Page |1

P- TCR05
RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES 2nd
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
(Civil Original Jurisdiction)

Before the Supreme Court of Scindia

Nari Shakti / M/s Meta Inc………………………………Appellant/Petitioner

State of Merala / Union of Sciandian and Anr…………………Respondent

TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF SCINDIA AND HIS LORDSHIP’S

COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL. NO. CONTENTS [Link]

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3-4

3. STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION 5

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6-7

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10 -26

8. THE PRAYER 27
 Page |3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

[Link] CASES

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 2017
SC 416.
2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.

3. Indian Banks Association, Bombay & Ors. V. M/s Devkala Consultancy

Service and Ors, AIR 2004 SC 2615.
4. Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (2023) 4 SCC 1.

5. Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2677.

6. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213.

7. LIC India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811.

8. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn, 18 [Link].4th 1290, 273 Cal.

Rptr. 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
9. Viacom Intern. Inc. V. Youtube Inc. (253 F.R.D. 256, United States District
Court, S.D. New York., 2008).
10. Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, 1995 AIR 922.

11. Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty (Ms.) 14(1996) 1 SC 490.

12. Vishaka & Ors vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors, (1997) 6 SCC 241

13. Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 578

14. Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi And
Another, (2012) 13 SCC 61
15. Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors 1987 AIR SC 748

16. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India ,2020 AIR SC 1308

17. Sudhir Yadav v. Union of India, LL 2021 SC 627

18. Jeeja Ghosh & Anr vs. Union Of India & Ors, (2016) 7 SCC 761
 Page |4

[Link]. STATUTES

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Information Technology Act , No. 21 of 2000, Acts of Parliament, 2000

(India)

3. Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access

of information by Public) Rules, 2009

4. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and

Redressal) Act, 2013.

[Link] BOOKS

1. HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK ET. AL, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY

( 6th ed.1990 West Publishing Co.).

[Link] DATABASE

1. MANUPATRA

2. SCC ONLINE

3. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

4. IBM

5. MeiTY WEBSITE
 Page |5

STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

Nari Shakti, the Appellant in this case (Civ) No.______ of 2024, concerning the matter of

Nari Shakti v. Union of Scindia humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of Scindia. The present
memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

M/s Zeta, the Petitioner in this case (Civ) No. _______of 2024, concerning the matter M/s

Zeta Inc. Vs. State of Merala humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Scindia. The present memorandum sets
forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
 Page |6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Scindia is a "Union of States." It consists of eight Union Territories

and 28 states. It is amazing to witness the diversity in terms of religion, language,
customs, and other factors in Scindia. Merala is one of the 28 states in Scindia. Women
make up 52.02 percent of the state's overall population.
2. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised technology and affected all
fields, not just technology. Scindia has a major role in the AI revolution as the country
with the second-largest population in the world and the fastest-growing economy.
3. Ms. Harika Ponnanna, a Merala native, is a well-known actress who has acted in
numerous well-known Scindian movies. All around the nation of Scindia, she has a
huge fan following. A Film Institute was founded by Harika Ponnanna to assist
numerous aspiring female actors in breaking into the industry. She also founded the
non-governmental organisation "NARI SHAKTI" to defend women in the nation
against all forms of violence.
4. Artificial intelligence (AI)-related technological advancements have led to an increase
in the prevalence of deepfake videos online. The zollywood actress’s face was
substituted for the face of a British-Scindian influencer woman wearing a black
workout dress in the video. The fans of Harika Ponnanna and other actresses raised their
voices and shared opinions on various social media platforms about the misuse of
women’s privacy and dignity on social media platforms. Harika Ponnanna also voiced
her concerns and expressed herself as "really hurt" upon seeing the video.
5. After receiving a complaint from an NGO called "NARI SHAKTI, which took the
matter seriously, the jurisdictional police station filed an FIR under Sections 66C, 66D,
and 66E of the Information Technology Act of 2000 as well as Sections 465 and 469 of
the Scindian Penal Code, 1860. Jurisdictional police received a notice from the Merala
Commission for Women to take the appropriate action. The All Scindia Women
Protection Group wrote to the Information and Technology Ministry and Union Home
Ministry of Scindia demanding strict action against the sharing of deep fake videos on
social media and prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence in Scindia until stringent
laws governing its use are passed.
 Page |7

6. The Scindian government did not take any action, despite numerous requests and
representations from commissions and non-governmental organisations. The Scindian
government's research division discovered that images used in deep fake videos were
sourced from the social media platform ASTAGRAM managed by ACEBOOK to third
parties.
7. The world’s biggest social media platform, Astagram, owned by M/s Zeta company
created a privacy policy that was completely arbitrary and demanded its users to accept
its new privacy policy to keep its user's accounts and services active and if in case they
didn't accept the policy, their accounts would be closed by November 30th, 2023, since
the company's reputation would suffer.
8. The Merala Government faced criticism regarding its inaction against deepfake videos.
The Merala Government banned ASTAGRAM in the state of Merala due to the rise in
deepfake videos.
9. A PIL was filed by the NGO “NARI SHAKTI” before the Merala High Court against
the Union Government of Scindia and Astagram website seeking action against the
privacy policy of Astagram and also sought the directions to the centre to lay down
guidelines to ensure that Astagram does not share data and images to third party for any
purpose whatsoever and identify and block websites providing access to deepfakes and
regulate artificial intelligence to protect fundamental rights of citizens.
10. The Merala High Court dismissed the PIL filed by the NGO “NARI SHAKTI” as not
maintainable on the ground that there was no larger public interest involved in it, and
also held that the fundamental rights are not enforceable against private individuals.
Aggrieved by the judgment of Merala High Court, the NGO filed an appeal before the
Supreme Court of Scindia.
11. Meanwhile, M/s Zeta Inc. filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of Scindia
challenging the ban of ASTAGRAM in the state of Merala since the said ban violates
its fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has decided to take up both matters together
and has listed the case for February 2024.
 Page |8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the High Court of Merala erred in dismissing the PIL as not maintainable?

2. Whether the recent privacy policy of the ASTAGRAM App violate the fundamental rights
of the citizens?

3. Whether the fundamental rights can be enforced against non-state actors?

4. Whether the ban on ASTAGRAM app in the state of Merala is constitutional?

 Page |9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1- Whether the High Court of Merala erred in dismissing the PIL as not
maintainable?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the High Court of Merala did indeed
err in dismissing the PIL as not maintainable. The PIL filed by Nari Shakthi addresses a larger
public interest, invoking fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy and dignity, as
enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore Astagram, a private
organisation that contributed to the spread of deepfake content, ought to be held responsible
for its actions.

ISSUE 2 - Whether the recent privacy policy of the ASTAGRAM App violate the
fundamental rights of the citizens?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that ASTAGRAM App has grossly
violated the fundamental rights of the citizens primarily Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
by putting forth an extremely arbitrary privacy policy that was an adhesory contract, which was
expected to be complied with by all the users in order to continue availing the services of
ASTAGRAM App and also to keep their accounts active. Furthermore, the users are potentially
unaware of all the user information that is being circulated amongst various third- parties as
privacy policy is not transparent about the third-parties identity which implies that the users
will have no idea if there is a data breach by the third-parties

ISSUE 3 -Whether fundamental rights can be enforced against non-state actors?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that fundamental rights are indeed
enforceable against private individuals. With science and technology intruding into all spheres
of life, it has become possible for non-state actors to affect these rights. It has been upheld by
the Court in a number of cases that non-state actors who violate constitutional rights are liable,
particularly if their actions affect people's fundamental rights or involve public duties.

ISSUE 4-Whether the ban on ASTAGRAM app in the state of Merala is constitutional?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that ban on Astagram app in the state of
Merala is unconstitutional as the formal procedure for ban was not followed. Furthermore, from
the facts of the case it can be clearly deduced that the ban was a mere political ploy of the
government and was not imposed in the light of public interest.
 P a g e | 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1-Whether the High Court of Merala erred in dismissing the PIL as not
maintainable?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the High Court of Merala did indeed
err in dismissing the PIL as not maintainable. It is clearly stated in Article 1331 of the
Constitution that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final
order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies
under article 134A- (a)that the case involves a substantial question of law of general
importance; and (b)that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided
by the Supreme Court.

A .Whether a larger public interest was involved in the PIL filed by Nari Shakti?

1. The PIL addresses the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution particularly the right to privacy and dignity, as guaranteed under Article
21 of the Indian Constitution. In the landmark case Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &
Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.2, the bench reaffirmed the right to privacy as a
fundamental right under the Constitution of India. The Court held that the right to
privacy was integral to freedoms guaranteed across fundamental rights, and was an
intrinsic aspect of dignity, autonomy and liberty.

2. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India3, it was held that any member of the public
or social action group acting bona fide can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High
Courts or the Supreme Court seeking redressal against violation of a legal or
constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any other disability
cannot approach the Court.

As per the prevalent case presented before the Hon’ble Court the non-governmental
organisation NARI SHAKTI acts on the principle of Locus Standi on behalf of the public
in order to regulate artificial intelligence to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens.

1
INDIA CONST. art. 133,amended by The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
2
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 2017 SC 416.
3
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
 P a g e | 11

3. In the present case on account of the Actress Harika Ponnana’s deepfake video, various
fans and other actresses raised their concerns about the misuse of the women’s privacy
and dignity on social media platforms. This Hon’ble Court in the case of Indian Banks’
Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors4 held that,
“In an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have moved a court in her private
interest and for redressal of the personal grievance, the court in furtherance of Public
Interest may treat it a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of
litigation in the interest of justice.” Thus, a private interest case can also be treated as
public interest case.

4. The ability for courts to reject PILs is granted if insufficient public interest is shown
and when the case is focused on individual or private matters. However, in the present
case though it directly deals with a specific actress and was brought to light because of
her widespread influence it is concerned with the rights of women in general.

5. In accordance to the guidelines laid down by this court to entertain PILS 5 it states no
petition involving individual/ personal matter shall be entertained as a PIL matter except
as indicated hereinafter.

a. Letter-petitions falling under the following categories alone will ordinarily be

entertained as Public Interest Litigation:-
b. Bonded Labour matters.
c. Neglected Children.
d. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers
and complaints of violation of Labour Laws (except in individual cases).
e. Petitions from jails complaining of harassment, for (pre-mature release) and
seeking release after having completed 14 years in jail, death in jail, transfer,
release on personal bond, speedy trial as a fundamental right.
f. Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and
death in police custody.
g. Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride
burning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc.

4
Indian Banks Association, Bombay & Ors. v. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors, AIR 2004 SC 2615.
5
Supreme Court of India,[Link] visited Jan.27th, 2024).
 P a g e | 12

h. Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co- villagers or

by police from persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and
economically backward classes.
i. Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological
balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques,
forest and wild life and other matters of public importance.
j. Petitions from riot -victims.
k. Family Pension.
6. The NGO NARI SHAKTI was founded by the actress Harika Ponnana to defend
women in the nation against all forms of violence. Also the actress herself in question
serves as an inspiration to many aspiring female actors throughout the nation. The PIL
is hence maintainable as it falls under one of the exceptions mentioned by this Hon’ble
Court under Clause 6 of the guidelines to entertain PILs.

B. Whether fundamental rights are enforceable against a private individual?

7. The objective behind including fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution was
to ensure that certain basic rights of the citizens or persons (as the case may be) are not
taken away by the State. Therefore the general rule is that fundamental rights are
enforceable only against the state however there are exceptions to this rule.

8. This Hon’ble Court in the case of Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.6
explained that the understanding of terms ‘right to life’ and ‘personal liberty’ under
Article 21 had evolved over past decades to include the right to live with dignity, right
to privacy and right to be forgotten. With science and technology intruding into all
spheres of life, it has become possible for non-state actors to affect the fundamental
rights of the citizens. The Court held that there was an affirmative duty of the State to
protect the life and personal liberty of citizens from private individuals as well.

This Hon’ble Court in Kaushal Kishor case had made private relationships subject to
fundamental rights under Article 19 and Article 21. This implies that all non-State actors
are liable to protect fundamental rights provided under Article 19 and /or Article 21 of the
Constitution.

6
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (2023) 4 SCC 1.
 P a g e | 13

9. The decision of the court in the case of Zee Telefilms v. Union of India7 was as follows
“violator of a constitutional right could not go scotfree merely because it is not a State”,
was dealing with a private body which was found to be discharging public functions.

10. Article 12 in the Constitution gives the definition of State, “the State includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each
of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the
control of the Government of India”8.

11. There have been instances where the court has made fundamental rights enforceable
even against private actors by declaring them as State through an expansive
interpretation of ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. In the epic
environmental law case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath9 , this Hon’ble Court awarded
damages against non-State actors for the violation of Article [Link] Court, through MC
Mehta, allowed the petitioners to receive a remedy for the violation of their fundamental
rights by a private body.

12. The Scindian government’s research division discovered that the images used in the
deep fake videos were sourced from the social media platform Astagram. Hence even
a private body which played a hand in the incident should be held liable and accountable
for the services they provide and the third-parties to whom they share the user’s
personal data with.
13. In the case of Jeeja Ghosh & Anr vs. Union Of India & Ors 10
“Jeeja Ghosh a prominent activist with cerebral palsy was de-boarded from her plane
unfairly. This caused immense trauma and humiliation to her. She also contended that she
suffered immense mental pain as she missed a conference which she was going to take
part in. She filed a petition under Article 32 of the constitution. The Supreme Court also
made the private airline, that is Spice Jet Ltd as a respondent along with the state. The
court held that this action was violative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution. It directed
the airlines to pay compensation to Jeeja Ghosh.”11

7
Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2677.
8
INDIA CONST. art 12.
9
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213.
10
Jeeja Ghosh & Anr vs. Union Of India & Ors, (2016) 7 SCC 761
11
S. Bhargav, Private Entities as Violators of Fundamental Rights: Need for Reform, VOL.4, ISSUE 3,IJLMH(2021)
 P a g e | 14

14. In the present case the actress Harika Ponnana also faced mental agony and faced
humiliation. This incident could have also affected the actress’s career having to face
negative consequences for something she didn’t do in question. It also caused great
distress among the fans of the actress, other aspiring actresses and also various
women commissions who raised their voice on the matter. The Scindian government’s
research division discovered that the images used in the deep fake videos were
sourced from the social media platform Astagram. Hence even a private body which
played a hand in the incident should be held liable and accountable for the services
they provide and the third-parties to whom they share the consumer’s personal data
with.
15. Taking into account the arguments put forward, it can be concluded that the High Court
of Merala erred in ruling that the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO
NARI SHAKTI as not maintainable. The PIL invokes fundamental rights, especially
the right to privacy and dignity, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
in order to serve a broader public interest. The current case falls under one of the
exceptions recognised by the Supreme Court's criteria for considering PILs. These
exceptions apply to problems of public significance, such as those pertaining to the
defence of women's rights.
16. Actress Harika Ponnana's deepfake video incident raises important public concerns
because to the actress's rights being violated, the possible harm to her career, the
anguish suffered by her admirers, and the commission of women.
It is appropriate to hold Astagram, a private organisation, responsible for its part in the
spread of the deepfake material. Furthermore, as the Kaushal Kishor case demonstrated,
the applicability of basic rights against private individuals has changed over time.

Issue 2 - Whether the recent privacy policy of the ASTAGRAM App violate the
fundamental rights of the citizens?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that ASTAGRAM App has violated the
fundamental rights of the citizens. ASTAGRAM App is a social media platform that is
managed by ACEBOOK and is owned by M/s Zeta Company. ASTAGRAM App
formulated a new arbitrary Privacy Policy that was to be complied with by the users in
order to continue using the app, failing to which the accounts of the users will be closed
as on 30th November 2023.
 P a g e | 15

2. To understand whether ASTAGRAM App has violated the Fundamental Rights of the
citizens, the following sub-issues must be addressed:

A. Whether the Privacy Policy of ASTAGRAM App was a valid contract or not?

3. On analyzing the facts of the case, it can be clearly understood that the Privacy Policy
put forth by ASTAGRAM App is extremely arbitrary with no concept of negotiation
and further the Privacy Policy was expected to be complied by all the users of the
ASRAGRAM App to keep their accounts and services active.
4. Black’s Law Dictionary defines Adhesion Contract as “A standard-form contract
prepared by one party, to be signed by the party in a weaker position, usually a
consumer, who has little choice about the terms. Also termed Contract of adhesion;
adhesory contract; adhesionary contract; take it or leave it contract; leonire contract.”
12
Analyzing the aforesaid situation in the light of the definition stated in the Black’s
Law Dictionary. It becomes evident that the Privacy Policy given out by ASTAGRAM
App is a contract of Adhesion.
5. Furthermore, in the case of LIC India V. Consumer Education and Research Centre13,
this Hon’ble Court commented on the scope of intrusion in a contract where the parties
to the contract had unequal bargaining power. The Court held that, “when a contract is
of such a nature that it can be stated to be an adhesion contract and further when the
parties to the contracts do not have equal bargaining power then in the light of Article
14 of the Constitution of India (guaranteeing equal protection of law to its citizens) the
Supreme Court shall strike an unfair or unreasonable contract.”
6. Thereof, regardless of the type of contract the ASTAGRAM App's privacy policy was,
it should be regarded as unreasonable and one-sided, and hence should not be
considered as a valid contract.

HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK ET. AL, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 40 ( 6th ed.1990 West Publishing
12

Co.).
13
LIC India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811.
 P a g e | 16

B) Whether ASTAGRAM App’s Privacy Policy was violative of the Right to Privacy of the users
under Art 21 of the Indian Constitution?

7. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Privacy Policy of
ASTAGRAM App is violative of the Right to Privacy of the citizens. From Point (C),
(D), (E), (F) and (H) of the Privacy Policy of ASTAGRAM App it can be understood
that the user information collected will not only be shared with ACEBOOK Company
but also with the third-party service providers and ASTAGRAM App might as well
receive user information from them if the users use ASTAGRAM App’s services with
such third- party services. Furthermore, user – information will be further shared and
received from businesses that users interact with on the platform and such information
received by the business might be further accessible to the third- party service providers
that help the businesses which may include ACEBOOK Company as well.
8. In Addition, if any users use third-party services or other ACEBOOK Company
Products that are integrated with the ASTAGRAM App’s services, then they might as
well have access to the user information.
9. The integrated services or other services that ASTGRAM App provides is done through
an API, or application programming interface. An API is a set of defined rules that
enable different applications to communicate with each other. It acts as an intermediary
layer that processes data transfers between systems, letting companies open their
application data and functionality to external third-party developers, business partners,
and internal departments within their companies.14 Thus, it is through this Application
Programming interface that third-party services like data backup services, in-app
players etc. get access to the user-information. Further, it is also clear that user-
information may be shared internally i.e. with other ACEBOOK Companies or
externally i.e. Partners of ACEBOOK Companies and to other service providers.
10. Thus, it can be reasonably deduced that the users are potentially unaware of all the
user-information that is being circulated amongst the various third- party service
providers. Secondly, a user will not even be aware if any data breach is resulted from
any of the third-parties as the information is constantly shared amongst various
businesses, partners of ATAGRAM App, ACEBOOK companies etc.

14
IBM, [Link] (last visited Jan. 26,2024).
 P a g e | 17

11. Furthermore, from the privacy policy it can be understood that there is a spider -web
pattern of information transmission between the various third-party services.
This concludes that in the name of Privacy Policy user-information is being disclosed
to innumerable number of other third-parties even without the users knowledge.
12. In accordance to the case of Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic ASSN15, in the
Supreme Court of California Justice MOSK .J. held that “ Fundamental to our Privacy
is the ability to control circulation of personal information. This is essential to social
relationships and personal freedom. The proliferation of government and business
records over which we have no control limits our ability to control our personal lives.
Often we do not know that these records even exist and we are certainly unable to
determine who has access to them.” Thus, concluding that such act is violative of one’s
right to privacy.
13. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned caselaw it is evident that of ASTAGRAM App
is violating fundamental aspect of right to privacy i.e., to be aware of where one’s data
is being circulated in the purview of a privacy policy.
14. Furthermore, according to the case of Viacom Intern. Inc. V. YouTube Inc16, United
States District Court, held that there is a need for transparency in privacy policies. On
analysing the case at hand in the light of this case it can be reasonably deduced that
ASTAGRAM App’s privacy policy lacks transparency as they don’t mention identities
of the Third-party service Providers, which implies that the users have no idea about,
who these third parties are.
15. Thereof, in can be reasonably concluded that ASTAGRAM App’s Privacy Policy has
grossly violated the fundamental Right of Right to Privacy under Art 21 of the Indian
Constitution.

ISSUE 3 -Whether fundamental rights can be enforced against non-state actors?

1. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the fundamental rights
are indeed enforceable against private individuals. The enforceability of
fundamental rights against private entities refers to the horizontal application of
fundamental rights.

15
Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn, 18 [Link].4th 1290, 273 Cal. Rptr. 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
16
Viacom Intern. Inc. v. YouTube Inc. (253 F.R.D. 256, United States District Court, S.D. New York., 2008).
 P a g e | 18

2. In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India 17 the bench
reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution of
India. This Court held that the right to privacy was integral to the freedoms
guaranteed across fundamental rights, and was an intrinsic aspect of dignity,
autonomy and liberty. It is also important to note that Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had
keenly observed in the Puttaswamy case, that the right to privacy emerges from the
liberties guaranteed by Article 19 and from the protection of life and personal liberty
under Article 21. Moreover, the threat to privacy in terms of personal information
and data may emerge not just from the state, but also from non-state actors.18
3. Furthermore, Justice Kaul noted in Puttaswamy case that in a situation, where
online majors like Facebook, Uber and Alibaba have "extensive knowledge of our
movements, searches and conversations which are sold and analysed for advertising
purposes"19, the need for a law regulating the breach of privacy by non-state actors,
is of utmost urgency.
4. Furthermore, it has been well-established by this Hon’ble Court in People's Union
for Democratic Rights v. Union of India that many of the fundamental rights impose
certain limitations on the power of the State and they are enforceable only against
the State but some other fundamental rights are enforceable against the world at
large such as those embodied within the Articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Constitution
of India.
5. As seen in the aforementioned case, only a few specified fundamental rights are
enforceable against private individual. However, the scope has expanded over the
years which includes other fundamental rights and holds private individuals liable
for violation of those rights.
6. In one of the landmark cases with regard to application of Article 21 on private
parties namely Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India 20,it was
held that: “It would thus be clear that in an appropriate case, the court would give
appropriate directions to the employer, be it the State or its undertaking or private
employer to make the right to life meaningful; to prevent pollution of workplace;

17
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 2017 SC 416.
18
Diya Vaishnav and Mohanish Parikh, HORIZONTAL APPLICATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN
INDIA: THE PATHWAY TO A SECURE AND ROBUST DATA PROTECTION REGIME, THE PCLS
BLOG(Jan. 27,2024, 4:35 PM), [Link]
19
Justice [Link](Retd) vs Union Of India AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841.
20
Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, 1995 AIR 922.
 P a g e | 19

protection of the environment; protection of the health of the workman or to

preserve free and unpolluted water for the safety and health of the people. The
authorities or even private persons or industry are bound by the directions issued
by this Court under Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution.”
7. The White Paper21 of “Committee of Experts on a Data Protection for India” under
the Chairmanship of Justice B.N. Srikrishna had recommended a comprehensive
data protection law, that applies horizontally both to the public and the private sector
along with certain exceptions in both private and public sector which have to be
carved out with due care and consideration of striking the right balance between
interests of all stakeholders.
8. The enforceability of fundamental rights against non-state actors is an important
concept that the Government of India had set up a Committee of Experts to study
various issues relating to data protection in India, make specific suggestions on
principles underlying a data protection bill and draft such a bill. The objective was
to “ensure growth of the digital economy while keeping personal data of citizens
secure and protected.22”
9. In the case of Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty (Ms.)23, interim
compensation was awarded holding that fundamental rights under Article 21 can be
enforced even against private bodies and individuals. Public law remedy has been
repeatedly resorted to even against non- State actors when their acts have violated
the fundamental rights of other citizens.
10. The Scindian government’s research division in the present case discovered that the
images used in the deep fake videos were sourced from Astagram. Hence this
private entity should also be held liable for not protecting the privacy of its users
and for providing easy access to anyone who might have malicious intent in using
images or other data related to the user. Once those deep fake videos are made it
harms the reputation and dignity of the user which takes a long time for them to
recover from and causes them immense mental and emotional distress.

21
MeitY, [Link] visited Jan 27th ,2024).
22
MeitY, [Link] visited Jan 27th ,2024).
23
Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty (Ms.) 14(1996) 1 SC 490.
 P a g e | 20

11. In the case of Vishaka & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors24 , this court dealt with
petitions by social activists alleging rampant sexual harassment and violence taking
place against women at the work place. This court formulated several guidelines
that in the words of the court would apply to any place of employment “whether in
government, public or private enterprise.” The court also held that sexual
harassment of women was a violation of fundamental rights under Article 14, 19
and 21 of the Constitution.
12. After the judgement for the aforementioned case was passed, as there was a lack of
statute for the protection of women at workplace, the Sexual Harassment of Women
at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 201325 was enacted. In
the present case too, with the advancement of science and technology and the
widespread influence social media has on people globally, it is becoming a necessity
for the judiciary to step up and keep up with these changing times by also enforcing
the fundamental rights against private individual/corporations and in this case hold
ASTAGRAM App accountable. It is important to come up with new guidelines,
policies and acts which protect the user’s interests and privacy online especially
with the rise in deepfake videos.
13. In the case of Kaushal Kishor vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors26, it was held
that “In so far as the enforcement of fundamental rights against non-state actors is
concerned, the vertical approach is giving way to the concept of horizontal
application. The vertical approach connotes a situation where the
enforceability is only against the Government and not against private
actors. But with Nation States gradually moving from laissez faire governance
to welfare governance, the role of the State is ever expanding, which justifies the
shift.27”
14. In the case of M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors28 damages were awarded against
non-state actors for violation of the right to a clean environment, as guaranteed
under Article 21. The Court, through MC Mehta, allowed the petitioners to receive
a remedy for the violation of their fundamental rights by a private body.

24
Vishaka & Ors vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors, (1997) 6 SCC 241
25
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
26
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 1.
27
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 1.
28
M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors (1997) 1 SCC 388.
 P a g e | 21

15. From the arguments put forward above its clear that the application of constitutional
law to the enforcement of fundamental rights against private citizens and non-state
entities is a dynamic and ever-evolving field. As demonstrated by decisions in cases
like Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, People's Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India, and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of
India, the judiciary has acknowledged the horizontal application of fundamental
rights, expanding their scope beyond the conventional vertical approach restricted
to the State.
16. The importance of a comprehensive data protection law that applies to both the
public and commercial sectors is emphasised by the Committee of Experts on Data
Protection for India's recommendations, as stated in the White Paper led by Justice
B.N. Srikrishna. This is consistent with the increasing understanding that non-state
actors can pose a danger to fundamental rights like privacy as well as state actors.
The judiciary has not only recognised but also actively embraced the change in the
enforcement of basic rights from a vertical to a more inclusive horizontal approach
in light of these legal

Issue 4 - Whether the ban on ASTAGRAM app in the state of Merala is constitutional?
1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the ban on ASTAGRAM App by
the state of Merala was Unconstitutional. To understand how the ban imposed on
ASTAGRAM App is unconstitutional, it is important to address the following sub
issues:

[Link] Formal Procedure was followed for Banning Astagram?

2. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the formal procedure for banning
a website was not followed by government of Merala in the case of Astagram.
3. In the case of Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India29, this Hon’ble Court reiterated
the need for procedural safeguard while blocking websites under Section 69A of the
Information Technology Act, 200030, and also emphasized that any order blocking
websites must be supported by reasons and should provide an opportunity for hearing
to the affected parties.

29
Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 578.
30
Information Technology Act § 69A, No. 21 of 2000, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India) .
 P a g e | 22

4. Section 69A of Information Technology Act deals with the power to issue directions for
blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource. Under
sub-section (2) thereof, the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for
Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Hereinafter called website
blocking rules) have been formulated.
5. Rule 3 of website blocking rules states that the Central Government shall designate by
notification in the Official Gazette, an officer of the Central Government not below the
rank of a Joint Secretary as the Designated Officer for the purpose of issuing direction
for blocking for access by the public any information referable to Section 69A of the
Act. 31
6. Rule 4 states that every organization as defined under Rule 2(g), (which refers to the
Government of India, State Governments, Union Territories and agencies of the Central
Government as may be notified by the Central Government)– is to designate one of its
officers as the “Nodal Officer”.32
7. Rule 6 states that any person may send their complaint to the “Nodal Officer” of the
concerned Organization for blocking, the complaint will then have to be examined by
the concerned Organization to check if it adheres to the parameters laid down in Section
69A (1) and after being satisfied, shall transmit such complaint through its Nodal
Officer to the Designated Officer in a format specified by the Rules. The Designated
Officer is not to entertain any complaint or request for blocking directly from any
person. 33
8. It can be understood from the facts of the case that there was no mention of the
appointment of the Designated Officer through the official gazette, who has been rested
with the authority to issue the blocking order, moreover the appointment of the nodal
officer through whom the complaint is transferred to the designated officer is also not
notified by the government.

31
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of information by Public) Rules,
2009, Rule 3.
32
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of information by Public) Rules,
2009, Rule 4.
33
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of information by Public) Rules,
2009, Rule 6.
 P a g e | 23

9. Under Rule 734 thereof, the request/complaint shall then be examined by a Committee
of Government Personnel’s (including Designated Officer as Chairperson and
representatives, not below the rank of joint secretary in Ministry of law and justice,
Home Affair, Information and Broadcasting and Computer Emergency Response Team)
who under Rule 835 are first to make all reasonable efforts to identify the originator or
intermediary who has hosted the information. If so identified, a notice shall issue to
appear and submit their reply at a specified date and time which shall not be less than
48 hours from the date and time of receipt of notice by such person or intermediary.
The Committee then examines the complaint received and considers whether the
request is covered by 69A (1)36 and then gives a specific recommendation in writing to
the Nodal Officer of the concerned Organization. It is only thereafter that the
Designated Officer is to submit the Committee’s recommendation to the Secretary,
Department of Information Technology who is to approve such requests or complaints.
Upon such approval, the Designated Officer shall then direct any agency of
Government or intermediary to block the offending information.
10. Here from the facts of the case it can be clearly understood that the statement of the
images used in the deep fake video of the actress were sourced from ASTAGRAM App
should be taken into consideration before this Hon’ble court as it was discovered by the
Scindian government's research division who are not a competent authority to do so,
hence the information is not authentic or genuine. Moreover, according to the facts of
the case it can be seen that ASTAGRAM App was not given a notice to appear before
committee and respond to the said allegation against ASTAGRAM App.
11. Under Rule 5, the Designated Officer may on receiving any such request or complaint
from the Nodal Officer of an Organization or from a competent court, by order direct
any intermediary or agency of the Government to block any information or part thereof
for the reasons specified in 69A (1).37
12. In accordance to the facts of the case it can be clearly understood that it was the Scindian
government who had banned the ASTAGRAM App and not the Designated Officer
appointed by the Central government.

34
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of information by Public) Rules,
2009, Rule 7.
35
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of information by Public) Rules,
2009, Rule 8.
36
Information Technology Act § 69A(1), No. 21 of 2000, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India) .
37
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of information by Public) Rules,
2009, Rule 5.
 P a g e | 24

13. Rule 9 provides for blocking of information in cases of emergency where delay caused
would be fatal in which case the blocking may take place without any opportunity of
hearing. The Designated Officer shall then, not later than 48 hours of the issue of the
interim direction, bring the request before the Committee referred to earlier, and only
on the recommendation of the Committee, is the Secretary Department of Information
Technology to pass the final order. 38
14. In the case of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and
Another39 the Supreme Court held that “the expression "public interest" must be
understood in its true connotation to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions
of the Act. The concept of public interest varies with time and the state of society and
its needs. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants protection.”
15. In the case of Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors 40, the Supreme Court,
in this case, “reaffirmed the connection between public order and public interest. The
court held that actions should be analysed in the light of public interest and ordered
that public order order cannot be compromised based on subjective factors or
individual beliefs. “
16. From the facts of the case, it can be clearly understood that the Rule 9 of the website
blocking rule would not apply to the said case as there was no case of emergency in any
manner in the state of Merala due to the viral video of the said actress. This can be
substantiated by the judgement of the Merala high court which held that there was a
Lack of public interest in the said issue. Hence it can be concluded that the Merala
Government failed to adhere to the procedures laid down for blocking a website or an
app in accordance to the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for
Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

[Link] the banning of ASTAGRAM App has there been a violation of Article 19 (1)(a)?

17. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the there has indeed been a
violation of fundamental rights of the users under article 19 of the constitution through
the ban of ASTAGRAM App by the Merala government.

38
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of information by Public) Rules,
2009, Rule 9.
39
Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi And Another, (2012) 13 SCC 61
40
Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors 1987 AIR SC 748
 P a g e | 25

18. In the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India41, this court held that “freedom of
speech and expression includes the right to disseminate information to as wide a section
of the population as is possible”, the court further held that Article 19(1)(a) include the
right to speak and express through the medium of internet.
19. In the case of Sudhir Yadav v. Union of India42, the Karnataka high court held that the
blocking of internet services and social medial platforms were violative of right to
speech and expression, further the court held that these restrictions must be on valid
grounds and must follow due process.
20. It can be clearly understood from the facts of the case that the ban on ASTAGRAM App
were not made on valid basis of the reasonable restrictions mentioned in article 19,
therefore by banning ASTAGRAM App the government of Merala has clearly violated
the fundamental rights of the citizens.

C. Was the ban of ASTAGRAM App having a notion of public interest or was it a mere political
ploy?
21. Sub- section (1) of 69A of IT Act states the grounds on which a ban can be imposed.
A ban can only be imposed where the Central Government or any of its officers
specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so
to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of
the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing
incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may
subject to the provisions of subsection.
22. In accordance to this, it can be clearly understood from the facts of the case that the ban
was imposed on ASTAGRAM App was reasoned to be because of the rise in the
deepfake videos in the state of Merala. The said reason cannot be included as a valid
reason for ban as it doesn’t satisfy any of the aforesaid reasons on which a ban can be
imposed.

41
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India ,2020 AIR SC 1308
42
Sudhir Yadav v. Union of India, LL 2021 SC 627
 P a g e | 26

23. Moreover, on analyzing this case on in the light of the Bihar Public Service
Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Another43; and the Bijoe Emmanuel
& Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors 44case it can be clearly understood that the ban of
ASTAGRAM App didn’t have any notion of public interest which can be derived
from the judgement of the High court of Merala, who rejected the PIL filed by NGO
“NARI SHAKTI”.
24. Furthermore, from the facts of the case it becomes very evident that there was an
upcoming election in the State of Merala and give the fact that majority of the voting
population are female and due to increase in the deepfake videos the dignity and
privacy of women was at stake; it can be reasonable deduced that the Merala
government in order to not lose their majority voting population imposed a ban on
ASTAGRAM App in order to retrieve the support of the female voting population.
25. Thereof, it can be concluded that the ban on ASTAGRAM App is a mere political
ploy and lacks the basic grounds for imposing a ban, subsequently leading to the ban
being unconstitutional.

43
Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi And Another, (2012) 13 SCC 61
44
Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors 1987 AIR SC 748
 P a g e | 27

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and
authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Court be generously pleased to:

a) Recognize the horizontal application of fundamental rights in accordance to the facts

of the case.
b) Issue directions to ASTAGRAM App to formulate a more user-friendly privacy policy
with equal bargaining power.
c) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ or direction in the nature thereof prohibiting
ASTAGRAM App from sharing, in any manner whatsoever, details and data of every
kind of the users of ASTAGRAM App with any third-party including ACEBOOK
Company or its family of companies.
d) Issue directions to lift the ban on ASTAGRAM App.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the respondent in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

-COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER