STAMMLER Respondent's Memorial PDF

1ST ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL VIRTUAL NATIONAL
TEAM CODE: STAMMLER

MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2020
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ANTOPIA
IN THE MATTER OF
W. P.(CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2020
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF ANTOPIA)
EYEFACE INC. & ORS. ……………………….…………. PETITIONER
V.
REPUBLIC OF ANTOPIA & ORS…………………………. RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ANTOPIA
MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………….. iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………….iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………..vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………..viii
ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………x
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………….xi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………..1
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE JUDICIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH

COURTS IS AMENABLE TO BE CORRECTED BY A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI……………………………………………………………………. 1
I.1.High Courts have the jurisdiction to pass writs under art. 226…………….1
I.2 Writ to mandamus issued by HC does not violate any fundamental rights..2
I.3 The Govt. has the power to take actions against the crimes on social media.3
ISSUE II: WHETHER THERE IS ANY RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION…………………………………………………………………..4
II.1. Judicial interpretation of the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right…..4
ISSUE III: WHETHER STATE HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE LINKING

iCARDS WITH SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS………………………………..6
III.1. Linking iCards with social media accounts will ensure public order…….6
III.2.Linking the iCard with social media is not violative of any fundamental
rights………………………………………………………………………..8
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& and
¶ paragraph
Acc. According
AIR All India Report
Sec. Section
Mr. Mister
Ref Reference
Com. Commission
Hon’ble Honourable
ILR Indian Law Report
Ltd. Limited
LR Law Report
HC High Court
Ors. Others
UOI Union of India
Rs. Rupees
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v. versus
APP Antopian People’s Party
HCJ High Court of Johran
HCER High Court of East Rajlok
Govt. Government
Art. Article
NGO Non Government Organisation
Inc. Incorporation
I.e That is

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. BOOKS REFFERED:
Sl. No. Name Author
1. Constitutional Law of India Durga Das Basu
2. Constitutional Law of India Dr. J.N. Pandey
3. The Constitutional law of India (3rd Edition) Dr. K.C. Joshi
4. Constitution Of India V.N. Shukla
2. STATUTES & DOCUMENTS REFFERED:

Sl. No. Name
1. The Constitution of India : Bare Act, Universal Law Publishing
2. Aadhaar Card (Targeted Devlivery of Financial and Other Subsidies) Act,
2016)
3. Information Technology Act, 2000
4. Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920
5. Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948
6. International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966
3. CASES CITED:
Sl. No. Name of the case Citations
1. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of AIR 1967 SC1
Maharashtra.
2. Andra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of AIR 1974 SC1539
Force
3. Gopal Das v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1244.
4. .Kasturi Lal Laxmi Reddy v. State of J&k AIR 1980 SC1992 (2000)
5. State of Bombay vs SN Balsara AIR1951 SC318.
6. Facebook inc v. UOI Transfer Petition(s) (Civil)
No.(s) 1943-1946/2019
7. State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai AIR 2004 SC2081.
Togariya
8. Sharda vs. Dharam Pal 2003(4) SCC 493
9. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, 2012(5) SCC(1).

Union of India
10. M.P.Sharma v. Satish Chandra AIR (1954) SC 300,Pg.
306 ¶ 18
11. Namit Sharma v Union of India AIR 1965 SC 745(145)
12. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & AIR 1963 SC 1295
Others
13. State Of Andhra vs. A.P.Jaiswal, 12(2001) 1 SCC 748
14. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. AIR 1997 SC 568
Union of India & Another
15. R. Rajagopal & Another v. State of Tamil (1994) 6 SCC 632
Nadu & Others
16. Gobind Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 AIR 1378, 1975
SCR(3) 946
17 District Registrar & Collector v. Canara AIR 2005 SC 186
Bank.
18 Ram Prasad v. State of Bihar 1953 AIR 215
19 Chandra Bhavan Boarding and lodging, AIR 1970 SC 2042.
Banglore v state of mysore.
20. Papanasam Labour Union v Madhura Coats 1995 SCC 1501.
ltd.
21. C.R.R. No. 2332 of 2017
Facebook Inc. v. State of West Bengal.
22. UIDAI & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Petition(s) for Special

Investigation Leave to Appeal (Crl)
No(s).2524/2014
23. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 881
24. Prabha Dutt v Union of India 1983 AIR, 6 1982 SCR(1)
25. Lokniti Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C.)No. 491/2012
26. AK Gopalan v. state of madras AIR 1950 SC 271
27. Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. UOI AIR1981 SC344
28. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque AIR 1955 SC 233
4. WEBSITES REFFERED

Sl. No. Name

1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Westlaw
4. Lexis Nexis Academica
5. BBC
7. www.nia.gov.in

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONERS HAS SUBMITED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE SC THE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER IN THE AFORESAID CASE OF
EYEFACE INC. & ORS. V. REPUBLIC OF ANTOPIA & ORS., BEFORE THE
HON’BLE SC OF ANTOPIA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
ANTOPIA.
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The SC shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by
this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the SC by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of
its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the SC under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Republic Of Antopia, is a South Asian country which is one of the largest
countries in terms of its area and population. Gaining its independence in the year
1960 from the British Empire, it developed both economically & politically. It
became an international trading hub and a regional power, yet, there was
economic inequality in its territory. Riding on wave of nationalistic and
pro-majority sentiments, the Antopian People’s Party, came to power in 2014 and
attempted to introduce certain laws to monitor the internet.
2. The iCard (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and
Services) Act, 2016 called for a single identity card to be created which contains
the biometric data of all its citizens. The govt. aimed to enforce the iCard and link
it to citizen’s personal databases and was criticised on the basis that it infringed
the Right to Privacy.To this, the SC Of Antopia upheld the iCard Act, 2016 as
constitutional, and validated the Right to Privacy of the citizens further directing
that the iCard should not be forcefully linked to any private information or
used for any case apart from delivery of Govt. subsidies.
3. A sim card with high speed internet service was introduced by Life
Communications in 2016, which made the internet easily approachable. Social
Media platforms like, TextUp, EyeFace, MemoGram, TwitPeep etc. allowed
pictures and videos to reach masses, and hence misinformation was circulated
which led to numerous cases of people being lynched and assaulted.
4. There were two cases filed before the High Court of Tricity and High Court Johran
by the civil society group called Rights & Justice and an NGO, SaveChildren,
demanding that all social media and instant communication platforms be tracked
and monitored due to the abuse of Social Media platforms.
5. An individual Mr. Chaurasia had filed the case before the High Court of East
Rajlok requesting for a writ of Mandamus to be issued to direct the State Govt. to

order all citizens to link their social media accounts to iCards and to immediately
delete the accounts of the individuals involved in such act.
6. Against this order, social media companies approached the SC to question the
legality of the order on the premises of guarantee of freedom of expression and
accordingly contended that writ of certiorari may be issued against the order of
the High Courts.
7. An NGO who had earlier opposed the forceful imposition of iCards on the citizens,
intervened and opposed what they claimed was a veiled attack on the privacy of
individuals on social media on the grounds that there were already rules in place
for allowing Investigation Agencies to request for information from the social
media companies, and any further access of private information would allow the
Govt. to misuse the data and target dissidents and organizations which may have
been critical of it.

ISSUES RAISED
The counsel on behalf of petitioner wants to raise these issues in front of Hon’ble SC of
Antopia:
I. WHETHER THE JUDICIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURTS IS

AMENABLE TO BE CORRECTED BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI?
II. WHETHER THERE IS ANY RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER THE

CONSITTUTION?
III. WHETHER THE STAE HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE LINKING

ICARDS WITH SOCIAL MEDIA?

MOOT COURT COMPETITION ,2020
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. Whether the judicial order passed by the High Courts is amenable to be

corrected by a writ of certiorari
The counsel on behalf of the respondents most humbly submit that the judicial
order passed by the HC is maintainable before the Hon'ble Court as it does not
infringe the fundamental rights. The writ of certiorari can not be issued when
substantial justice has been done, as no exceptional or special circumstances
exist.The HC is not subject to the certiorari jurisdiction of the SC.
II. Whether there is any right to privacy under the Constitution.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that right to privacy is a not an
absolute fundamental right as evolved by the court in its various pronouncements
and also that the judgement by the HC is not in violation of the fundamental
rights, provided to citizen under the ambit of Part III of the Constitution of
Antopia.
III. Whether State has the power to enforce linking iCards with social media
accounts.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the State can enforce
linking the iCard with social media accounts to maintain the peace and public order.
Also, iCard does not violate any fundamental rights ensured under Part III of the
Antopian Constitution. The govt. while enacting iCard Act 2016, has guaranteed
substantive measures against any contingency.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1ST ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL VIRTUAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION ,2020
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER THE JUDICIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURTS IS

AMENABLE TO BE CORRECTED BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI?
1. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble SC that the order of Hon’ble HC, issuing Writ
of Mandamus to the State and Central govt. to regulate and monitor the social media
channels by linking the iCards and also order EyeFace, TextUp and TwitPeep, to
immediately delete the accounts of the individuals, does not infringe the Right to Privacy,
and Freedom of Speech and Expression, hence writ of certiorari shall not be issued against
the judgement of the HC
2. The Writ of Certiorari can be issued by the SC or any HC for quashing the order already
passed by an inferior court, tribunal or quasi judicial authority.
I.1. Highcourts have the jurisdiction to pass writs under art. 226
3. The writ of certiorari can not be issued when substantial justice has been done, as no
exceptional or special circumstances exist. Also, the present case involves no substantial
error regarding question of law and question of fact. The HC is not subject to the certiorari
jurisdiction of the SC. Hence, no decision of the HC can be challenged in an application
under Art. 32.1
In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque2 it was said that with regard to the issue of a writ
of certiorari the following propositions may be taken as established:
“(1) 'Certiorari' will be issued for correcting errors of Jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court
or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it.
(2) 'Certiorari' will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of
its undouble jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be
heard, or violates the principles of natural justice.”
1
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1967 SC1
2
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque AIR 1955 SC 233
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 1

(3) The Court issuing a writ of 'certiorari' acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate
jurisdiction."
4. In the case at hand, the HC has very judiciously decided and issued the writ of mandamus.
Moreover there has been no failure of justice. Art.226 of Antopian Constitution gives HC
the power to issue certain writs.
II.2. Writ to mandamus issued by HC does not violate any fundamental rights.
5. No action lies in the SC under art. 32 unless there is an infringement of fundamental

right,3 as the SC has previously emphasized that “The violation of fundamental right is a
sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by art. 32”4. In the given case,
“EyeFace Inc. & ors. V. Republic of Antopia” it was the act of the petitioners which
breached the ethics by not having their own policies to combat such situations.
6. Platforms like TextUp, EyeFace, and TwitPeep etc allowed pictures and videos to become
viral and reach thousands of people in a matter of minutes. After multiple cases of
innocent people being lynched because of fake news on TextUp, EyeFace etc by
anti-social individuals to target members of the particular community in Antopia, the civil
society group called Rights & Justice filed a case before the High Court of Tricity, the
largest state of Antopia, demanding that all social media and instant communication
platforms, including but not limited to EyeFace, TwitPeep, and TextUp be tracked and
monitored5.
7. Only after occurrence of such incidents the HC was compelled to issue writ of mandamus
and hence, no fundamental right has been infringed. In addition to this, a person acquires a
locus standi, when he has to have a personal or individual right which has been violated
or threatened to be violated.6 Since no right of petitioner has been infringed, he has no
locus standi before the court.
8. The sole object of art. 32 is the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under
the constitution. Whatever other remedies may be open to a person aggrieved, he has no
right to complaint under art 32, where no ‘fundamental’ right has been infringed.7 It is
3
Andra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Force AIR 1974 SC1539
4
Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. UOI AIR 1981 SC 344
5
¶ 3 Moot Preposition
6
Calcutta Gas Company Ltd. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1962 SC 104.
7
Gopal Das v. UOI AIR 1967 SC 1244.

observed by the Hon’ble Justice Patanjali Shastri that,“Man as a rational being desires to
do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be controlled, regulated....”8
9. A restriction that promotes directive principles is generally regarded as reasonable i.e. the
restriction must receive its reorientation from Directive Principles.9 In the present case
the judgement indirectly aims to achieve art. 38 of the constitution. It aims at social order
whereas hate speech and fake news on social media resulted in destroying social order
Art. 38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people
(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as
effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall
inform all the institutions of the national life10
.
10. Restrictions imposed due to implementation of directive principles may deem to be
reasonable.11 The linking of social media to iCard is justified as the hate speech that was
spread via social media may create a situation of agitation affecting the tranquility of
Antopia.
I.3 The Govt. has the power to take actions against the crimes on social media.
11. A law which violates the fundamental rights of a person is void.12 The govt has exclusive
power to make laws with respect to this issue. The govt. is justified in making such a rule
as linking of iCards with social media, as the law qualifies being reasonable as it falls
under the ambit of the state’s power. Sec. 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
gives power to the Central Govt. to frame rules and in terms thereof, the Information
Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011.13 Power to issue directions for
interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer
resource14. The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency
referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.15
8
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
9
Kasturi Lal Laxmi Reddy v State of J&k., (1980) 4 SCC
10
Art.38 Indian Constituion
11
State of Bombay vs SN Balsara AIR1951 SC318
12
Namit Sharma v UOI AIR 1965 SC 745(145)
13
Facebook inc v. UOI Transfer Petition(s) (Civil) No.(s) 1943-1946/2019
14
Sec 69 of Information Technology Act, 2000
15
Sec. 69(4) Information Technology Ac. 2000.

12. In the aforesaid sections it is clearly mentioned that the Central Govt. or any of its officers
specially authorized by it in this behalf, order for preventing incitement to the commission
of any cognizable offence and in so doing he has to record his reasons in writing and only
then a direction can be given to the agency concerned.16
13. The state is entitled to curb freedom of speech and expression if it is likely to trigger
communal antagonism and hatred.17
14. It is humbly submitted before the honorable court, that linking iCard with social media
brought by the respondent is not in violation of fundamental right guaranteed under part
III of the Constitution and hence the writ to mandamus must prevail, and writ of certiorari
must not be issued.
II. WHETHER THERE IS ANY RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER CONSTITUTION?
15. The counsel on behalf of respondents humbly submits before the Hon’ble SC of Antopia
that the iCard proposed by Govt. of Antopia for the welfare of our people is not in any
way a threat to the privacy of our people. The European Convention on Human Rights
represents a valiant attempt to tackle this issue. Art. 8 of the European Convention on
Human Right states: "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
II.1. Judicial interpretation of the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right
16. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the “right to privacy” is not covered
under the ambit of Indian constitution. The claim of petitioners that the right is a result of
development of law is totally baseless and lacks ground. The right to privacy has never
been a part of the constitutional scheme neither by any peculiar method of development of
law can we deduce the existence of such a right. “Exercise of Right to Privacy guaranteed
by the constitution of India is not absolute,”18
16
Facebook Inc. v. State of West Bengal C.R.R. No. 2332 of 2017.
17
State of Karnataka vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai Togariya AIR 2004 SC2081.
18
Sharda vs. Dharam Pal 2003(4) SCC 493, Ramlila Maidan incident vs home secretary, UOI 2012(5) SCC(1).

17. The bench of eight judges of this court have denied it in M.P.Sharma vs. Satish Chandra19
observing that “when the constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such
regulation to constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy,
analogous to the American fourth amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a
totally different fundamental right, by some process of strained construction.” Similar
question on privacy was argued upon in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh20 where
the court held “….nor do we consider that Art.21 has any relevance in this regard and
that our constitution does not in terms confer any like constitutional guarantee.”
18. Also in Kharak Singh Case majority stated “The right of privacy is not a guaranteed right
under our Constitution, and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an
individual is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded and is not an infringement of a
fundamental right guaranteed in Part III.” In view of the judgments of the SC in M.P.
Sharma & Others v. Satish Chandra & Others, and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others, (decided by Eight and Six Judges respectively) the legal position
regarding the existence of the fundamental right to privacy is doubtful.
19. Later observation by SC smaller benches in R. Rajagopal & Another v. State of Tamil
Nadu & Others21 (popularly known as Auto Shanker’s case) and People’s Union for Civil
Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India & Another,22 are not binding and in itself
contradictory to the well established principle of precedential jurisprudence of common
law where higher courts judgments are regarded as law. The Supreme Court in State Of
Andhra vs. A.P.Jaiswal23 emphasizing upon the need for the courts to follow the principle
of stare decisis, has observed: “consistency is the cornerstone of the administration of
justice. It is consistency which creates confidence in the system and this consistency can
never be achieved without respect to the rule of finality. It is with a view to achieve
consistency in judicial pronouncements, the courts have evolved the rule of precedents,
principle of stare decisis etc. these rules and principles are based on public policy and if
these are not followed by courts then there will be chaos in the administration of justice.”
Hence the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are of smaller benches and are
inconsistent with the doctrine of stare decisis and should be considered as divergent
judicial opinion.
19
AIR (1954) SC 300,Pg. 306 ¶ 18
20
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295
21
R. Rajagopal & Another v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others,(1994) 6 SCC 632
22
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India & Another, (1997) 1 SCC 301
23
State Of Andhra vs. A.P.Jaiswal, 12(2001) 1 SCC 748

20. The govt. Can impose reasonable restrictions as and when the situation arises in the
interest of the community24 . The opinion that the freedom guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (d)
is not infringed by a watch being kept over the movements of the suspect25. The test of
compelling state interest laid down in Gobind v State of Madhya Pradesh & anr26,
provides that Right to Privacy of the people can be compromised in view of compelling
state interest threat to the security, duplicity of identities, spreading of fake news,
misinformation, child pornography, sex trafficking etc are all in the nature of compelling
state interest. Thus, the judgement brought by the HC restricts the rights of the people in
order to safeguard public order, is valid. For instance, in present times, the Arogya Setu
application launched by the govt. to trace COVID-19 contact fetches user’s location and
personal details, does not violate the privacy of an individual, as it is issued in state
interest.
21. In 2005, the SC passed one of its most important privacy related judgments in the case of
District Registrar v. Canara Bank27. The main issue, in the case, related to the privacy of
a customer’s records stored by a financial institution such as a bank. The impugned
provision was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it
failed the tests of reasonableness enshrined in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
22. Senior advocate C.A. Sundaram for Maharashtra govt.: Privacy is not a fundamental right
but only a "concept". Constitution makers had considered and rejected the idea of privacy
as a fundamental right. For something to be a fundamental right, it has to be tangible and
exact. Privacy has no exactitude, in fact, the concept of privacy varies from person to
person. If made a fundamental right, it would open a flood of litigation.
23. The Counsel humbly states that the cases on hand raise far reaching questions of
importance involving interpretation of the Constitution. What is at stake is the amplitude
of the fundamental rights including that precious and inalienable right under Art. 2128.
III. WHETHER STATE HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE LINKING iCARD WITH
SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS?
24. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the State can enforce linking the iCard
with social media accounts to maintain the peace and public order. In the case of Ram
24
Gobind Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh1975 AIR 1378, 1975 SCR(3) 946
25
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295
26
AIR 1378, 1975 SCR(3) 946
27
District Registrar v. Canara Bank. (2005) 1 SCC 496
28
Indian Constitution

Prasad v state of Bihar29 the govt. brought legislation to cancel the lease of a particular
individual even though the legislation did not satisfy the test of reasonable classification,
to maintain public peace and order.
III.1 Linking iCards with social media accounts will ensure public order
25. Part III and Part IV of the Antopian Constitution, are complementary and supplementary
to each other30 ; the form up provides for civil and political rights while the latter provide
for social and economic rights. Government can impose reasonable restrictions on
fundamental rights for promoting or effectuating a directive principle in Public
Interest ….. a restriction which promotes any objective embodied in the directive
principles is usually considered reasonable by courts of law31
26. Terrorism and hostile neighbours pose a huge threat to National Security of the state, the
linking of iCard to social media by the govt. will help in eliminating all forms of terrorism
by finishing of sleeping module and local support basis of terrortists in the country as they
generally work online. An incident where, Investigation has established that accused
Mufti Suhail and other co-accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to wage a
violent Jihad against the Government of India by use of weapons and explosives to
establish an ISIS Caliphate in India. The module was being guided by three ISIS handlers
based abroad. The module made extensive use of encrypted social media
applications/chat platforms. These have been recovered from their mobile phones.32
27. In UIDAI & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation33 the Unique Identification
Authority of India (UIDAI) itself has approached the SC challenging a Bombay High
Court (HC) order which asked it to consider sharing biometric data collected from people
with the CBI in order to help the investigating agency solve a rape case in Goa.
28. SC in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra34 upheld the conviction on the grounds
which provide instances of restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression on the
grounds of decency and morality, it prohibits the sale or distribution or exhibition of
obscene words.
29
Ram Prasad v state of Bihar 1953 AIR 215
30
Chandra Bhavan Boarding & lodging, Banglore v State of Mysore.AIR 1970 SC 2042.
31
Papanasam Labour Union v Madhura Coats ltd. 1995 SCC 1501.
32
NIA Files Chargesheet in Delhi-Amroha ISIS Module CaseRC-38/2018/NIA-DLI-
https://www.nia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/News/444_1_Pr.pdf
33
UIDAI & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation,Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)
No(s).2524/2014
34
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 881)

29. The govt. while enacting the iCard act, has taken adequate steps to guarantee the security
of data collected. Chapter VI and VII of the iCard Act, 2016 deal with protection of data
of Offenses and Penalties of such data. The National Unique Identification Authority
adopts and implements appropriate technical and organisational security measures to
ensure that the information in the possession or control of the Authority against accidental
or intentional destruction, loss or damage. Hence, linking of social media with iCard is
safe and ensures security of the data.
III.2. Linking the iCard with social media is not violative of any fundamental rights.
30. The counsel humbly submits that linking of iCard does not violate any fundamental rights
ensured under Part III of the Antopian Constitution. The govt. while enacting iCard Act
2016, has guaranteed substantive measures against any contingency.
31. i. Consent: The UIDAI will create regulations for the sharing of information of Aadhaar
number holders with their written consent, with such agencies engaged in the delivery of
public benefits and public services.35 Sec3. (1) Every resident shall be entitled to obtain
an Aadhaar number by submitting his demographic information and biometric
information by undergoing the process of enrolment. They can obtain information from an
individual when he voluntarily agrees to give such information36. In the case of People’s
Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Ors.37, this Court has also endorsed
bio-metric identification of homeless persons so that the benefits like supply of food and
kerosene oil available to persons who are below poverty line can be extended to the
correct beneficiaries.
32. ii. Security measures: The Authority shall ensure the security and confidentiality of
identity information and authentication records of individuals and take measures
(including security safeguards) to ensure that the information in the possession or control
of the Authority (including information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository) is
secured and protected against any loss or unauthorized access or use or unauthorized
disclosure.
33. Sec. 28. (1) The Authority shall ensure the security of identity information and
authentication records of individuals.(3) The Authority shall take all necessary measures
to ensure that the information in the possession or control of the Authority, including
35
The National Identification Authority of India Bill
36
Prabhu Dutt v Union of India
37
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India & Another, (1997) 1 SCC 301

information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository, is secured and protected
against access, use or disclosure not permitted under this Act or regulations made
thereunder, and against accidental or intentional destruction, loss or damage.
34. In the case of Lokniti Foundation v. Union of India & Ors.38, this Court has disposed of
the writ petition while approving the Aadhaar based verification of existing and new
mobile number subscribers and upon being satisfied that an effective process has been
evolved to ensure identity verification.
35. iii. Confidentiality: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force and save as otherwise provided in the proposed legislation, the Authority or
any of its officers or other employee or any agency who maintains the Central Identities
Data Repository shall not reveal any information stored in the Central Identities Data
Repository to any person.
36. Sec. 29(1) of the Act39 strictly provides that no core biometric information, collected or
created under this Act, shall be shared with anyone for any reason whatsoever; or used for
any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication under this Act.
37. There could be no misuse of the iCard database because the govt. holds adequate
provisions against its misuse. Moreover, the iCard is as per ‘procedure established by law’
and its objectives are fair, just and reasonable. It is also the duty of the govt. to ensure that
no misuse of data takes place.
38. So in light of the above all arguments, the state has the power to link iCards with social
media to maintain the peace and public order. Also, iCard does not violate any
fundamental rights ensured under Part III of the Antopian Constitution. The govt. while
enacting iCard Act 2016, has guaranteed substantive measures against any contingency.
38
W.P.(C.)No. 491/2012
39
Sec. 29(1) of Aadhaar Card (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies) Act,2016

PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon'ble SC of Antopia, that it may be graciously
pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1) The direction issued by the HC regarding the linking of social media to iCard should be
declared constitutional, and Writ of Certiorari should not be issued.
2) The right to privacy is a not a fundamental right under the constitution of Antopia.
3) The State has the power to ask the citizens to link iCard with their social media accounts to
maintain peace and public order.
And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of justice,
fairness and good conscience. And for this act of kindness, the counsel of the petitioner shall
be duty bound forever.
ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Place: Republic of Antopia
Date: 19/05/2020
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER xii

STAMMLER Respondent's Memorial PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

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

STAMMLER Respondent's Memorial PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1ST ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL VIRTUAL NATIONAL

TEAM CODE: STAMMLER

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ANTOPIA

W. P.(CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2020

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF ANTOPIA)

EYEFACE INC. & ORS. ……………………….…………. PETITIONER

REPUBLIC OF ANTOPIA & ORS…………………………. RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE

MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………….. iii

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE JUDICIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH

ISSUE II: WHETHER THERE IS ANY RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER THE

ISSUE III: WHETHER STATE HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE LINKING

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2. STATUTES & DOCUMENTS REFFERED:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

22. UIDAI & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Petition(s) for Special

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Sl. No. Name

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE PETITIONERS HAS SUBMITED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE SC THE

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

I. WHETHER THE JUDICIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURTS IS

II. WHETHER THERE IS ANY RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER THE

III. WHETHER THE STAE HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE LINKING

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

I. Whether the judicial order passed by the High Courts is amenable to be

II. Whether there is any right to privacy under the Constitution.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

I. WHETHER THE JUDICIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURTS IS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 1

5. No action lies in the SC under art. 32 unless there is an infringement of fundamental

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 2

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 3

II. WHETHER THERE IS ANY RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER CONSTITUTION?

II.1. Judicial interpretation of the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 4

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 5

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 7

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 8

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 9

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Place: Republic of Antopia

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER xii

Você também pode gostar