011 is in contradiction with Article 19.

[2.2.2.3] That the IT Rules, 2011 is in contradiction with Article 14.

[4.1]Reputation is indispensable for dignified life.

1. That the writs are maintainable.

4. That the IT (Intermediaries & Guidelines) Rules, 2011 are unconstitutional.

THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,

Você também pode gostar