SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Friday, February 09, 2024

Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

th
12 SLCU National Moot, 2021
Winner Team Memorial - Respondents

12th School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru

National Moot Court Competition, 2021
Before
The Honourable High Court of Kalbari
W.P (C) No. ____/2021
Indu … Petitioner;
Versus
Union of Nanda … Respondent.
Clubbed With
Civil Appeal No. ____/2021
Dhriti Tiwari … Appellant;
Versus
Balbir Sen … Respondent.
Clubbed With
W.P (C) No. ____/2021
Seiji … Petitioner;
Versus
Union of Nanda … Respondent.
Clubbed With
W.P (C) No. ____/2021
Seiji … Petitioner;
Versus
Union of Nanda and Others … Respondent.
Upon Submission to the Hon'ble Chief Justice and his Companion
Justices of High Court of Kalbari
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS IX
ISSUES RAISED XI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS XII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1
1. WHETHER BLOCKING INDU'S ACCESS TO THE PERSONAL AND 1
OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS OF PRIME MINISTER, CABINET MINISTERS
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AND THE UNP ON SEIJI IS UNLAWFUL

1.1. THE SEIJI ACCOUNT OF PRIME MINISTER, CABINET 1
MINISTER AND UNP DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW
OF “STATE
1.2. THE ACT OF BLOCKING INDU IS A PRIVATE ACTION NOT 3
VIOLATING INDU'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI 6
SHOULD BE UPHELD OR DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KALBARI?
2.1. THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF THE USE 6
2.2. NATURE OF COPYRIGHTED WORK 7
2.3. THE AMOUNT AND SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE PORTION 8
TAKEN
2.4. THE EFFECT OF THE USE ON THE POTENTIAL MARKET 9
FOR OR VALUE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK
3. WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 10
(GUIDELINES FOR INTERMEDIARIES AND DIGITAL MEDIA
ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?
3.1. THE IMPUGNED RULES ARE NOT VIOLATIVE OF PART III 10
3.2. THAT THE IMPUGNED RULES ARE NOT ULTRA VIRES THE
PARENT ACT
4. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SEIJI 15
FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION IS VALID IN LAW?
4.1. FCRA DISQUALIFIES SEIJI FROM RECEIVING FOREIGN 16
INVESTMENT DUE TO ITS ACTIVE POLITICAL INFLUENCE
4.2. THE PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN FUNDING IS NOT 18
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19 of the Constitution
4.3. JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE IS DISCOURAGED IN MATTERS 19
OF ECONOMIC POLICY ACTION
PRAYER XIII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
§. Section
¶ Paragraph Number
& And
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
CriLJ Criminal Law Journal
ed. Edition
FCRA Foreign Contribution Regulation Act,
2010
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HC High Court
Hon'ble Honourable
i.e. id est (Latin)
No. Number
Ors. Others
p. Page Number
S.L.P. Special Leave Petition
S. No. Serial Number
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
The Const. The Constitution of Nanda, 1950
U.K. United Kingdom
U.S. United States
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
W.P. Writ Petition
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. INDIAN JUDGMENT
1. Academy of General Education v. B. Malini Mallya, (2009) 4 19
SCC 256
2. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 13
3. Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine 24
SC 345.
4. Association For Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2019 30
SCC OnLine SC 1878.
5. B.B. Rajwanshi v. State of U.P., (1988) 2 SCC 415. 23
6. Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778. 27
7. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy, 14
(2013) 8 SCC 345
8. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788 23
9. Binoy Visman v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 647. 24
10. Blackwood and Sons Ltd. v. A.N. Parasuraman, 1958 SCC 19,
OnLine Mad 62. 21
11. BCCI v. Cricket Association Of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251 14
12. Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Assns. v. Union of India, 25
(2006) 8 SCC 399
13. Delhi Police Non-Gazetted Karmachari Sangh v. Union of 30
India, (1987) 1 SCC 115.
14. ESPN Star Sports v. Global Broadcast News Ltd., 2008 SCC 20,
OnLine Del 1385 21
15. Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1959 SCR 12 23
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) v. Union of India, 2020 29

SCC OnLine SC 310
17. Justice for Rights Foundation v. Union Of India, 2020 SCC 27
OnLine SC 353.
18. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 17
769.
19. Kerala Bar Hotels Association v. State of Kerala, (2015) 16 31
SCC 421
20. Kerala State Electricity Board v. The Indian Aluminium Co., 27
Ltd., (1976) 1 SCC 466
21. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 30
574
22. Lily Kurian v. Lewina, (1979) 2 SCC 124. 30
23. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, 1959 SCR 629 24
24. Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, (1969) 1 SCC 475. 23
25. O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 789 30
26. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 13
SCC 476.
27. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical 15
Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111.
28. Premium Granites v. State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 691. 32
29. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118. 19,
20
30. R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675. 32
31. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority 15
of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
32. Ramjilal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1957 SCR 860 30
33. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCC 436 : 1950 17
SCR 594.
34. Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House, 1996 SCC 22
OnLine Del 466.
35. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 31
248.
36. S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra, 1980 31
Supp SCC 53.
37. S.K. Dutt v. Law Book Company, 1953 SCC OnLine All 286 20
38. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1962) 3 SCR 842. 17
39. Santokh Singh v. Delhi Admn., (1973) 1 SCC 659. 23
40. State of H.P. v. Satpal Saini, (2017) 11 SCC 42. 31
41. State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517. 26
42. Sukhnandan Saran Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India, (1982) 23
2 SCC 150.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43. Virendra v. State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 308. 30

44. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649. 13
II. FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
1. Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, (1994) 510 US 569 18,
19,
21
2. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Collins, [2005] EWHC 22
1308 (Admin).
3. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Collins, [2006] UKHL 40. 23
4. Donoghue v. Poplar Housing & Regeneration Community 14
Association Ltd, [2001] 3 WLR 183 (CA)
5. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 US 19,
539 (1985), 562. 20
6. Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 US 345 (1974), 352. 14
7. Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore City, 149 F.2d 15
212 (4th Cir. 1945).
8. R v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc, 14
[1987] Q.B. 815.
9. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 US 830 (1982), 842 14
III. STATUTES
1. Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011, Rule 3(v), 29
General Statutory Rule (E).
2. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and 22,
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. 25,
27,
28
3. Information Technology Act, 2000, §4(2), Act No 21, Acts 25,
of Parliament, 2000. 27,
28
4. Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for 27
Interception, Monitoring Decryption of and Information)
Rules, 2009, General Statutory Rule 780(E).
5. Right to Information Act, 2005, §6, Act No. 22, Acts of 17
Parliament, 2005.
6. The Copyright Act, 1957, § 52, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 18,
1957. 19
IV. JOURNALS AND ARTICLES
1. Kothari C.R., Research Methodology Methods and 20
Techniques, p. 1, New Age International Publishers, 2nd
Edn., 2004.
2. Matthew Sag, The New Legal Landscape for Text Mining and 19
Machine Learning, 66, J. COPYRIGHT SOC'Y U.S.A. 291,
324, (2019).
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Padma T & Rao KPC, Legal Research Methodology,1st Edn., 20

p. 357, Asia Law House, 2011.
4. Reuters Institute, India Digital News Report, 2019, Pg 10. 28
5. UNESCO, Journalism, Fake News and Disinformation, 24
Handbook for Journalism Education and Training, UNESCO
Series on Journalism Education, (2018).
6. Praharsh Johorey, Social Media, Public Forums and the 14
Freedom of Speech − II, Indian Constitutional Law and
Philosophy,
https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2020/01/28/guest-
post-social-media-public-forums-and-the-freedom-of-
th
speech-ii/, (last visited Oct. 5 2021).
7. Twitter's algorithm favours right-leaning politics, BBC, 30
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59011271
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
I. W.P. No. /2021
The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari under
Art. 226 of the Constitution of Republic of Nanda.
II. Civil Appeal No. ____/2021
The appellant has filed appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code in the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari against the impugned order passed
by the District Court.
III. W.P. No. /2021
The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari under
Art. 226 of the Constitution of Republic of Nanda.
IV. W.P. No. /2021
The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari under
Art. 226 of the Constitution of Republic of Nanda.
The petitions have been clubbed together by the Hon'ble High
Court of Kalbari and the Hon'ble Court has admitted the petitions as
maintainable.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND
Republic of Nanda is amongst the heaviest internet bandwidth per capita
users in the World. In the elections held in 2018, Samar Pratap of Tandav
Party was elected as the Prime Minister of the Country. His election strategy
heavily relied on social media and with the help of his social media team.
This app however, did not create or manufacture any content of its own, but
rather facilitated posting various types of content.
With time, internet grew more divisive and polar and Seiji emerged as a
space for hate rather than a forum for healthy conversation. Virtual Hate and
Fights on this platform led to several deaths in the nation. In order to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

combat with the same, Seiji introduced a feature to block other users if
necessary. Apart from this, Seiji was also used by Ministers of The
Government as a medium to circulate and get information related to
Government policies and decisions.
II. INDU v. UNION OF NANDA
In 2019, a legislation to reorganize the States of Nanda based on
population was introduced. This legislation met with widespread opposition
as it aimed to contradict with accepted rule of deciding state boundaries-
language. Indu was one of the prominent leaders who led the protest.
Criticizing government policies on social media and tagging Prime Ministers
and other ministers on Seiji was the method used by Indu in her protest.
She attacked Her posts criticizing the Prime Minister gained traction and her
hashtag #Resign Samar Pratap became the most trending hashtag for a
week. Because of her fiery posts targeting the PM, she was blocked by him
and other Cabinet Ministers on Seiji. After getting blocked, she started
targeting the opposition, that resulted in her being blocked by them also.
Now, she was not able to view posts related to government policies posted
by these ministers. Hence, she approached the Hon'ble High Court of
Kalabari seeking directions to the government and the Prime Minister to
allow access to all official and personal accou nts of the government
members and the Opposition Party.
III. DHRITI TIWARY v. BALBIR SEN
Dhriti Tiwari, Minister for technology and Communication shared a video
on Seiji, about the failure of the leftist ideology since 1900 and the inability
to effectively govern with such an ideology. She also posted her opinion on
the video. The video was based on a research paper authored by Balbir Sen.
He sent a notice sent a copyright infringement notice to Dhriti and Seiji. The
notice stated that since his research was used to benefit a particular party in
the election, it constituted a violation of the fair use policy. Seiji took down
the video and imposed a 2-day ban on Dhriti while Dhriti refused to reply to
the notice and approached the District Court, which held the sharing
contents of Balbir's research through a video without prior authorization
constituted a violation of fair use policy. Dhriti approached the Hon'ble High
Court of Kalbari to challenge the order passed by the District Court.
IV. SEIJI v. UNION OF NANDA
Government decided to introduce the IT (Intermediaries and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which placed duties on intermediaries to follow
due diligence measures, failing which they would lose safe harbor protections
granted to them under previous legislations. Under the new Rules, Seiji was
listed as a news aggregator. Seiji, challenged the Constitutionality of Rule 3
to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
V. SEIJI v. UNION OF NANDA.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, pursuant to this legislation, Seiji was issued a notice for violation
of the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act, 2010. The notice was received
when it received investments by a foreign firm. The government noted that
Seiji was a news aggregator and thus, it could not accept foreign funding.
Thus, Seiji challenged the notice before Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari.
I. CLUBBING OF PETITIONS
Each issue was listed before division bench and the Chief Justice noticing
the common parties and facts decided to restructure the issues, as follows,
and form a three-judge bench to hear them together.
ISSUES RAISED
I. Whether Blocking Indu's access to the personal and official
accounts of Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP on Seiji is
unlawful?
II. Whether the order of District Court of Kalbari should be upheld or
dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari?
III. Whether Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines
for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are
Constitutional?
IV. Whether the notice issued by the Government to Seiji for the
alleged violation of valid in law?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. Whether Blocking Indu's access to the personal and official
accounts of Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP on Seiji is
unlawful?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that blocking Indu's
access to the personal and official accounts of the Prime Minister, Cabinet
Ministers and UNP on Seiji was not unlawful as the account of government
officials does not fall within the purview of the state and thereby the act of
blocking constitutes a private action which is not violative of the Freedom of
speech and expression.
II. Whether the order of District Court of Kalbari should be upheld or
dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari ?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the order of the
District Court of Kalbari shall be upheld by the High Court as the
unauthorized usage of Balbir Sen's research in form of the video by Dhriti
Tiwari is not protected within the Fair Use Policy under the copyright law. The
usage of the research work for making the video fails to satisfy the four-
factor test which is essential to determine the extent of the fair-use doctrine.
III. Whether Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines
for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are
Constitutional?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that Rule 3 to 7 of the IT
Rules, 2021 are in conformity with Part III of the Constitution of the Republic
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of Nanda as they are not violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21. and are in
consonance with the provisions of the Parent Act itself i.e. the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
IV. Whether the notice issued by the Government to Seiji for the
alleged violation of valid in law?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court the notice issued by the
Government to Seiji is valid in law as Seiji operated in capacity of a news
aggregator with active political influence which qualifies as a ground for
disqualification from accessing foreign funding under the FCRA. Furthermore,
the prohibition is not violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of Republic of
Nanda.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER BLOCKING INDU'S ACCESS TO THE PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL
ACCOUNTS OF PRIME MINISTER, CABINET MINISTERS AND THE UNP ON SEIJI
IS UNLAWFUL?
1. It is submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari that the
blocking of the Petitioner's access to personal and official accounts of Prime
Minister, Cabinet Ministers and UNP on Seiji is lawful in nature as Firstly, The
Seiji Account of Prime Minister, Cabinet Minister and UNP does not fall under
the purview of “State” [1.1] and Secondly, The Act of Blocking Indu is a
private action not violating Indu's Fundamental Rights. [1.2]
1.1. THE SEIJI ACCOUNT OF PRIME MINISTER, CABINET MINISTER AND UNP
DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF “STATE”
2. The Framers of the Constitution enacted Art. 19 to protect the Freedom
1
of Speech and Expression of an individual from government censorship. As a
result, it limits only government regulation of speech.2 In order to hold a
private act violative of Fundamental Rights, it shall be held that the private
3
entity falls under the purview of “State” under Art. 12. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of Nanda has gradually developed several tests to determine
whether a private entity is a state or not. It is submitted before the Hon'ble
High Court of Kalbari that the accounts of Prime Minister, Cabinet Minister
and UNP does not qualify the Public Function Test [I], the government
instrumentality test [II] The deep and pervasive state control test. [III]
I. DOES NOT QUALIFY PUBLIC FUNCTION TEST
4
3. The Hon'ble SC in Zee Telefilms v. Union of India , held that a private
entity may be considered a state actor when it performs a public function.
However, the accounts of the above-mentioned on Seiji fail to be a part of
the state as it does not perform any public function that is required to qualify
the “public function test”.
4. Firstly, A public function is an activity that is “traditionally the exclusive
5
prerogative of the State” for the conduct to qualify as a “public function
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

within the meaning of state.”6 However, a private actor cannot transform into
the State merely because the state has engaged in similar conduct. The
Supreme Court also has differentiated between the concept of government
functions which can be undertaken by private entities as well and sovereign
7
functions which are exclusive to the domain of the government authorities.
The social media accounts on Seiji were used for updates, resharing popular
posts and interacting with celebrities all of which are activities that are not
exclusive to the government and have been performed by news agencies as
well as politically active citizens.
5. Secondly, this test is applied to private sector bodies who act in public
8
law context. Merely because a body discharges public law functions and
have public duties, the same by itself would not lead to the conclusion that
all its functions are “public functions”.9 Similarly, merely because Seiji
facilitates communication between the government and citizens, it does not
entitle it to be termed as sovereign function, it is just a means to do the
public function and not a public function itself. The respondents have no
obligation/duty to utilize this means.
6. Thirdly, there is no precedent of an entity being called as state merely
10
because it performs public function. Even in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of
India, while the Court considered the public function of BCCI, it also
considered BCCI's exclusive right to control and regulate the game with the
exclusion of all other authorities along with the overt support of the
Government of India. Seiji has no such power and is merely one of the many
social media platforms, and being a preferred media is different than having
an absolute sway/creating exclusivity in the social media arena. It is
therefore submitted that in present case, the use of Seiji to disseminate
information related to Government Policies does not transform the accounts
of the respondents into a state actor under the public function test.
II. DOES NOT QUALIFY GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY TEST
7. In RD Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India,11 Hon'ble SC
with reference to the concept of state held that, “where a Corporation is
wholly controlled by Government not only in its policy-making but also in
earning out the functions entrusted to it by the law establishing it or by the
Charter of its incorporation”. Further, the Court held that a corporation
created by statute which is otherwise autonomous in its functioning will
answer to the test laid down in Article 12 when “extensive and unusual
financial assistance is given and the purpose of the Government in giving
such assistance coincides with the purpose for which the corporation is
12
expected to use the assistance and such purpose is of a public character”.
8. In the present case, the Seiji Account of the above-mentioned fails to
qualify the government instrumentality test as firstly, Seiji is a private entity
and the accounts of the above-mentioned are privately owned with no
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

financial aid from the government. Secondly, the power to post related to
government policies does not originate from a power granted to them by
statute. It is rather a personal choice granted to these individuals by the
virtue of private space for expression of views provided by Seiji. Thus, it is
submitted that Seiji fails to qualify Government instrumentality test.
III. DOES NOT QUALIFY DEEP AND PERVASIVE CONTROL TEST
9. The ultimate test in determining whether an entity would be an
instrumentality of the State would be whether functionally, financially and
administratively the body was under the deep and pervasive control of the
State.13 Mere regulatory control by the Government will not suffice to fulfil
the requirements of Article 12.
10. In the present case, the functional control test fails as the functioning
of the accounts of the above-mentioned are determined by the private
policies of Seiji; the financial control test fails as the accounts of above-
mentioned are not financially funded or controlled by the State and lastly,
the administrative control test also fails as the administrative control also
resides with Seiji.
1.2. THE ACT OF BLOCKING INDU IS A PRIVATE ACTION NOT
VIOLATING INDU'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
11. It is submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari that firstly,
the usage of Seiji Account by Prime Minister, Cabinet Minister and UNP is not
a state action[I], secondly, blocking Indu from the accounts of the above
mentioned does not violate her fundamental rights. [II]
I. THE USAGE OF SEIJI ACCOUNT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, CABINET
MINISTER AND UNP IS NOT A STATE ACTION
12. It is submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari that the
usage of Seiji Account by Prime Minister, Cabinet Minister and UNP is not a
state action as Firstly, The usage of the platform by the ministers to inform
citizens about their respective ministries14, cannot be declared as “state
action” as such power was not conferred to the ministries by virtue of any
statute or law; rather it was done for the sake of convenience.
13. Secondly, Seiji is a private entity that governs the ability to post,
share, comment, reply and block an individual and has granted the right to
block accounts, on a self-identified threat of menace due to hate in the
society. Seiji's refusal to remove the petitioner even upon Government's
notice demonstrates that Seiji is solely regulated by its internal policies and
lacks the government's control in terms of blocking a user.15 The private
entity, Seiji has the discretion to remove all these tools at its will. The
ministers exert only a “significant control” over their account and this does
not change the fact that the blocking tools are ultimately the companies'
decisions.
14. Thirdly, the usage of the Seiji handles of the above-mentioned
ministers in engaging in political campaigns prior to their ascension to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

office16 and posting views, comments, criticism after becoming ministers17

shows private action being carried out by the ministers' account. Thus, it is
submitted that the publishing of information of several ministries on social
media shall not be the sole criteria for determining the use of social media by
the PM, The Cabinet Ministers and The UNP as “state action”.
15. Fourthly, it is submitted that decisions regarding interactive space
associated with their Seiji account are similar to the minister's decisions
regarding whom to interact in real space, which again is a matter of Private
action and not state action. Thus, it is submitted that there is insufficient
“state action” to overcome the Seiji's private status and therefore the
operation of Seiji account by the PM, Cabinet Ministers and UNP is not a state
action.
II. BLOCKING INDU DOES NOT VIOLATE HER FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION
16. It is submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari that
arguendo, The accounts of the above-mentioned carries a “state-action”,
blocking does not violate freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to
Indu.
17. Firstly, it is submitted that blocking does not prevent Indu from
interacting with others on Seiji nor does it prevent her from criticizing on the
platform. Indu may share the screenshots of the posts of the above-
mentioned account to criticize. Article 19 protects freedom of Speech and
18
Expression and its extended meaning protects freedom to publication ,
19 20
freedom to circulation and freedom to criticize the government. Art. 19
nowhere guarantees virality of the posts or popularity. The algorithm of Seiji
was such that tagging the above-mentioned accounts increased the traction
21
on post and therefore blocking of Indu decreased traction on her page
resulting in decreased popularity. Thus the only effect that the act of
blocking had on Indu was decreased popularity-an attribute that is not
protected under Art. 19.
18. Secondly, it is submitted that blocking of Indu's account does not
restrict her right to access information. She can utilise the official website of
the prime minister to access every post made on the application as all the
22
posts are archived. She can access the posts of the officials by logging out
or using a third party account.23 She can even make an application under the
24
RTI Act, 2005 for access to the information.
19. Furthermore, Seiji is not the sole medium as The Framework &
Guidelines for Use of Social Media for Government Organisations states that
social media should only be one of the components of the overall citizen
engagement strategy and government departments must avoid using only
25
social media to communicate. Thus, it is submitted that rights guaranteed
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to Indu under Art. 19 are not violated.

CONCLUSION
Thus, in light of the abovementioned arguments, the Counsel for the
Respondents humbly submits before Hon'ble High Court of Kalbarri that
blocking Indu's access to the personal and official accounts of the Prime
Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP on Seiji is lawful.
2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI SHOULD BE UPHELD
OR DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI?
20. It is submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari that the order
of the District Court of Kalbari shall be upheld as the video posted by Ms.
Dhriti did not come under the protection of fair use doctrine. Fair use is
codified as a defense to copyright infringement in section 52 of the Copyright
Act, 1957.26 Black's Law Dictionary defined “Fair Use” as a reasonable and
limited use of a copyrighted work without the author's permission, such as
27
quoting from a book in a book review or using parts of it in a parody.
21. To determine the extent of fair use doctrine, Hon'ble Court borrowed
28
the four-factor test from United States' Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music case.
The Court held that protection of fair use shall be granted if the alleged
infringement is tested under the four categories : (i) The purpose and
character of the use (ii) The nature of the copyrighted work (iii) The Amount
and Substantiality of the Portion Taken (iv) The Effect of the Use on the
Potential Market for or Value of the Copyrighted Work.
22. It is submitted before the High Court of Kalbari that the use of
29
Balbir's Research by Dhriti for the election campaign violated the fair use
policy as it satisfied the four conditions set forth for determining the
violation.
2.1. THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF THE USE
23. The first factor of fair use, the purpose and character of the use,
examines the purpose of the defendant's use of the copyrighted work.
Section 52 of The Copyright Act also sets out an exhaustive list of various
30
purposes that fall under the domain of fair use. If the purpose of the
reproduction is not one of those enumerated in the statute the question of
fair use would not arise.31 Ordinarily, if the purpose of the use of copyrighted
material is non commercial, it would not constitute copyright violation and
32
fall under the protection of fair use policy. However, monetary gain shall
not always be the criterion for determining commercial or non-commercial
use. In Harper & Row,33 The U.S. Court held that “The crux of the profit/non-
profit distinction is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain
but whether the user stands to profit from the exploitation of the copyrighted
material without paying the customary price.” In the present case, the video
posted was a part of the electoral campaign and unauthorized use of Balbir
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 14 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34
Sen's research benefitted Ms. Dhriti as the post went viral. Thus, even
though there was no monetary benefit, the profit gained by the video in
terms of popularity cannot be ignored and therefore commercial nature of the
use of video can be established.
24. Furthermore, American Courts have developed the factor of purpose
35
and character by adding the “transformative character of the use”.
Secondary uses that transform original works by giving them a new
meaning, expression, message, or purpose are more likely to be fair.36
Remarkably, the Hon'ble SC in The Anand Case, adopted the principle of
37
transformative character.
25. In the present case, the video posted by Ms. Dhriti lacks
transformative character. The video posted is a mere representation of the
research paper of Balbir Sen in audio-visual format. No new meaning,
expression or purpose can be deduced from the video posted. Furthermore,
defense of fair use for an opinion shall be available only when the act is
accompanied by an acknowledgment as per the provision of Section 52(1).38
Thus, the protection of fair use shall not be available.
2.2. NATURE OF COPYRIGHTED WORK
26. The second fair use factor contemplates the nature of the original
copyrighted work. This factor recognizes that creative works are ‘closer to the
core of intended copyright protection’ than informational and functional
39
works. In other words, under this factor, secondary use of a copyrighted
work is less likely to be considered fair use if the original copyrighted work
was creative rather than informational.
27. It is submitted that the nature of Balbir Sen's work displayed a high
degree of creativity, in this regard reliance is placed upon the Oxford
Dictionary's definition of “research” which refers to it as a careful study of a
subject, especially to discover new facts or information.40 It is a ‘re’-'search'
meaning a process to search, again and again, to confirm given information
41
or to systematically gain new knowledge related to a particular subject.
Balbir Sen's research paper addressed a specific political ideology and
analysed the hindrances faced by it in providing an effective system of
governance over the last century.42 It highlighted problems and added new
facts and perspectives regarding the implementation of the ideology thereby
displaying significant creativity. Thus, it is submitted that in the present case
the original content possesses a high degree of creativity along with a
significant reputation amongst its audience, therefore the protection of fair
use should not be granted.
2.3. THE AMOUNT AND SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE PORTION TAKEN
28. The third fair use factor examines “the amount and substantiality of
the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.” Section 52
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 15 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in no way guarantees the right of reproduction of the whole material.

43
Substantial copying and material constitute copyright infringement. For fair
use to apply, the use must be substantial enough to render an
infringement.44 In R.G. Anand v. Delux Films,45 The Hon'ble Court observed
that there can be both qualitative and quantitative tests for finding the
substantiality. As per quantitative and qualitative tests, the more a
defendant takes and reuses from the original copyrighted work, the less
46
likely the use will be considered fair use.
29. In Harper and Row Publishers Case,47 the American court observed
that if the ‘heart of the book’ is taken by way of copying that would amount
to substantial taking. In the present case, the video was completely based
on the research of Mr. Balbir Sen. The essence of the video was same as that
of the research paper and therefore, it can be said that the video took the
“heart of the research” by copying it and this would amount to substantial
taking thereby invalidating the protection of fair use doctrine.
2.4. THE EFFECT OF THE USE ON THE POTENTIAL MARKET FOR OR
VALUE
OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK
30. The fourth fair use factor examines “the effect of the defendant's use
upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”48 This factor
requires courts to examine the market harm caused by the infringement both
to the original copyrighted work as well as to the potential market for
49
derivative works. The harm recognized under this fourth factor is
commercial in nature.
31. It is submitted that the mere possibility of competition is all that is
necessary for determining an infringement of copyright, in ESPN Stars Sports
the Court endorsed ‘the likelihood of competition’ as a ground for
infringement and held that if the work is being used to convey the same
information as the author, for a rival purpose, it qualifies as unfair.50 The
effect of the publication of the copyrighted work as a competition to the
original work is a substantial factor while ascertaining the infringement
51
case. In the present case, Balbir Sen's research paper on the analysis of
governance provided by ideologically left-leaning ruling dispensations served
the twin purpose of providing a comparative analysis for studying the
implementation of a political ideology and also enhancing political awareness
at the same time.52 Its target market consisted of academia, students and
general masses seeking political awareness. While the video circulated by
Dhriti Tiwari aimed at the same target audience in form of general electorate
and used the research purely as a comparative study to demean a particular
ideology and it also created a purely biased political narrative which can be
classified as a form of negative political awareness to suit the electoral
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 16 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

interests of Dhriti Tiwari's political party. Thereby the video not only
competed with the same market as that of the original research but also
manipulated and destroyed the market interests of the original work through
the element of biases and favoritism.
32. Furthermore, it is submitted that Dhriti Tiwari and her political party
cannot plead for an exception from copyright infringement on grounds of
spreading political awareness for serving larger ‘public interest’. In the
Rupendra Kashyap Case, wherein the defendant was involved in publishing
question papers for CBSE examinations to which the plaintiff contended to
hold an exclusive right, the Court categorically stated that the statute
governing copyright law in Republic of Nanda does not provide for public
interest as a ground for exception and an infringement cannot be exempted
merely because it is claimed to be in public interest.53
CONCLUSION

Thus, in the light of the abovementioned arguments, the Counsel for the
Respondent humbly submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari shall
uphold the order of the District Court.
3. WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (GUIDELINES
FOR INTERMEDIARIES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021 ARE
CONSTITUTIONAL?
33. It is submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari that Rule 3 to
7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “The Impugned
Rules”) are constitutional because Firstly, the rules are not violative of Part
III of the Constitution and Secondly, the rules are not ultra vires the parent
act.
3.1.THE IMPUGNED RULES ARE NOT VIOLATIVE OF PART III
34. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari that
the impugned rules are not violative of Part III of the Constitution of the
Republic of Nanda as firstly, the impugned rules stand in conformity with
Article 14 [I] Secondly, the impugned rules are not violative of Article 19
[II] and thirdly, the impugned rules do not infringe upon Article 21 of the
Constitution. [III]
I. THE IMPUGNED RULES DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 14
35. It is submitted before Court that Rule 3(1)(b) is neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory or vague in nature. Rule 3(1)(b) directs an intermediary to
inform its user not to host or display racially or ethnically objectionable,
unlawful, obscene or sexually offensive content.54
36. In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Collins55 a similar
question regarding “vagueness of terms provided in the statute” had come
before the Hon'ble Court of United Kingdom. The term “of Menacing
Character” wherein the court observed that a menacing message conveys to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 17 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the recipient that something unpleasant is going to happen and that likely
effect is the central factor in determining the charge. Further, when the case
was brought for appeal the House of Lords observed that while ascertaining
the ‘grossly offensive’ nature of a message, all the prevailing standards of
socio-economic, political and other prevailing societal circumstances must be
56
considered. Furthermore, it is submitted that in the case of Municipal
Committee v. State of Punjab, it was held that a law cannot be struck down
as violative of a Fundamental Right merely “on the ground that it is
vague”.57
37. Moreover, the expressions such as “defamatory”, “obscene”, “racially
or ethnically objectionable”, “harassing on the basis of gender” etc
mentioned under Rule 3(1)(b) which have also been used in other
legislations such as Penal Code, 1860. The Indecent Representation of
Women (Prohibition) Act, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
etc. Thus, it is submitted that Rule 3(1)(b) is not arbitrary or vague in
nature.
II. THE IMPUGNED RULES DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 19
38. It is submitted that Article 19(1) (a) guarantees to all citizens the
freedom of speech and expression which is also characterised as a ‘basic
58
human right’. However, this Art. does not give an absolute or uncontrolled
liberty wholly freed from restraint for that would lead to anarchy and
disorder.59 The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such
reasonable conditions as may be deemed to be essential to the safety,
health, peace, general order and morals of the community. It is submitted
that the impugned rules do not violate Art. 19 as firstly, the restrictions
imposed pass the test of reasonability and secondly, the Freedom of press is
not restricted.
39. Firstly, it is submitted that the restrictions imposed by the impugned
rules passes the test of reasonability. In Santosh Singh v. Delhi
Administration,60 The Honb'le SC observed that the test of reasonableness of
restriction has to be considered in each case in the light of the nature of right
infringed, the purpose of the restriction, the extent and nature of the
mischief required to be suppressed and the prevailing social order and
conditions at the time. The substance of the legislation should be analysed in
61
totality, so that the reasonableness could be determined in an objective
manner from the standpoint of the interests of the general public and not
from the point of view of the persons upon whom the restrictions are
imposed or upon abstract considerations.62
40. In the present case, Rule 3(1)(b) and Rule 5 provides for observance
of due diligence by individuals and digital media. It lays down a regulatory
mechanism to control several threats such as spreading of fake news,
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 18 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

copyright infringement, child pornography, image morphing, revenge porn,

criminal intimidation etc. It is an accepted notion that no constitutional right
63
is absolute and it can be curtailed for the public good. The impugned rules
do not cause “extinction” of the Freedom of Speech and Expression. If at all,
it is “just regulation”. Hence, it is submitted that the restriction imposed by
impugned rules is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
41. Secondly, it is submitted that the Rule 5 of the IT Act by directing
observance of due-diligence to digital news media does not infringe upon
64
freedom of Press. Reliance is placed upon the Alakh Alok Srivastava Case
wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that the migration of large number of
labourers working in the cities was triggered by panic created by fake news
that the lock down would continue for more than three months. A strong
sense of responsibility shall be observed by the media, specifically
socia1/digital media to ensure that unverified news capable of causing panic
is not disseminated.65
42. Current form of digital media faces issues such as improper content
review, increased instances of ‘live tweeting’ or ‘Facebook Live’ that are akin
to live broadcasting do not necessarily involve editorial oversight resulting in
a ‘publish first, check later’ mode of journalism and Clickbait Practices in
pursuit of virality at the expense of accuracy which have contributed in
erosion of trust in professional journalism.66
43. Thus, it is submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the present
form of digital media is not without infirmities and the impact of its misuse is
evident from the devastating experience of the migration of migrant workers
that was evoked by “fake-news” on social media. It is therefore submitted
that Rule 5 is a regulatory measure which, inter-alia provides against
threatened or apprehended injury. The impugned rules in no way provides
for the curtailment of freedom of press; rather it provides for observance of
due-diligence measure.
III. THE IMPUGNED RULES DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21
44. It is submitted before the Hon'ble HC that Rule 4(2) of IT Rules, 2021
by mandating significant social media intermediary providing messaging
services to enable the identification of the first originator of a message
flagged by either court of law or an authorised government agency does not
violate Right to privacy guaranteed under Art. 21. Individual rights cannot be
absolute in a welfare state. It has to be subservient to the Rights of the
67
public at large.
45. The right to privacy, which is an intrinsic part of the right to life and
liberty, and the freedoms embodied in Part III, is subject to the same
restraints which apply to those freedoms.68 In the landmark K S Puttaswamy
Judgement, The Hon'ble SC laid down a three-fold test of legality, necessity
and proportionality to check whether a law is violative of Art. 21 or not. It is
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 19 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

submitted that Rule 4(2) passes the prescribed three-fold test.

46. Firstly, it is submitted that the due process of law has been followed
and IT Rules have been formulated in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1), clauses (z) and (zg) of sub-section (2) of section 87 of the
IT Act, 2000. In this regard, Section 87(1) is the general rule making power
relating to the broader scope of the Act, and the Sections 87(2)(z) and 87(2)
(zg) are specific rule making powers in relation to blocking of content and
the due diligence to be observed by intermediaries respectively.

47. Secondly, it is submitted that Rule 4(2) mentions that the need for
identification arises only on specified grounds such as such as sovereignty,
69
national security, public order or rape etc. With the growing menace of
crimes such as mob lynching or riots aggravated by fake news spread by
faceless individuals hiding behind the blanket of social media, the need for
identification of first originator is required. The Report of Ad-hoc Committee
of the Rajya Sabha created “to study the alarming issue of pornography on
social media and its effects on children and society as a whole”, had also
emphasized that IT Rules, 2011 should be modified in order to enable the
tracing of the originator of the messages in cases wherein child sexual abuse
material has been shared.70

48. Thirdly, regrading proportionality it is submitted that the traceability

measure will be used by law enforcement agencies as the “last resort” and
will come by only in specific situations, such as “for the purposes of
prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of an offence
related to the sovereignty and integrity of India or child sexual abuse.71
49. Thus all three essentials for reasonably restricting Right to Privacy
under Article 21 stand fulfilled in the present case.
3.2. THAT THE IMPUGNED RULES ARE NOT ULTRA VIRES THE PARENT
ACT
50. It is submitted that the test for rule-making power was laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy Case,
wherein the Court held that while considering the validity of a subordinate
Legislation, the court will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of
the enabling Act, and also the area over which power has been delegated
under the Act and then decide whether the subordinate Legislation conforms
72
to the parent Statute.
51. It is submitted that the Preamble of the IT Act states that it is “An Act
to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of
electronic data interchange and other means of electronic
communication…”.73 This indicates that that all transactions carried out
through “electronic communication” are within the scope of the Act. It
neither defines the term “transaction”, nor limits them to be applicable to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 20 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

commercial transactions, agreements or payments. Analysing it in today's

context directly concludes that it is inclusive of ‘informational transactions on
digital media’. Further the objective sought to be achieved through the Act is
“To prevent the possible misuse arising out of transactions and other
dealings concluded over the electronic medium, it is also proposed to create
civil and criminal liabilities for contravention of the provisions of the
74
legislation”. Therefore, emphasising on the wider regulatory role over the
activities on internet authorised under the statute, in furtherance of which
the current rules have been framed.
52. It is essential to emphasise that practise of interpretation of
statement of objects and reasons for determining the objective of an Act has
been upheld in multiple cases including the Kerala State Electricity Board
75 76
Case and Baldev Singh Bajwa Case. Furthermore, the legislative intent of
regulating content on internet through the Act was also recognized by the
Delhi High Court in Justice for Right Foundation Case77, wherein the court
stated that Information Technology Act itself provides for enough procedural
safeguards for taking action in the event of any prohibited act being
undertaken by the broadcasters or organizations in the internet/online
platform. In pursuance of implementing such regulations, rules are issued
78
under the statute from time to time such as the IT Rules, 2011 (which
were effective till the 2021 rules were implemented) and IT blocking rules
2009.79 Therefore, on a similar line of action, the 2021 IT rules have been
framed in conformity with the parent statute and to effectively cater to the
needs of the present scenario.
CONCLUSION

Thus, in the light of the abovementioned arguments, the Counsel for the
Respondent humbly submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari that Rule
3 to 7 of IT Rules, 2021 are constitutional.
4. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SEIJI FOR THE
ALLEGED VIOLATION IS VALID IN LAW?
53. The Notice issued by the Government to Seiji, prohibiting it from
receiving foreign funds in capacity of a news aggregator is valid in law as
Firstly, the government was empowered under FCRA to impose such
restriction on the ground of Seiji's political influence.[4.1] Secondly, the
restriction upon foreign funding to Seiji is a reasonable restriction over the
freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) & Article 19(1)(c) of the
Constitution of Nanda, [4.2] and Thirdly, the prohibition being an economic
policy action is a matter of legislative competence and judicial interference is
uncalled for. [4.3]
4.1. FCRA DISQUALIFIES SEIJI FROM RECEIVING FOREIGN
INVESTMENT DUE TO ITS ACTIVE POLITICAL INFLUENCE
54. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 21 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

prohibition on Seiji from receiving foreign funding from the US based

investment company Axel Inc. is legally justified as firstly. Seiji is
functioning in capacity of a news aggregator [I] and secondly, Seiji possess
significant active political influence over Nanda's polity which serves as a
valid ground for disqualification from foreign funding under FCRA Statute.
[II]
I. SEIJI LEGITIMATELY CLASSIFIED AS A NEWS AGGREGATOR
55. It is submitted that the IT Act identifies the originator of an electronic
message as one being different from an intermediary.80 While intermediaries
only deal with third-party content, originators directly control the content
which is being published. Originator includes persons generating and
transmitting electronic messages, both like public and private
communication irrespective of the nature and purpose of the message. ‘News
Aggregator’ which is defined under Rule 2(o) IT Rules falls within the
category of originator dealing with electronic messages of the nature of
81
news.
56. It is submitted that certain social media platforms can also act in
capacity of news aggregators, the Reuters Institute India Digital News Report
2019 states that an overwhelming majority of the individuals identify various
forms of distributed discovery as their main way of accessing news online.
Social media platforms constituted 24% of the distributed discovery sources,
out of which platforms such as “Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter” are most
widely used − 52% of the people say they get news via Facebook, and 18%
82
say they get news via Twitter. Furthermore, the Reuters Institute Digital
News Report 2021 states that about 32 % of people are the most attentive
and trust the news coming from social media platform sources.83
57. Furthermore, the operation of social media intermediary in capacity of
a news aggregator has also been emphasised between Part II and Part III of
the IT Rules, 2021 in the form of Rule 5, which deals with additional due
diligence to be observed by an intermediary in relation to news and current
affairs content.84 It acknowledges the interlinkages on digital media between
the intermediaries and publishers of news and current affairs which act as
originators of the content. In the present case, the transmission of news on
Seiji has transformed the consumer into a “prosumer” i.e. Producer +
Consumer. It allows the audience to not only consume the content, but also
85
produce it. Thereby indirectly enabling the platform to determine the
content which is being circulated. Therefore, the classification of Seiji as a
news aggregator is legitimate.
II. SEIJI POSSESSED SIGNIFICANT ACTIVE POLITICAL INFLUENCE
58. It is submitted before the Hon'ble Court that Section 3(1) of FCRA
declares that foreign funds cannot be accepted by an organisation of political
nature. Rule 3(v) of FCRA (Regulation) Rules, 2011 declares an organisation
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 22 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as ‘political’, if organisations of farmers, workers, students or youth based on

caste, community, religion, language or otherwise, which is not directly
aligned to any political party, but whose objectives, as stated in the
Memorandum of Association, or activities gathered through other material
evidence, include steps towards advancement of political interests of such
86
groups. Furthermore, in the case of INSAF v. Union of India it was held that
the expression ‘political interests’ in Rule 3(v) has to be construed to be in
connection with active politics or party politics.87
59. It is submitted that in the present case the active political
involvement of Seiji is reflected through two instances. Firstly, the posts
shared by the Prime Minister on Seiji attacking Indu which directly resulted
in public outrage and exponential growth of Indu's popularity as a
consequential effect of which, the government lost four seats in the bye-
elections.88 Thereby highlighting the direct electoral impact that Seiji had
upon Nanda's polity. Secondly, the video shared by Dhriti Tiwari regarding
the failures of the left ideology received great user engagement on Seiji and
it became so influential that the claims made in the video were extensively
89
debated in the public forum in the backdrop of electoral campaigning. In
addition to this, news shared on Seiji often resulted in hateful conversations
and there were multiple deaths and injuries reported as a consequence of
this virtual hate.90
60. Therefore, it is submitted that due to Seiji's political nature and
influence over the active political discourse within the Republic of Nanda, it is
liable to be disqualified from accepting foreign funding as per Rule 3(v) of
the FCRA (Regulation) Rules, 2011. Furthermore, usage of algorithmic
patterns in platform's functioning does not ensure neutrality, instead, recent
studies have indicated that political biasness thrives in algorithm systems.
Reliance is placed upon the recent study conducted by Twitter which found
upon examining tweets from political parties and users sharing content from
news outlets in seven countries around the world that its algorithm amplifies
91
tweets from right-leaning parties. Seiji is not free from human intervention
as it runs on certain questions based on codes created by coding
professionals thereby it remains prone to biasness, alterations and
amplifications.
4.2. THE PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN FUNDING IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 19 of the Constitution
61. Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees the right to carry on any
occupation, trade or business92 and Article 19(1)(c) provides for the right to
93
form associations and unions. The restrictions under FCRA on transfer of
foreign funds aims to prevent and counter acts of ulterior motive, for
effective monitoring and ensuring the accountability of the recipient
association. The right to form associations and the right to freedom of trade
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 23 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and profession cannot include the right to receive unbridled, unregulated

foreign contributions.94 As the specific fund in present case was found to be
violative of the grounds enshrined under the FCRA statute that's why the
transfer of such contribution has been prohibited.
62. It is settled law that rights under Article 19 are not absolute and
subject to such reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the
95
competent legislature to achieve the desired objectives of the Act. Firstly,
reliance is placed upon the O.K. Ghosh v. Joseph judgement wherein it was
held that Article 19(1)(c) will not affect the operation of any existing law in
so far as it imposes, in the interests of public order or morality, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right.96 In the present case, restriction
aims to insulate the sensitive areas of national life like - journalism, judiciary
and politics from extraneous influences stemming from beyond our
97
borders. The objective of the prohibition is to protect the sovereignty and
integrity of the nation and the term ‘public order in its wider meaning,98
99
includes sovereignty and security of the state. Therefore the prohibition is
not violative of Article 19(1)(c).
63. Secondly, concerning Article 19(1)(g), the prohibition is protected
within the ambit of Article 19(6) as the state has been granted wide powers
100
to impose restrictions in the interests of the general public , the term
‘general public interest’ includes the conduction of free and fair elections and
having a polity that uninfluenced by foreign factors,101 which is an essential
objective sought by the prohibition. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that
the Notice to prohibit Seiji from accessing foreign funding is not violative of
constitutional rights.
4.3. JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE IS DISCOURAGED IN MATTERS OF
ECONOMIC POLICY ACTION
64. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that Judicial
Interference is uncalled for in the present issue as such interference will be
violative of the Doctrine of separation of powers and which entrusts upon the
court, the constitutional function of deciding upon the validity of a law
102
enacted by the legislature. Judicial review cannot extend to issuing
directions to the legislature either to enact a law, amend a law, implement a
law or refrain from implementing law for the simple reason that this
constitutional function lies in the exclusive domain of the legislature. In the
present case, the act of disqualifying Seiji from receiving foreign funding
under FCRA is pursuant to the implementation of a statute enacted by the
legislature and part of the state's policy of prohibiting foreign funding of
those organizations which have an active role in the nation's polity,
therefore, any interference on part of the judiciary will violate the doctrine.
65. It is essential to bring to the notice of the court that, there is an
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 24 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

established judicial practice of showing restraint in matters of economic

policy action. The Court is not the adequate forum where conflicting policy
claims may be debated, it is only required to adjudicate the legality of a
measure that has little to do with relative merits of different political and
economic theories.103 It is essential to emphasize that the process of
verifying the funds from a foreign source received by an organization in
Republic of Nanda is a complex compliance process under FCRA which
involves due diligence measures like examination of annual returns, account
statements and auditing to ensure that the economic interests of the nation
are upheld and the investment is in conformity with the current economic
policy of the state. As the present case deals with a complex process that is
part of the government's economic policy action thereby the court should
practise non-interference.
66. Reliance is placed upon the R.K Garg Case wherein it was held that
there shall be even greater judicial deterrence towards a legal action relating
to economic activities due to the complexity of economic problems and their
fulfillment through a methodology of trial and error.104 Further in the Nandlal
Faiswal Case it was noted that the Court must, while adjudging the
constitutional validity of an executive decision relating to economic matters
grant a certain measure of freedom or play in the joints to the executive.
Grounds related to efficacy and implementation cannot be used for judicial
105
interference especially in matters related to domanial expertise.
CONCLUSION
Thus, in the light of the abovementioned arguments, the Counsel for the
Respondent humbly submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Kalbari shall hold
the notice issued by the Government to Seiji for the alleged violation as valid
PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT ADVANCED AND
AUTHORITIES CITED, THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY PLEADS BEFORE THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI THAT COURT MAY HOLD, ADJUDGE AND
DECLARE THAT:
1. THAT BLOCKING INDU'S ACCESS TO THE PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL
ACCOUNTS OF PRIME MINISTER, CABINET MINISTERS, AND THE UNP
ON SEIJI IS LAWFUL
2. THAT THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI SHOULD BE
UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI
3. THAT RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (GUIDELINES
FOR INTERMEDIARIES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES,
2021 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
4. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SEIJI FOR THE
ALLEGED VIOLATION IS VALID IN LAW
OR TAKE ANY DECISION, DECREE, OR ORDER IN THE INTEREST OF
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 25 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
———
1
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476.

2
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722.

3
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649.

4
Id. at 3.

5
Id. at 3.; Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 US 345 (1974), 352.

6
Board Of Control For Cricket In India v. Cricket Association Of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251; Rendell-
Baker v. Kohn, 457 US 830 (1982), 842.

7
Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy, (2013) 8 SCC 345.

8
R v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc, [1987] Q.B. 815.

9
Donoghue v. Poplar Housing & Regeneration Community Association Ltd, [2001] 3 WLR 183 (CA).

10
Praharsh Johorey, Social Media, Public Forums and the Freedom of Speech − II, Indian
Constitutional Law and Philosophy, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2020/01/28/guest-post-
th
social-media-public-forums-and-the-freedom-of-speech-ii/, (last visited Oct.5 2021).

11
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489.

12
Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore City, 149 F.2d 212 (4th Cir. 1945).

13
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111.

14
Moot Prop. ¶6.

15
Moot Prop., ¶10.

16
Moot Prop., ¶14.

17
Moot Prop. ¶9 and ¶12.

18
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCC 436 : 1950 SCR 594.

19
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1962) 3 SCR 842.

20
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769.

21
Moot Prop. ¶11.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 26 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22
Tweets by @PMOIndia, PMINDIA, https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/social-media-updates/.

23
How to block accounts on Twitter, Twitter Help Centre, https://help.twitter.com/en/using-
twitter/blocking-and-unblocking-accounts.

24
Right to Information Act, 2005, §6, Act No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2005.

25
Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information
Technology, Government of India, Framework & Guidelines for Use of Social Media for Government
Organisations, April 2012.

26
The Copyright Act, 1957, § 52, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957.

27 th
Black's Law Dictionary, 7 Ed.

28
Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, 510 US 569 (1994).

29
Moot Prop. ¶ 14.

30
The Copyright Act, 1957, § 5, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957.

31
Blackwood and Sons Ltd. v. A.N. Parasuraman, 1958 SCC OnLine Mad 62.

32
Academy of General Education v. B. Malini Mallya, (2009) 4 SCC 256.

33
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 US 539 (1985), 562.

34
Moot Prop. ¶ 14.

35
Campbell supra note 29.

36
Campbell supra note 29.

37
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118.

38
The Copyright Act, 1957, § 52, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957.

39
Matthew Sag, The New Legal Landscape for Text Mining and Machine Learning, 66, J. COPYRIGHT
SOC'Y U.S.A. 291, 324, (2019).

40
Kothari C R, Research Methodology Methods and Techniques, p. 1, New Age International
Publishers, 2nd Edn., 2004.

41
Padma T & Rao KPC, Legal Research Methodology,1st Edn., p. 357, Asia Law House, 2011.

42
Moot Prop. ¶ 14.

43
S.K. Dutt v. Law Book Company, 1953 SCC OnLine All 286, ¶12.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 27 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44
ESPN Star Sports v. Global Broadcast News Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1385.

45
R.G. Anand supra note 38.

46
Id. at 46.

47
Harper and Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 US 539 (1985).

48
Campbell supra note 29.

49
Campbell supra note 29.

50
ESPN supra note 45.

51
Blackwood supra note 32.

52
Moot Prop. ¶ 14.

53
Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House, 1996 SCC OnLine Del 466.

54
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Rule
3(1)(b), General Statutory Rule 139(E).

55
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Collins, [2005] EWHC 1308 (Admin).

56
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Collins, [2006] UKHL 40.

57
Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, (1969) 1 SCC 475.

58
B.B. Rajwanshi v. State of U.P., (1988) 2 SCC 415.

59
Santokh Singh v. Delhi Admn., (1973) 1 SCC 659.

60
Id. at 60.

61
Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1959 SCR 12, ¶ 140.; Bennett Coleman & Co. v.
Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788; Sukhnandan Saran Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC
150.

62
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, 1959 SCR 629.

63
Binoy Visman v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 647.

64
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 345.

65
Id. at 65.

66
UNESCO, Journalism, Fake News and Disinformation, Handbook for Journalism Education and
Training, UNESCO Series on Journalism Education, (2018).
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 28 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67
Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Assns. v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 399.

68
INDIA CONST. art 19 cl. (2).

69
Information Technology Act, 2000, §4(2), Act No 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000.

70
Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha, Report of the adhoc committee of the Rajya Sabha to study the
alarming issue of pornography on social media and its effect on children and society as a whole,
https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Committee_site/Committee_File/ReportFile/71/140/0_2020_2_16.pdf.

71
Ministry of Electronics & IT, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1721915, 26th
May 2021, 5:35 PM.

72
State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517.

73
The Information Technology Act, 2000, Preamble, Act No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000.

74
Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology, The objectives of Information
Technology Act, 2000 drafted by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology,
available at http://idrbtca.org.in/ITACT.html.

75
Kerala State Electricity Board v. The Indian Aluminium Co., Ltd., (1976) 1 SCC 466.

76
Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778.

77
Justice for Rights Foundation v. Union Of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 353.

78
Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal
Data or Information) Rules, 2011, General Statutory Rule, 313(E).

79
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of
Information) Rules, 2009, General Statutory Rule 780(E).

80
Information Technology Act, 2000, Act No 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000.

81
Supra note 75.

82
Reuters Institute, India Digital News Report, 2019, Pg 10.

83
Id. at 86, Pg 135.

84
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Rule
5, General Statutory Rule 139(E).

85
Supra note 75.

86
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011, Rule 3(v), General Statutory Rule (E).
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 29 Friday, February 09, 2024
Printed For: Ridhima Mittal, Jindal Global University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87
Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 310.

88
Moot Prop. ¶9.

89
Moot Prop. ¶14.

90
Moot Prop. ¶5.

91
Twitter's algorithm favours right-leaning politics, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-
59011271 (Last Visited 26/10/2021).

92
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 574

93
Delhi Police Non-Gazetted Karmachari Sangh v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 115.

94
Id. at 98.

95
Lily Kurian v. Lewina, (1979) 2 SCC 124.

96
O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 789.

97
Association For Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1878.

98
Ramjilal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1957 SCR 860.

99
Virendra v. State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 308.

100
Kerala Bar Hotels Association v. State of Kerala, (2015) 16 SCC 421, ¶30-¶38], (Page19-23).

101
S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra, 1980 Supp SCC 53.

102
State of H.P. v. Satpal Saini, (2017) 11 SCC 42.

103
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248.

104
R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675.

105
Premium Granites v. State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 691.

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in
any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted
on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject
exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of this text must be verified from the
original source.