Team Code : NMCC013

Team Code : NMCC013

Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF GARU

IN THE MATTER OF

(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32, 51, 139A, GARU ENVIRONMENT ACT AND
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT, DPDP, 2023)

AKS ….PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF GARU & ANR. ….RESPONDENT

Written submission on behalf of the Petitioner

Counsel for the Petitioner

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations 3

Index of Authorities: 4-6:

Books Referred 4-5
Websites Referred 5-6
Case Laws Referred and Cited 6

Statement of Jurisdiction 7

Statement of Facts 8-10

Issues Raised 11

Summary of Arguments 12-13

Arguments Advanced 14-27

Prayer 28

2
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. ANR. - Another
2. Art./Arts. - Article/Articles
3. CEO - Chief Executive Officer
4. EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment
5. GBI - Garu Bureau of Investigation
6. GDPR - General Data Protection Regulation
7. GNS - Garu Nyaya Sanhita (Criminal Code of Garu)
8. GT - Green Tribunal
9. Hon’ble - Honorable
10. ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
11. ICJ - International Court of Justice
12. IT Act - Information Technology Act, 2000
13. NGO - Non-Governmental Organization
14. OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
15. Paris Agreement - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) Agreement on Climate Change
16. PIL - Public Interest Litigation
17. PPP - Polluter Pays Principle
18. Precautionary Principle - Principle of Preventative Environmental Regulation
19. SC - Supreme Court
20. SDGs - Sustainable Development Goals
21. THRSL - TechHorizon RadSolutions Ltd.
22. UN - United Nations
23. UN Charter - Charter of the United Nations
24. UOI - Union of India
25. v. - Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. BOOKS REFERRED

3
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
● Environmental Law Violations
1. Environmental Law" – Dr. P. Leelakrishnan
2. "Principles of International Environmental Law" – Philippe Sands & Jacqueline
Peel
3. "Environmental Law in India" – Shyam Divan & Armin Rosencranz
4. "Climate Change and Environmental Ethics" – Donald Brown
● Data Privacy and Protection Violations
1. "The Right to Privacy" – Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Gautam Bhatia
2. "Data Protection Law in India" – Apar Gupta
3. "Cyber Law and Data Protection" – Pavan Duggal
4. "Information Technology Law and Practice" – Vakul Sharma
5. "Cybersecurity and Cyberwar" – P.W. Singer & Allan Friedman
6. "The Right to Privacy" – Gautam Bhatia
● Corporate Criminal Liability & Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
1. "Principles of Corporate Criminal Liability" – Celia Wells
2. "Corporate Criminal Liability: Emergence, Convergence, and Risk" – Mark Pieth
& Radha Ivory
3. "Economic Crimes: A Guide to Corporate and Financial Fraud" – Dr. S.C.
Sharma
4. "Law of Corporate Governance: Principles and Practices" – Dr. Anil Kumar
Thakur
● Bail Considerations for Mr. Sonu (CEO of THRSL)
1. "Law of Bail, Bonds & Arrest" – Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
2. “The Law of Criminal Procedure" – R.V. Kelkar
3. "White Collar Crimes and Corporate Criminal Liability" – Sushil Kumar Sharma
● International Law References (For Cross-Border Data and Environmental Harm)
1. "Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law" – James Crawford
2. "International Law" – Malcolm N. Shaw
3. "The Law of Transboundary Pollution" – Alexandre Kiss & Dinah Shelton
● Fundamental Rights Violations
1. "Introduction to the Constitution of India" – Dr. D.D. Basu

4
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
2. "Fundamental Rights and Their Enforcement" – Dr. U.C. Srivastava
3. "Human Rights and Constitutional Law" – Dr. S.K. Kapoor
● Administrative Law
1. "Administrative Law" – I.P. Massey
2. "Public Administration and Governance" – M.P. Jain
3. "Law of Torts and Consumer Protection" – Dr. R.K. Bangia
4. "State Liability in Tort: Government Accountability in India" – Dr. S. K. Shukla

B. WEBSITES REFERRED

1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]
4. [Link]
5. [Link]
6. [Link]
7. [Link]
8. [Link]
9. [Link]
10. [Link]
11. [Link]
12. [Link]
13. [Link]
14. [Link]
15. [Link]
16. [Link]
17. [Link]
18. [Link]
19. [Link]
20. [Link]
21. [Link]

5
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
C. CASE LAWS CITED:

1. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

2. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
3. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)
6. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan (1980)
7. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
8. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI (2020)
9. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
10. Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishakha Industries (2020)
11. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)
12. State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone (1981)
13. Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005)
14. Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. (2010)
15. State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987)
16. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019)
17. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
18. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
19. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999)
20. Narmada Bachao Andolan v UOI
21. Research Foundation for Science vs. Union of India (2005),

6
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. This Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction over the present matter under Article 32 of the
Constitution of the State of Garu, as the issues raised are of public importance and
concern the violation of fundamental rights of the citizens of Garu, their right to a healthy
environment,1 privacy2, and access to clean water3, particularly violating Article 21
(Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and Article 14 (Right to Equality).
2. The matters raised herein pertain to serious violations of domestic environmental laws,
including the Garu Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972, as well as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which have widespread
and transboundary ramifications4, affecting not only the citizens of Garu but also citizens
of neighboring nations, particularly Nakul, and global communities at large. It is
imperative under Article 32 and Article 51 for this Hon’ble Court to take up the matter in
the interest of maintaining Garu’s international reputation and to avoid adverse
diplomatic consequences.
3. The transfer of sensitive personal data across borders without adequate safeguards, falls
within the purview of this Hon’ble Court’s jurisdiction to uphold the constitutional rights
of Garu’s citizens and ensure compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR)5. The Petitioner submits that the ongoing violations of
environmental standards and privacy laws by the Respondents have not only caused
immediate harm to local ecosystems and agricultural activities in Garu but also
jeopardized the country’s international commitments to the Paris Agreement and United
Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), thus giving this Hon’ble Court
jurisdiction over the matter under both domestic and international law.
4. This petition further prays for the transfer of the ongoing case from the Kriti High Court
and Green Tribunal (GT) to this Hon'ble Court under Article 139A to ensure coordinated

1
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965
2
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
3
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420
4
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh" (1985) AIR 1985 SC 652
5
Article 17, ICCPR

7
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
and swift disposal, considering the international and national importance of the case, as
well as the cross-border nature of the violations.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State of Garu is a nation renowned for its diverse society, ecological resources, and growing
economy. With a robust manufacturing sector, it has positioned itself as a key player in the
global digital economy. In this context, the multinational company TechHorizon RadSolutions
Ltd. (THRSL) established a data processing facility in Garu, specifically in the ecologically
sensitive region of Kriti on the West Coast. The data center was positioned as a state-of-the-art
technological innovation that would benefit both Garu's economy and global technological
needs.

Kriti is a region protected under the Garu Environment Act and Wildlife Conservation Act.
While the company obtained necessary environmental clearances to set up the facility, it did not
adequately disclose or account for the significant environmental impact its operations would
have. The center consumed large quantities of water from nearby rivers, resulting in depletion of
local water resources. The untreated waste generated by the data center was discharged into local
streams, causing severe damage to local ecosystems, water quality, and agricultural activities.
Furthermore, the data center's energy consumption, largely derived from coal-powered plants,
contributed to a substantial carbon footprint, leading to concerns about climate change and
environmental degradation.

THRSL made several promises to the local community of Kriti, including the creation of 10,000
jobs and the provision of welfare facilities, which were monitored through a THRSL Job
Tracker. Despite these promises, local villagers began to raise concerns about the adverse
environmental effects of the data center, specifically the depletion of water resources and the
contamination of local rivers and streams.

The villagers reported a noticeable decrease in water quality and a decline in agricultural yield
due to the contamination caused by the waste discharge from the data center. These concerns
were substantiated by investigations carried out by the local NGO AKS, which uncovered that

8
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
the data center’s operations were having a detrimental effect on the local environment and the
livelihoods of the people in Kriti.

Further investigations revealed that THRSL was engaged in the processing of sensitive personal
data from millions of users worldwide, including citizens of Garu. It was found that the company
had been collecting and storing this sensitive data without proper consent, violating the
provisions of Garu’s Data Protection Act. Additionally, THRSL was transferring personal data
across borders to countries with less stringent privacy laws, thus compromising the security and
privacy of Garu’s citizens. This practice led to the exposure of Garu citizens' sensitive data on
the darknet, resulting in public outcry.

AKS, a local NGO focused on social upliftment, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the
Kriti High Court addressing the environmental harm caused by THRSL’s data center. The PIL
raised concerns about violations of both constitutional and environmental laws, including the
Garu Environment Act and the Wildlife Conservation Act. Simultaneously, the Garu Bureau of
Investigation (GBI) began investigating the company for violations of environmental laws and
data privacy breaches. The investigation revealed that THRSL was not only violating Garu's
environmental standards but also jeopardizing citizens' privacy through inadequate data
protection measures.

In response to the growing concerns, the GBI filed a chargesheet under the Garu Nyaya Sanhita
(Garu Penal Code) for environmental violations and data privacy breaches. The charges included
illegal waste disposal, deforestation, pollution, and unauthorized cross-border data transfers. The
CEO of THRSL, Mr. Sonu, was arrested by the GBI, and his bail was rejected by both the Trial
Court and the Kriti High Court due to the seriousness of the offenses committed by the company
under his leadership.

Local environmental activists and AKS have filed a petition before the Green Tribunal (GT)
seeking redress for the environmental damage caused by the THRSL data center. The petitioners
argue that the company’s actions not only violate Garu’s domestic environmental laws but also
contravene international climate agreements to which Garu is a signatory.

9
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
The matter gained significant international attention after Prime Minister Ramaiya of the
neighboring nation, Nakul, publicly alerted Garu to the violations concerning data privacy and
the transboundary environmental harm caused by the data center. The State of Nakul, along with
other foreign governments, expressed concerns about THRSL's actions, stating that they violate
international privacy standards and environmental conventions. These governments threatened to
impose trade sanctions and restrict THRSL’s operations unless corrective actions were taken.
However, the State of Garu issued no formal response to the statements issued by Nakul and
other countries.

In light of the international outcry and the pressing need for a swift resolution, AKS has moved
to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Garu with a petition for transferring the ongoing cases from the
Kriti High Court and the Green Tribunal (GT) to the Supreme Court for expedited adjudication.
The petition stresses the public importance of the case, as well as the potential damage to Garu’s
international reputation, and seeks a coordinated resolution of all issues involved.

10
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether THRSL violates Garu’s environmental laws, including the Garus Environment
Act and Wildlife Conservation Act by establishing a data center in an ecologically
sensitive area without proper environmental clearances and causing transboundary harm?
2. Whether THRSL's actions violate the provisions of the Data Protection Act, particularly
with regard to the processing of sensitive personal data, the lack of proper consent, and
cross-border data transfers without adequate safeguards?
3. Whether criminal liability under the Garu Nyaya Sanhita be extended to corporations
operating outside Garu whose activities cause environmental or privacy harm within
Garu or in other countries?
4. Whether Mr. Sonu should be released on bail?
5. Whether the principle of “Polluter Pays” and “Precautionary Principle” applies to
THRSL for the environmental damage caused?

11
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Violation of Environmental Laws & Transboundary Harm

THRSL has violated the Garus Environment Act, 1986 and Wildlife Conservation Act,
1972 by setting up a data center in an ecologically sensitive zone without adequately
disclosing its high water consumption and waste disposal practices. The release of
untreated effluents, depletion of water resources, and reliance on coal-powered energy
constitute an environmental hazard and violate the Polluter Pays Principle and
Precautionary Principle. Additionally, its emissions contribute to transboundary harm,
violating international environmental obligations under the Paris Agreement and UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). THRSL’s data privacy violations,
environmental degradation, and impact on livelihoods infringe upon the Fundamental
Rights of citizens under Article 21 (Right to Life and Privacy), and Article 14 (Right to
Equality). The Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) recognized the
right to a clean environment as part of the Right to Life, and in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
v. Union of India (2017), upheld privacy as a fundamental right.

2. Violation of Data Protection Laws & International Privacy Standards

THRSL would be held liable under Section 72A of the IT Act, 2000 as it’s unauthorized
collection, storage, and transfer of sensitive personal data of Garu’s citizens without
explicit consent violates the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, infringing upon
the Right to Privacy under Article 216. The cross-border transfer of data to nations with
weak privacy laws and subsequent leaks on the darknet further violate global data
protection norms such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The failure to

6
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

12
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
implement adequate security safeguards makes THRSL liable under Google India Pvt.
Ltd. v. Vishakha Industries (2020).

3. Corporate Criminal Liability Under Garu Nyaya Sanhita (GNS)

The Garu Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, extends criminal liability to foreign corporations engaged
in environmental and cyber violations within Garu’s jurisdiction7. In Standard Chartered
Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005), it was established that corporations are not
immune from criminal prosecution, while Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.
(2010) held that corporate executives can be held accountable for corporate wrongdoing.

4. Denial of Bail to Mr. Sonu

Given the severity of offenses, risk of evidence tampering, and public interest, the denial
of bail by the Trial Court and High Court is justified. State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal (1987) held that economic offenses demand stricter bail conditions,
while P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) emphasized that bail should
not be granted when an accused is likely to abscond or influence proceedings.

5. Application of the “Polluter Pays” and “Precautionary Principle” to THRSL

THRSL must compensate for environmental harm under the Polluter Pays Principle 8, and
stricter regulatory oversight must be imposed under the Precautionary Principle, as held
in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) and A.P. Pollution Control
Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999).

7
Sec 1(5), Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
8
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212

13
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Violation of Environmental Laws & Transboundary Harm

It is respectfully submitted that TechHorizon RadSolutions Ltd. (THRSL) has violated the Garu
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Wildlife Conservation Act, 1972, by establishing a
data center in an ecologically sensitive region without adequately disclosing the extent of its
environmental impact. The data center, located in Kriti, has been found to consume large
amounts of water from nearby rivers, leading to severe depletion of local water resources and
subsequent environmental degradation. Furthermore, the release of untreated effluents into
nearby streams has affected agricultural activities and ecosystems, causing irreversible damage
to the environment and threatening biodiversity in a legally protected area. Industries causing
pollution are liable under the Polluter Pays Principle, which mandates that those responsible for
environmental damage must bear the cost of restoration9. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India (1996), the Court imposed strict liability on industries that failed to
adopt adequate measures for pollution control.

In addition to these national violations, THRSL’s operations have significant transboundary

implications due to their excessive reliance on coal-powered energy, contributing substantially to
carbon emissions. The Precautionary Principle dictates that where environmental risks exist,
preventive action must be taken, even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence 10.
THRSL’s failure to mitigate these risks violates Garu’s commitments under the Paris Agreement
and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)11. Given the international
dimensions of environmental harm, the State of Nakul has expressed concerns regarding

9
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
10
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718
11
SDG 13 (Climate Action) & SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)

14
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
transboundary pollution, further escalating diplomatic tensions and highlighting the urgent need
for stricter environmental compliance mechanisms.

The actions of TechHorizon RadSolutions Ltd. (THRSL) have resulted in grave violations of
fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of Garu, particularly Article 21 (Right to
Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 14 (Right to Equality). The Supreme Court of India, in
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), affirmed that the right to a clean and healthy
environment is an essential component of Article 21, stating that any environmental pollution
affecting water, air, or soil infringes upon the right to life of the citizens. The reduction in water
quality, destruction of agricultural land, and pollution of air and water sources have had an
adverse impact on the health and livelihood of the local community. The State’s failure to
prevent this degradation amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to life and dignity.

Furthermore, THRSL’s data collection, storage, and unauthorized transfer of sensitive personal
information without explicit consent also violate Article 21 12. THRSL’s negligent data security
practices, which led to the exposure of personal data on the darknet, have placed individuals at
risk of infringement upon their right to informational privacy.

Additionally, THRSL’s operations disproportionately affect the local rural population in Kriti,
violating their right to equality under Article 14. While the company enjoys massive profits and
has received favorable regulatory treatment, the indigenous and agrarian communities have been
deprived of basic resources, including access to clean water and a sustainable environment. The
Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) (Ganga Pollution Case) emphasized that
the right to a pollution-free environment is fundamental and must be upheld without
discrimination.

2. Violation of Data Protection Laws & International Privacy Standards

THRSL’s actions represent a flagrant violation of Garu’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act,
2023, as well as international privacy standards, making it imperative for the judiciary to
intervene and uphold the fundamental right to privacy of Garu’s citizens. The company has
unlawfully collected, stored, and transferred sensitive personal datawithout obtaining informed

12
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

15
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
consent, which is a direct affront to privacy protections enshrined in both domestic and
international law.

Violation of the Right to Privacy under Garu’s Constitution: The Right to Privacy is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of Garu, as recognized in Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). The Supreme Court of India in this case categorically held
that privacy is intrinsic to personal liberty and dignity, and any infringement of this right must
pass the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. THRSL’s unauthorized data processing,
storage, and transfer mechanisms violate this very standard, as they fail to meet the constitutional
mandate of just, fair, and reasonable restrictions on the right to privacy.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Justice Puttaswamy (2017) emphasized that any processing
of personal data must be conducted with explicit consent and lawful purpose. THRSL, however,
has indiscriminately collected and stored user data without transparency, failing to provide
citizens of Garu with the right to opt-out or control their personal information. This deliberate
disregard for data protection norms exacerbates the risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and
unauthorized surveillance, making THRSL’s conduct constitutionally untenable.

Breach of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: The Digital Personal Data Protection
Act, 2023 (DPDPA) was enacted to regulate the collection, processing, and transfer of personal
data, ensuring user autonomy and protection. THRSL has grossly violated several provisions of
this Act, including:

● Section 4: Mandates that personal data shall be processed only for lawful purposes, which
THRSL has failed to demonstrate.
● Section 6: Requires free, specific, and informed consent from users before data
collection. THRSL’s unauthorized collection and storage of Garu citizens’ sensitive data
without their explicit permission directly contravenes this provision.
● Section 8: Obliges data fiduciaries to ensure data security and protection measures to
prevent breaches and leaks. The fact that Garu citizens’ sensitive data has been found on
the darknet signifies THRSL’s gross negligence in implementing cybersecurity
safeguards, thereby endangering millions.

16
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
● Section 17: Imposes restrictions on cross-border data transfer, particularly to jurisdictions
with weaker privacy laws. THRSL has been illegally transferring data to foreign nations
with inadequate safeguards, thereby violating Garu’s data sovereignty and exposing its
citizens to exploitation.

The company’s blatant disregard for data security protocols and user protection calls for severe
penalties, including financial sanctions, criminal liability, and immediate suspension of its data
processing activities.

Unauthorized Cross-Border Data Transfers and International Law Violations: THRSL has
illegally transferred sensitive personal data of Garu’s citizens to foreign jurisdictions with weak
data protection laws, thereby compromising national security and individual privacy rights. This
conduct contravenes key international privacy frameworks, including:

● The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 17 of the
ICCPR explicitly protects individuals from arbitrary interference with privacy and
mandates that governments ensure effective safeguardsagainst such violations. THRSL’s
failure to obtain user consent and its indiscriminate transfer of personal data abroad
violates this principle.
● The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): The European Union’s GDPR sets
strict conditions on cross-border data transfers, requiring companies to ensure adequate
safeguards in recipient nations. THRSL’s negligence in transferring Garu’s sensitive data
to weaker jurisdictions violates the principles of data minimization, purpose limitation,
and security, making it liable for regulatory penalties.

Additionally, in Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishakha Industries (2020), the Supreme Court of
India held that technology companies bear responsibility for data security breaches affecting
users. THRSL’s reckless data transfers, without ensuring strong privacy protections in recipient
nations, mirrors the violations condemned in Google India, thus necessitating strict regulatory
action.

The Supreme Court has also reinforced data localization as a key requirement in Internet and
Mobile Association of India v. RBI (2020), wherein the Court ruled in favor of ensuring data

17
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
remains within national jurisdiction for greater security, regulatory oversight, and prevention of
misuse. THRSL’s deliberate disregard for data localization requirements is a direct contravention
of legal precedents and must be addressed through judicial intervention.

Criminal Liability Under Cyber Laws and National Security Threat: THRSL’s actions not only
violate data protection norms but also amount to serious cyber offenses under Garu’s
Information Technology Act, 2000. The following provisions are particularly relevant:

● Section 72A: Criminalizes the intentional disclosure of personal data without consent.
THRSL’s unauthorized storage and dissemination of personal data, resulting in its
exposure on the darknet, falls squarely under this offense.
● Section 43: Imposes liability for negligence leading to unauthorized access of personal
data. THRSL’s failure to implement encryption, firewalls, and other cybersecurity
measures has led to massive data leaks, making it liable for heavy penalties.
● Section 66: Deals with hacking and unauthorized access. The dissemination of Garu
citizens’ personal information on the darknet indicates that THRSL either negligently
allowed hackers access or failed to prevent data exfiltration, thereby warranting criminal
prosecution.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of cybersecurity in protecting
digital rights. The leakage of Garu citizens’ data on the darknet exposes them to financial fraud,
identity theft, and surveillance by foreign entities, raising serious national security concerns.
THRSL’s gross negligence in handling highly sensitive user data, coupled with its deliberate
non-compliance with data protection laws, poses an existential threat to digital sovereignty and
public trust.

Urgent Judicial Intervention Required to Protect Data Sovereignty: Given the international
implications of THRSL’s cyber violations, immediate judicial intervention is imperative to:

1. Hold THRSL accountable for its violations under domestic and international data
protection frameworks.
2. Prevent further data breaches by ordering the immediate suspension of THRSL’s data
processing activities.

18
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
3. Mandate the return of all unlawfully transferred data to Garu, ensuring strict data
localization compliance.
4. Impose strict penalties and criminal liability to set a precedent for corporate
accountability in the digital era.
5. Safeguard national security by ensuring that foreign governments and hostile actors
cannot exploit Garu citizens’ sensitive data.

In light of the gross privacy violations, national security risks, and international legal breaches,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court must prioritize data sovereignty and the fundamental rights of
Garu’s citizens by ensuring stringent enforcement of data protection laws against THRSL.
Failure to act decisively will set a dangerous precedent, weakening Garu’s legal authority over
data privacy and emboldening corporations to disregard consumer rights and digital security
standards.

3. Corporate Criminal Liability Under Garu Nyaya Sanhita (GNS)

It is respectfully submitted that TechHorizon RadSolutions Ltd. (THRSL) must be held

criminally liable under Section 78 of the Garu Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (GNS) due to its active
involvement in environmental destruction, data privacy breaches, and cybersecurity violations
within the jurisdiction of Garu. The doctrine of corporate criminal liability, firmly established in
international and domestic legal frameworks, ensures that corporations cannot evade
responsibility for unlawful actions that cause harm to the environment, society, and individuals.
Given the severity of THRSL’s violations and the direct involvement of its senior management,
the company must be prosecuted under the GNS to ensure accountability and deterrence.

Legal Framework of Corporate Criminal Liability under GNS: The Garu Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, recognizes corporate criminal liability and explicitly extends it to foreign corporations
operating within Garu’s jurisdiction. Section 78 of the GNS is a comprehensive provision that
holds corporations accountable for offenses related to environmental destruction, data privacy
breaches, and cybercrimes. This aligns with the global trend of corporate accountability,
ensuring that businesses adhere to strict regulatory norms when operating in foreign
jurisdictions.

19
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
The doctrine of corporate criminal liability has been well established in Indian and international
jurisprudence. In Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. (2010), the Supreme Court of
India ruled that corporate entities can be held criminally liable for offenses requiring mens rea
(criminal intent), provided that individuals in control of the company were involved in the
misconduct. Similarly, in Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005), the
Court ruled that corporations are not immune from prosecution simply because they are artificial
entities. These judgments set a strong precedent for holding THRSL accountable under GNS.

Moreover, international conventions such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption
(UNCAC) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises emphasize corporate responsibility for environmental
and data protection violations. These frameworks provide persuasive authority to support the
argument that THRSL’s conduct warrants criminal prosecution.

THRSL’s Criminal Liability for Environmental Violations: THRSL’s data processing facility
has caused severe and irreversible environmental damage in the protected West Coast region of
Garu, violating the Garu Environment Act, the Wildlife Conservation Act, and international
environmental standards. The following facts substantiate THRSL’s liability:

● THRSL misrepresented the scale of its environmental impact when obtaining regulatory
approvals. Although it secured permits, it failed to disclose the disproportionate water
consumption required for its data center operations.
● The company excessively extracted water from nearby rivers, leading to severe depletion
of local water resources, which directly harmed agricultural activities and disrupted the
livelihoods of local communities.
● The discharge of untreated wastewater into nearby streams has polluted drinking water
sources and destroyed local ecosystems, violating environmental protection laws.
● THRSL heavily relied on coal-powered electricity, contributing to high levels of carbon
emissions. This contradicts international commitments to climate action, including the
Paris Agreement, to which Garu is a signatory.

20
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
● The Green Tribunal (GT) proceedings against THRSL reinforce the gravity of its
environmental violations. The tribunal has jurisdiction over corporate environmental
misconduct, and its intervention further justifies criminal action against THRSL.

Under the “Polluter Pays Principle”, recognized in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of
India (1996), industries responsible for environmental degradation must compensate for the
damage caused. The “Precautionary Principle”, upheld in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004),
mandates that businesses take proactive steps to prevent environmental harm. THRSL’s
negligence in adhering to these principles strengthens the argument for criminal liability.

THRSL’s Criminal Liability for Data Privacy Violations: Apart from environmental
violations, THRSL has engaged in grave data privacy breaches, violating Garu’s Data Protection
Laws and international privacy standards. The investigation by the Garu Bureau of Investigation
(GBI) has revealed that:

● THRSL collected and stored personal data of Garu citizens without obtaining proper
consent, violating fundamental rights to privacy.
● The company failed to implement adequate data security measures, leading to
unauthorized data transfers to foreign jurisdictions with weaker privacy laws.
● Sensitive personal data was found on the darknet, causing public outcry and potential
harm to millions of individuals.

Internationally, corporate data protection obligations are governed by frameworks such as the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union, which imposes strict
requirements on companies handling personal data. The Puttaswamy Judgment (2017) by the
Indian Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right, making data
breaches a serious offense. THRSL’s actions violate both domestic and international privacy
laws, justifying criminal prosecution under the GNS.

Direct Involvement of THRSL’s Top Management: Corporate criminal liability is particularly

enforceable when senior executives are directly involved in the misconduct. In the present case,
Mr. Sonu, the CEO of THRSL, played a central role in both environmental negligence and data
privacy violations. The fact that:

21
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
● He was aware of the environmental damage caused by THRSL’s operations but failed to
take corrective measures.
● He oversaw data processing operations and authorized the transfer of sensitive data to
foreign jurisdictions.

This establishes a clear link between corporate leadership and criminal offenses, making THRSL
criminally liable under the Doctrine of Attribution, which assigns liability to corporations based
on the conduct of their senior management.

The arrest of Mr. Sonu and rejection of his bail by both the Trial Court and the High Court
further demonstrates the gravity of the charges against THRSL. Courts have recognized that
economic offenses, particularly those affecting public welfare, privacy, and environmental
security, must be dealt with stringently.

Corporate Criminal Liability as a Deterrent Against Future Violations: Criminal

prosecution of THRSL under the GNS serves a larger public purpose by:

● Deterring other multinational corporations from engaging in regulatory violations.

● Ensuring foreign companies respect Garu’s environmental and privacy laws.
● Protecting the fundamental rights of Garu citizens.

The Supreme Court’s decision to consolidate all pending cases related to THRSL highlights the
significant national and international implications of the matter. Foreign governments, including
Nakul, have raised diplomatic concerns regarding THRSL’s data privacy breaches, threatening
trade sanctions. This underscores the need for swift and strict legal action against THRSL to
uphold Garu’s sovereign right to enforce its laws.

In light of the overwhelming evidence, it is respectfully submitted that THRSL must be held
criminally liable under Section 78 of the Garu Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The company’s involvement
in environmental destruction, data privacy breaches, and cybersecurity violations warrants
criminal prosecution to uphold the rule of law, protect public interests, and set a strong precedent
for corporate accountability. The direct involvement of THRSL’s top management, the
magnitude of the harm caused, and the serious national and international ramifications
necessitate stringent legal action. Therefore, THRSL must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of

22
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
the law, ensuring justice for the citizens of Garu and safeguarding the country’s environmental
and digital sovereignty.

4. Denial of Bail to Mr. Sonu

It is respectfully submitted that the denial of bail to Mr. Sonu, CEO of TechHorizon
RadSolutions Ltd. (THRSL), is justified in light of the seriousness of the offenses, potential risk
to the investigation, and the broader public and international ramifications of the case. The
principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is not absolute and must be assessed in the
context of the gravity of the alleged offenses and their impact on society.

The charges against Mr. Sonu involve severe environmental degradation, violations of data
privacy laws, regulatory breaches, and corporate malfeasance, all of which have had far-reaching
consequences for both the citizens of Garu and the international community. In the landmark
case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987), the Supreme Court of India held
that in cases involving economic offenses, where large-scale public interest is at stake, stricter
bail conditions must be imposed. The rationale behind this ruling was that economic offenses,
unlike ordinary crimes, can destabilize financial and social structures, undermine public trust,
and have long-term consequences on governance and regulatory compliance. The actions of
THRSL have directly harmed the environment, local communities, and the fundamental rights of
individuals, making it imperative to ensure that those responsible are held accountable.

Additionally, the magnitude of the data breach and its impact on international relations cannot be
ignored. THRSL’s handling of millions of users’ sensitive personal data, including that of Garu’s
citizens, demonstrates gross negligence and non-compliance with national data protection laws.
Furthermore, the unauthorized transfer of data to foreign nations with weaker privacy
regulations, coupled with the leakage of data onto the darknet, has led to public outrage,
diplomatic tensions, and potential trade sanctions against Garu. This situation bears strong
resemblance to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), where the Supreme
Court ruled that bail should not be granted if the accused is likely to abscond, tamper with
evidence, or influence witnesses. Given his corporate influence and financial resources, Mr.
Sonu poses a substantial risk of obstructing the investigation by altering digital records,
intimidating witnesses, or fleeing Garu to evade prosecution. The seriousness of the allegations,

23
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
coupled with increasing international pressure, necessitates his continued detention to ensure a
fair and independent inquiry into THRSL’s malpractices.

Furthermore, environmental crimes have been recognized as a form of corporate negligence and
white-collar crime, requiring strict judicial scrutiny. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the
Supreme Court emphasized that industries causing environmental harm must be held
accountable, and legal measures must be taken to prevent further damage. THRSL’s illegal waste
disposal, depletion of local water resources, and reliance on coal-powered energy have led to
severe ecological consequences for the people of Kriti. The Green Tribunal (GT) case against
THRSL, along with AKS’s PIL in the High Court, underscores the widespread public interest
and significance of the case. Given these circumstances, allowing Mr. Sonu bail at this stage
would send a wrong message to corporate entities, implying that financially powerful individuals
can escape accountability for large-scale violations.

In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012), the Supreme Court reiterated that while bail should not be
denied solely as a form of punishment, the nature of the crime and its impact on the public and
economy must be considered. In the present case, the scale of the offenses, threat to national
security, and potential transboundary harm caused by THRSL’s actions outweigh any individual
right to bail. Additionally, the investigating agency, GBI, has filed a charge sheet under the Garu
Nyaya Sanhita, listing both environmental and data privacy violations, demonstrating that the
prosecution has sufficient prima facie evidence against Mr. Sonu. The fact that both the Trial
Court and the High Court have rejected bail further reinforces the necessity of his continued
detention.

Given these compelling considerations, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court upholds the
denial of bail to Mr. Sonu. His continued judicial custody is crucial not only for the integrity of
the investigation but also for preserving public confidence in the legal system, ensuring justice
for the affected communities, and upholding Garu’s domestic and international legal obligations.

5. Application of the "Polluter Pays" and "Precautionary Principle" to THRSL

The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) and the Precautionary Principle are fundamental
environmental doctrines recognized under both domestic and international law, ensuring that

24
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
those responsible for environmental degradation are held financially and legally accountable.
The Supreme Court of Garu must strictly enforce these principles against TechHorizon
RadSolutions Ltd. (THRSL) for its reckless environmental conduct.

Application of the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) to THRSL: The Polluter Pays Principle, as
recognized in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)13, mandates that
industries causing pollution must compensate for environmental harm and restore damaged
ecosystems. The principle has been widely applied in international environmental law, including
the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), and is also a part of the
environmental jurisprudence of Garu.

THRSL’s establishment of a data processing facility in the ecologically sensitive region of Kriti
has resulted in severe environmental damage. The company:

● Extracted large quantities of water from nearby rivers, leading to water shortages for
local farmers and communities.
● Discharged untreated wastewater into streams, contaminating local water sources and
affecting both aquatic life and agricultural productivity.
● Relied on coal-based energy sources, contributing significantly to carbon emissions and
violating Garu’s commitments under international climate agreements.

Given the severity of environmental damage, THRSL must bear the costs of restoration and
compensation. This includes:

● Compensating affected communities: THRSL must provide monetary relief to local

farmers and residents who have suffered water shortages and declining agricultural yields
due to excessive water extraction and pollution.
● Funding water purification and conservation projects: The pollution of rivers and streams
must be remediated through water treatment initiatives, ensuring that local communities
regain access to safe and clean water.
● Implementing pollution control measures: THRSL should be mandated to install state-of-
the-art waste treatment facilities to ensure that all effluents are treated before discharge.

13
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647

25
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
● Reducing carbon footprint: Given its reliance on coal-powered electricity, THRSL must
transition to renewable energy alternatives, such as solar and wind power, to mitigate
further environmental harm.

The PPP doctrine leaves no room for post-facto justifications- THRSL must restore the
environment to its original state at its own expense, irrespective of prior approvals it obtained
under the Garus Environment Act.

Application of the Precautionary Principle to THRSL: The Precautionary Principle, as

affirmed in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999)14, imposes a duty of care
on industries to anticipate and prevent environmental harm rather than waiting for damage to
occur. The principle is an essential component of sustainable development and is embedded in
global environmental agreements, including the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement.

THRSL failed to adhere to the Precautionary Principle in multiple ways:

● Establishing a high-energy-consuming data center in a fragile ecosystem, disregarding

the risks to local biodiversity and water resources.
● Failing to implement proactive environmental safeguards, such as wastewater treatment
systems or sustainable energy integration, before commencing operations.
● Ignoring early warnings and community grievances regarding water depletion, pollution,
and carbon emissions, thereby escalating environmental harm.

The principle dictates that preventive action must be taken in cases of scientific uncertainty to
avoid environmental degradation. Given that THRSL’s activities pose long-term ecological risks,
the Court must enforce the following regulatory actions:

● Imposing mandatory environmental audits: THRSL must be required to undergo

independent environmental assessments at regular intervals to ensure compliance with
national and international standards.

14
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718

26
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
● Enforcing strict carbon tax penalties: Given its high carbon footprint, THRSL should be
subject to a carbon tax and emissions reduction targets, incentivizing a shift towards
cleaner energy alternatives.
● Mandating transition to sustainable energy: The data center should be required to invest
in renewable energy infrastructure and phase out coal-based power dependency within a
strict timeline.
● Revising environmental impact approvals: The company’s initial approvals should be
reassessed, and its continued operation should be contingent on meeting stringent
sustainability criteria.

The Supreme Court of Garu must recognize that THRSL’s activities represent a grave violation
of both domestic and international environmental laws. Under the Polluter Pays Principle, the
company must fully compensate affected communities and restore damaged ecosystems. Under
the Precautionary Principle, THRSL must be compelled to adopt stringent preventive measures
to mitigate future harm.

Environmental protection cannot be compromised for commercial interests, and as a

technologically advanced nation, Garu must set a global precedent by holding corporations
accountable for ecological damage. The Court must impose strict financial, legal, and operational
penalties on THRSL, ensuring that economic growth does not come at the cost of environmental
destruction.

27
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in light of the provisions of the
Constitution, Statues and other national and international provisions applied and arguments
advanced, the Petitioners most humbly prays that the Supreme Court:

1. Declares THRSL criminally liable under the Garu Nyaya Sanhita for corporate misconduct,
environmental violations, and data privacy breaches.
2. Orders strict penalties and financial sanctions against THRSL for violating domestic and
international laws.
3. Ensures that THRSL’s executives, including Mr. Sonu, face criminal prosecution, setting
a legal precedent for corporate accountability.
4. Affirms the denial of bail to Mr. Sonu, recognizing the seriousness of the offenses and the
risk of evidence tampering.
5. Directs the State of Garu to enforce stricter regulations on foreign corporations, ensuring
that environmental and data protection laws are effectively implemented.
6. Transfers all ongoing cases from the Kriti High Court and Green Tribunal to this Hon’ble
Supreme Court under Article 139A, facilitating expedited proceedings in light of national
and international ramifications.
7. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest
of justice, fairness, and corporate due process.

All of which is humbly prayed for.

Respectfully submitted,

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

28
 Team Code : NMCC013
Xth EDITION NCU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025
On behalf of AKS

29