NMCC14 Respondents

.
TEAM CODE: NMCC-14
12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
Before
The HonorableHigh Court of Kalbari
ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF NANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. __/2021
INDU………………………………………...……………………….…......PETITIONER-1
-&-
SEJI…...……………..………………………………………………...……PETITIONER-2
V.
THE UNION OF NANDA……………………….……………..………….RESPONDENT

ALONG WITH
DHRITI TIWARI…...…...………..……………………………..…………...PETITIONER
V.
BALBIR SEN………………………………………….…………………….RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE HIGH

COURT OF KALBARI IN RESPONSE TO WRIT PETITION NO. __/2021
COUNSEL ON THE BEHALF OF THE Respondents
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

6TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021
TABLE OF CONTENT
List OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................4
Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................5
Statement of Jurisdiction.........................................................................................................7
Statement of Facts....................................................................................................................8
ISSUES RAISED....................................................................................................................11
Summary of Arguments........................................................................................................12
Issue 1: Whether Blocking Indu’s access to the personal and official accounts of Prime
Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP on Seji is unlawful?........................................12
Issue- 2 Whether the order of District Court of Kalbari should be upheld or dismissed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari?...............................................................................12
ISSUE 3: Whether Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for

Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are Constitutional?...........12
ISSUE 4: Whether the notice issued by the Government to Seiji for the alleged violation
of valid in law?........................................................................................................................13
Arguments Advanced............................................................................................................13
Issue 1: Whether Blocking Indu’s access to the personal and official accounts of Prime
Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP on Seji is unlawful?........................................13
1.1 Blocking from the personal accounts is valid because..........................................13
1.2 Blocking from official accounts is because..........................................................14
1.3 She was falling within the categories described by Seji to block someone...........15
Issue- 2 Whether the order of District Court of Kalbari should be upheld or dismissed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari?...............................................................................16
Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page

2.1. Sec. 13 of the Copyright Act 1957 is violated.......................................................16
2.2. Violation of fair use policy has been made...........................................................16
2.3. Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is violated.................................................17
2.4. The Moral Right under the Copyright Act 1957 of the Author has been violated.
18
ISSUE 3: Whether Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for

Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are Constitutional?...........19
3.1. Due Diligence Requirement to be followed by Intermediaries is in the Interest of

users. 19
3.2. Dissemination of Correct Information lies at the heart of democratic discourse.. 20
3.3. Rationale and Justification for New Guidelines....................................................21
3.4. New IT rules, 2021 has been framed in exercise of powers under the Information
Technology Act, 2000 and are constitutionally valid......................................................22
3.5. Imposing Reasonable Restrictions on Speech and Expression is in the Interest of

the Public..........................................................................................................................23
ISSUE 4: Whether the notice issued by the Government to Seiji for the alleged violation
of valid in law?........................................................................................................................25
4.1. Seiji plays an important role in shaping the Republic of Nanda’s politics............25
4.2. Seji is a news aggregator.......................................................................................25
4.3. The contribution received by Seiji violates Sec. 3 of the Foreign Contribution
Regulation Act, 2010.......................................................................................................26
Prayer for Relief.....................................................................................................................28

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
A.P. Aandhra Pradesh
AIR All Indian Reporter

& And
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Crl. Criminal
Del Delhi
FIR First Information Report
FCRA Foreign Contribution Regulations Act
Govt. Govenment
Hon’ble Honorable
INSAF Indian Social Action Forum
IT Information Technology
MP Madhyapradesh
MEITY Ministry of Electronics & Information
Technology
No. Number
Ors. Others
OTT Over-The-Top
¶ Paragraph
PIL Public Interest Litigation
§ Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
UoI Union of India
UP Uttarpradesh
V. versus
WP Writ Petition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
S.No. Name of the case Citation Pg. No.
1. Amar Nath Seghal v. Union of India MANU/DE/0132/1992 18
2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 AIR 27 22
3. Association for Democratic Forum and Anr. v. 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1878 28
Union of India and Anr.
4. Facebook Inc. vs. Union of India (UOI) and MANU/SC/1429/2019 23
Ors.
5. Folsom v. Marsh 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 17
1841)
6. Hindustan Pencils Ltd v. Alpna Cottage MANU/DE/0614/1984 16
Industries
7. Indian Social Action Forum Vs. The Union of 2020 SCC OnLine SC 310 28
India
8. India TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/3928/2012 18
V. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd.
9. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of (2018)1SCC809 13
India (UOI) and Ors.
10. K. A. Abbas v. Union of India & Anr 1971 SCR (2) 446 24
11. Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill [1985] HCA 59 21
(Football) Ltd
12. Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) AIR 471 13
13. K. A. Abbas v. The Union of India & Anr 1971 AIR 481 19
14. Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill [1985] HCA 59 19
(Football) Ltd
15. L.Nagaraju vs. Syndicate Bank and Ors. MANU/AP/3751/2013 13
16. Madras High Court, in C. Cunniah & Co. v. 1961 AIR (MAD) 111 19
Balraj & Co.
17. Mishra Bandhu v. Shivratan AIR 1970 MP 261 20
18. Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. (2016) 7 SCC 353 25
State of Madhya Pradesh
19. People’s Union for Civil Liberty v. Union of AIR 1997 SC 568 24
India
20 Prajwala, vs Union Of India and Ors. (2015)17SCC29 23
21 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India MANU/SC/0329/2015 14
22 Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. of (2016) 7 SCC 221 20
Law
23 S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam (1989) 2 SCC 574 22

24. State v. Charulata Joshi (1999) 4 SCC 65 22

25. T.V. Venugopal Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. MANU/SC/0169/2011 16
and Ors.
26. Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 5538 23
27. University of london press ltd v university 1916 2 ch 601 19
tutorial press ltd
28. Virender v. State of Punjab, 1957 AIR 896 25
29. walter v. lane 1900 ac 539 19
STATUES
 Constitution of Indica, 1950.
 Information Technology Act, 2000.
 Foreign Contribution Regulation Act,2010.
 Copyright Act, 1957.
OTHER AUTHORITIES
 Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules
2021
LEGAL DATABASE
 www.scconline.com
 www.manupatra.com
 www.lexisnexis.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners have filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari under
Article 2261 of the Constitution of Nanda. The Respondents reserve the right to contest the
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court.
1
Indian Const.Art. 226.
Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 7

12THNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background
1. Samar Pratap Singh from Tandav Party won the Prime ministerial election held in 2018.
His election strategies were heavily based on Social media. He is an active user of Seji.
His popularity continued to grow even after taking the oath of office. And community
opposing him also grew more assertive. And these groups are also taking social media as
the mode to share their views.
2. With time internet emerged as a space for hate rather than healthy communications.
Multiple cases of deaths and injuries were reported as a consequence of the virtual fight.
Keeping this in mind Seji allowed users to block someone themselves if they felt it
necessary. And Government decided to wait and watch for dealing with it more
effectively.
3. On the other hand, the Internet emerged as an important mode of circulating information
and updates about government policies and decisions.
Seji- A medium to circulate information

4. All ministers of government use Seji to inform citizens about the activities of their
respective ministries and share their views on various topics. The PM was an active user
and had a personal account (i.e. @SamarP) and an official account (i.e. @PMofNanda).
The PM was also using Seji to inform citizens about the government's policies and
decisions and for interacting with celebrities.
Reorganization of the States

5. The government decided to introduce legislation to reorganize states based on population
for making governance easier. After this reorganization, no state will have a distinct
language. This decision met with widespread opposition and people started opposing the
government led by Indu.
What is said to be wrong in Indu’s Tweets?

6. Indu has used a few emojis which are demon and knife while talking about the PM and
written against policies of the government and used A few hashtags like

ResignSamarPratap. After this PM directly responded to her on Seji. this caused public
outrage and her popularity grew tremendously. This caused loss to the ruling party(i.e.
Tandav) in upcoming elections.
7. The Government under Section 69A of IT Act 2009 issued a notice to Seji to remove Indu
as a user of Seji but, Seji denied removing Indu as it would have a chilling effect on
freedom of speech and expression.
8. Subsequently, Indu and members of her group were blocked by PM from personal as well
as the official account. They took screenshots of this and shared them. Within days all
members of Cabinet also blocked Indu and members of her group which prevented Indu
and her group from tagging and accessing all past and future posts of PM and his cabinet.
Following this event when Indu questioned the only opposition party i.e. UNP and UNP
also blocked her.
Controversy of Copyright
9. Ministers kept official duties on the side and started preparing for newly constituted
states. While doing so Dhriti Tiwari (Minister for Technology and Communication)
shared a video on Seji about diminishing leftist ideology and uprising of rightist ideology
which went viral. This video was based on a research paper written by Balbir Sen.
10. Balbir sent a copyright notice about copyright infringement to Dhriti Tiwari and Seji as
he stated that his research paper was used for benefit of a particular party which is a
violation of fair use policy. Subsequently, Seji took down that video and imposed 2 days
ban on Dhriti Tiwari. And Dhriti Tiwari refused to reply and approached the District
Court.District Court ruled that using that research paper without prior permission
constitute a violation of fair use policy.
IT (Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

11. The government decided to introduce the IT Rules 2021 to recognize the role played by
intermediaries such as Seiji in Nanda which placed duties on intermediaries to follow due
diligence measures, failing which they would lose safe harbor protections granted to them
under previous legislations. Seji is listed as a news aggregator under the new legislation.
And challenged Rule 3 to 7 of the new rules.

Hues and cries about FCRA
12. Seji has a great business model allowing them to earn from ads And strategic use of users
data attracted multiple foreign investors to invest in Seji. In August 2021, Axel inc. (a
US-based firm) invest a huge amount over Seji. However within a week of receiving the
investment, Govt. issued a notice for violation of FCRA,2010 to Seji stating that Seji was
a news aggregator and prominent role in shaping the political affairs of Nanda.

ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
Whether Blocking Indu’s access to the personal and official accounts of Prime Minister,
Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP on Seji is unlawful?
ISSUE 2
Whether the order of District Court of Kalbari should be upheld or dismissed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Kalbari?
ISSUE 3
Whether Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and

Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are Constitutional?
ISSUE 4
Whether the notice issued by the Government to Seiji for the alleged violation of valid in
law?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: WHETHER BLOCKING INDU’S ACCESS TO THE PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS OF PRIME
MINISTER, CABINET MINISTERS, AND THE UNP ON SEJI IS UNLAWFUL?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble high that blocking Indu’s access to the

personal accounts and official accounts of PM, Cabinet ministers and UNP is valid on the
following grounds:
1.1. Blocking from the personal accounts is valid because
1.1.1. She was mentally harassing them regularly.

1.1.2. Privacy is a concern for them too
1.2. Blocking from official accounts is because
1.2.1. Involvement of national interest

1.2.2. She can use the information for the wrong purposes
1.3. She was falling within the categories described by Seji to block someone
ISSUE- 2 WHETHER THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI SHOULD BE UPHELD OR DISMISSED BY THE
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI?
The counsel on behalf of petitioners humbly submit before the Hon’ble High Court on the
grounds that:
2.1. Sec. 13 of the Copyright Act 1957 is violated.
2.2. Violation of fair use policy has been made.
2.3. Sec.52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is violated.
2.4. The Moral Right under the Copyright Act 1957 of the Author has been violated.
ISSUE 3: 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 High Court that new IT Rules are constitutionally
valid on the following grounds;

3.1. Due Diligence Requirement to be followed by Intermediaries is in the Interest of
users.
3.2. Dissemination of Correct Information lies at the heart of democratic discourse.
3.3. Rationale and Justification for NewGuidelines
3.4. New IT rules, 2021 has been framed in exercise of powers under the Information
Technology Act, 2000 and are constitutionally valid.
3.5. Imposing Reasonable Restrictions on Speech and Expression is in the Interest of the
Public.
ISSUE 4: 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 High Court that notice issued by the Government
to Seji for alleged violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act,2010 is valid on the
grounds:
4.1. Seiji plays an important role in shaping the Republic of Nanda’s politic.
4.2. Seiji is a news aggregator.
4.3. The contribution received by Seiji violates sec3 of the Foreign Contribution
Regulation Act, 2010.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER BLOCKING INDU’S ACCESS TO THE PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS OF PRIME
MINISTER, CABINET MINISTERS, AND THE UNP ON SEJI IS UNLAWFUL?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble high that blocking Indu’s access to the

personal accounts and official accounts of PM, Cabinet ministers and UNP is valid on the
following grounds:
1.1 BLOCKING FROM THE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS IS VALID BECAUSE
1.1.1. She was mentally harassing them regularly.

1.1.1.1. As the government brought a bill to reorganize states 2, it was just to make
government functionaries easier it does not have any malafide intention and even after
she was harassing them regularly for this. And she was also misbehaving by using
various insulting emojis for PM.
1.1.1.2. InL.Nagaraju vs. Syndicate Bank and Ors.3,The Division Bench of Andhra
Pradesh High court went on to elucidate Mental Harassment and quoted “Harassment
is any improper and unwelcome conduct that might reasonably be expected or be
perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another person. Harassment may take
the form of words, gestures or actions which tend to annoy, alarm, abuse, demean,
intimidate, belittle, humiliate or embarrass another or which create an intimidating,
hostile or offensive work environment.”
1.1.1.3. Harassing any person at any point of time is not valid and for preventing
themselves from harassment they have blocked Indu and her group from their
respective Seji Accounts.
1.1.2. Privacy is a concern for them too

1.1.2.1. Privacy is a matter of concern for everyone including PM and his cabinet and
everyone should take steps ahead to keep themselves secure from harassment.
1.1.2.2. In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors.4, the right to privacy was declared as a fundamental right, falling well within
the boundary of Article 145, 196 and 217 of the Constitution of India. It particularly
2
Moot Prop. ¶ 7
3
L.Nagaraju v. Syndicate Bank and Ors., MANU/AP/3751/2013
4
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2018)1SCC809
5
6
7

exists intrinsic in the right of life and liberty. It was declared that this is a fundamental
and inalienable right protecting all personal information of every individual, from
even state scrutiny. Therefore, any act by anyone, including the state, which infringes
on the right to privacy of an individual is subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
1.1.2.3. As Privacy is a fundamental right, unwanted intrusion over it should not be
acceptable and one can block anyone who is disturbing them. and same was done by
PM and his cabinet.
1.1.2.4. Right to Information Act, 2005-As per Section 8(1((j), 8information which
relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any
public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy
of the individual, is exempted from disclosure. And they are also sharing their
personal information in personal accounts.9
1.1.2.5. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 10 read with the
Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of
Information by Public) Rules, 200911 allows blocking of access to information. This
Court, in the Shreya Singhal case12, upheld the constitutional validity of this Section
and the Rules made thereunder. It is to be noted however, that the field of operation of
this Section is limited in scope. The aim of the Section is not to restrict/block the
internet as a whole, but only to block access to particular websites on the internet.
Recourse cannot, therefore, be made by the Government to restrict the internet
generally under this section. In the present case here these people are not blocked
from Seji but only a few accounts on Seji.
1.2 BLOCKING FROM OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS IS BECAUSE
1.1.3. Involvement of national interest

1.1.3.1. Preventive action plays an important part in maintaining people's sense of
security. Crime prevention refers to actions taken to stop crimes before they happen.
1.1.3.2. As no right can be absolute, the Right to Information has to have its
limitations. There will always be an area of information that should remain protected
in public and national interest. Moreover, this unrestricted right can have an adverse
effect of an overload of demand on administration.
8
Right to Information Act, 2005, § 8(1((j).
9
Moot Prop. ¶ 6
10
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 69A
11
Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules,
2009
12
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, MANU/SC/0329/2015

1.1.3.3. As she was tagging the Office of PM and others including the opposition party
for no reason it was not very logical and she may tag it with some non-social elements
which are not acceptable for accessing information about policies and all she can use
other means of accessing information.
1.1.4. She can use the information for the wrong purposes
1.1.4.1. If She would be having direct access to information, she may misuse that for
her own purposes.
1.1.4.2. For curbing the misuse of the information government brought new IT
rules,2021.
1.3 SHE WAS FALLING WITHIN THE CATEGORIES DESCRIBED BY SEJI TO BLOCK SOMEONE
2.1.1. She was falling within the categories described by Seji to block any individual
that’s why PM and his cabinet was able to block her.
2.1.2. If a platform is allowing us to block someone then it’s also our right.
ISSUE- 2 WHETHER THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI SHOULD BE UPHELD OR DISMISSED BY THE
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI?

The counsel on behalf of Respondents humbly submitsbefore the Hon’ble High Court
thatthere is no violation of copyright as:
2.1. SEC.13 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT 1957 IS VIOLATED.
2.1.1. Here while Dhriti Tiwari posted a clip based on literary work or research paper which
was violating the right of Balbir Singh under Sec. 13 of the copyright act 1957. Under
Sec. 13 of the Copyright Act 1957, copyright protection is conferred on literary
works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, cinematograph films and sound
recording. For example, books, computer programs are protected under the Act as
literary works.
2.1.2. In Hindustan Pencils Ltd v Alpna Cottage Industries 13the Copyright Board of Goa
held that where the similarities between the artistic works of the parties are
fundamental and substantial in material aspects, it would amount to copyright.
2.1.3. InT.V. Venugopal Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. and Ors.14 the division bench of
the Andhara Pradesh High Court held that even though the defendant has registered
the carton under the Trademark Act, that may not come to the aid of the defendant as
the case of the plaintiff is that it owns a copyright of the artistic work under the
Copyright Act and no registration is required for the same. Thus the court held that
the plaintiff was justified in alleging infringement of his artistic work.
2.2. VIOLATION OF FAIR USE POLICY HAS BEEN MADE.
2.2.1. Balbir Sen, the author of a research paper based on which the video was created, sent
a copyright infringement notice to Dhriti and Seiji. 15 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 immediately took down the video and imposed a 2-day ban
on Dhriti Tiwari. The Minister 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.
2.2.2. Folsom v. Marsh16– This case was the first-ever case of “Fair Use” in U.S. wherein,
13
Hindustan Pencils Ltd v. Alpna Cottage Industries, MANU/DE/0614/1984
14
T.V. Venugopal Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. and Ors., MANU/SC/0169/2011
15
Moot Prop. ¶ 14
16
Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841).

Justice Story has set forth the following four factors to determine a work to be of Fair
Use, which later went to be codified under the Copyright Act, 1976: the nature and
objects of the selections made, the amount is taken; is not given so we can't justify if
it is used more than it should be or not.
2.2.3. The degree to which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or
supersede the objects, of the original work.
2.2.4. The degree to which the content is used we can clearly see that Dhriti wants to benefit
a particular party while sharing that content.
2.3. SECTION 52 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 IS VIOLATED.
2.3.1. India TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd 17- The facts
of this case state that the defendants that are, India TV broadcasted a show on its
channel documenting the life of the singers wherein the singers were shown to
perform their own songs however, while such performance was being filmed clips of
a movie scene were shown to play in the background. The plaintiff, that is, Yashraj
Films Private Limited claimed that such a scene of the movie in the background
amounts to infringement of its Copyright. The defendants took the defence of fair
dealing under Section 52. The Delhi Court dismissed the defence of fair dealing and
restrained the defendants from the production, distribution and broadcasting or in any
way exploiting any cinematograph film, sound recording or part thereof which is
owned by the Plaintiff. This litigation battle went on for years, where different angles
and viewpoints were considered, in an appeal from the above order, the Hon’ble
bench of Delhi High Court also felt the need to overlook the conventional approach of
dealing with Section 52 of the Copyright Act, the bench set aside the order passed by
the Single Judge and uplifted the restrictions so imposed. However, the Appellants
were still prohibited from broadcasting any cinematograph film without the
appropriate permission. It was through the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 that
fair dealing as a concept brought within its scope musical recordings and
cinematograph films.
2.4. THE MORAL RIGHT UNDERTHE COPYRIGHT ACT 1957 OF THE AUTHOR HAS BEEN VIOLATED.
2.4.1. Sect. 5718 of the Act defines the two basic 'moral rights of an author. These are (1)
The Right to paternity and (2) The Right to integrity.
17
India TV Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., MANU/DE/3928/2012
18
Copyright Act,1957, § 57.

2.4.2. The right of paternity refers to a right of an author to claim authorship of work and a
right to prevent all others from claiming authorship of his work. Right of integrity
empowers the author to prevent distortion, mutilation or other alterations of his work,
or any other action in relation to said work, which would be prejudicial to his honour
or reputation.
2.4.3. A case decided not too long ago by the Delhi High Court, Amar Nath Seghal v.
Union of India19discusses the issue of moral rights in substantial detail. In this case,
the plaintiff/author assigned his copyright in a bronze mural, to the Union of India.
The mural was placed in Vigyan Bhavan, but was later pulled down and dumped. The
author, Amar Nath Seghal, sued for violation of his moral rights.
2.4.4. The Delhi High Court earlier also in Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India20, has
reiterated this in its judgment saying that “Language of Section 57 does not exclude
the right of integrity in relation to cultural heritage. The cultural heritage would
include the artist whose creativity and ingenuity is amongst the valuable cultural
resources of a nation. Through the telescope of Sec. 5721, it is possible to legally
protect the cultural heritage of India through the moral rights of the artist.”
2.4.5. The main point, in that case, is that despite the transfer or sale of a copyrighted work
(Mural) from the creator to another person, all the rights of the creator do not get
extinguished. The creator still retains his/her moral rights that can be enforced when
the need be.
2.4.6. In the case of Walter v. Lane22, [which was subsequently followed in Ladbroke
(Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd 23 which involved the verbatim
reproduction of an oral speech in a newspaper report, the question was whether the
work created was copyrightable. Taking into account the amount of labour undertaken
by the reporter in taking down and recording the speech, the court opined that the
work was copyrightable as a result of such skill and labour. Court said that it is
immaterial whether the work is wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, or whether it
has or does not have any literary merit.
19
Amar Nath Seghal v. Union of India, MANU/DE/0132/1992
20
Amar Nath Seghal v. Union of India, MANU/DE/0132/1992
21
Copyright Act,1957, § 57.
22
walter v. lane 1900 ac 539
23
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd ,[1985] HCA 59

2.4.7. In University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd.. 24 court held the
word ‘original’ must be construed to mean originality of expression. There is no
requirement for revolutionary and unprecedented new ideas but the way thought is
expressed must be original. In order for a work to gain copyright protection, it must
originate from the author – the legal meaning given to ‘original’. In Kartar Singh
Giani v. Ladha Singh, the Supreme Court of India, following the approach of English
Courts, observed that copyright law does not prevent a person from taking what is
useful from an original work with additions and improvements. In many subsequent
decisions also, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have laid emphasis on
involvement of labour, skill and judgment while granting copyright protection. Later,
the Madras High Court, in C. Cunniah & Co. v. Balraj & Co., 25 recognized that the
subject dealt with need not be original, nor the ideas expressed to be novel.
2.4.8. In University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd.. 26 court held the
word ‘original’ must be construed to mean originality of expression. There is no
requirement for revolutionary and unprecedented new ideas but the way thought is
expressed must be original. In order for a work to gain copyright protection, it must
originate from the author – the legal meaning given to ‘original’. In Kartar Singh
Giani v. Ladha Singh, the Supreme Court of India, following the approach of English
Courts, observed that copyright law does not prevent a person from taking what is
useful from an original work with additions and improvements. In many subsequent
decisions also, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have laid emphasis on
involvement of labour, skill and judgment while granting copyright protection. Later,
the Madras High Court, in C. Cunniah & Co. v. Balraj & Co., 27 recognized that the
subject dealt with need not be original, nor the ideas expressed to be novel.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (GUIDELINES FOR INTERMEDIARIES

AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?
The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent most humbly and respectfully submits to the
24
university of london press ltd v university tutorial press ltd 1916 2 ch 601
25
Madras High Court, in C. Cunniah & Co. v. Balraj & Co., 1961 AIR (MAD) 111
26
university of london press ltd v university tutorial press ltd 1916 2 ch 601
27
Madras High Court, in C. Cunniah & Co. v. Balraj & Co., 1961 AIR (MAD) 111

Hon’ble court that Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 has been framed in exercise of powers under Section 87(2)28 of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 and thatit supersedes the earlier Information
Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011. These Rules significantly empower
ordinary users of digital platforms to seek redress for their grievances and demand
responsibility in the event of an infringement of their rights, and they were made under the
legality of parent IT Act200029.
3.1. DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENT TO BE FOLLOWED BY INTERMEDIARIES IS IN THE INTEREST OF USERS.
3.1.1. Rule 4 of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
code) Rules, 2021 is dedicated to examining the element of additional due diligence
that must be performed by the social media intermediaries. It also clarifies the scope
of the safe harbour provisions, which are outlined in Sec. 79of The Information
Technology Act,2000.30
3.1.2. The massive growth of digital platforms and social media in Indica has largely been
fuelled by a moderate regulatory framework under the IT Act and 2011 Rules, with
the online social media space being largely unregulated. However, given the growing
concerns around the information and content available over social media and content
platforms across both, domestic, and foreign-owned platforms accessible in Indica,
detailed regulations for digital media from the Government were imminent.
3.1.3. While the overall intent of the Government may not be to curtail constitutional
freedoms, the Rules are certainly a significant departure from the existing framework
and impose considerable compliances on intermediaries, OTT Platforms and News
Portals – each of which will now have to establish prescribed procedures and
mechanisms to comply with the Rules. OTT Platforms have to comply with applicable
law and consider the following aspects in respect of content - (a) sovereignty and
integrity of India; (b) threatening, endangering or jeopardising the security of the
State; (c) detriment to India’s friendly relations with foreign countries; and (d)
content which is likely to incite violence or disturb the maintenance of public order,
and further, take into consideration India’s multi-racial and religiouscontext.
3.1.4. With the majority of the work shifting to online mode in the pandemic, it has become
obligatory for the government and organizations to keep a check on what goes up
online.
28
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 87(2).
29
Information Technology Act, 2000.
30
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 79.

3.2. DISSEMINATION OF CORRECT INFORMATION LIES AT THE HEART OF DEMOCRATIC DISCOURSE.
3.2.1. While the right to freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press,
is essential for a dynamic democracy like India, the rights of the audience who
believe and act on false information must also be considered. Citizens cannot be
considered as passive consumers with no opportunity to participate in the process of
accountability for the content they consume. In a leading case of Subramanian
Swamy v. Union of India, Min. Of Law31,The Supreme court of India held that the
Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and expression does not confer an
absolute right to speak or publish whatever one wants and that it is not an
unrestricted licence that confers immunity and prevents punishment for abuse of the
freedom.
3.2.2. There has been considerable concern about digital content issues on both digital
media and OTT platforms. Civil society, political figures, including the Chief
Ministers, trade groups, and associations have all expressed their dissatisfaction with
the material available on OTT platforms, emphasizing the critical need for an
adequate institutional structure. Many
criminalcaseswerefiledintheSupremeCourtandtheHighCourts,withthecourts urging
the government to take appropriate action.
3.2.3. In S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam32, the constitutionality of censorship was also

upheld and it is held that “Though movies are protected by Article 19(1) (a)33, since
it appeals to a large audience, but it cannot be permitted to operate in the same free
market as newspapers and magazines. “Prior restraint-based censorship is thus not
only desirable but also necessary.”
3.2.4. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras34, Court observed "Man as rational being desires
to do many things, but in a civil society his desired have to be controlled, regulated
and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals". The
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression granted by Article 19(1) (a)
of the Constitution, which includes the freedom of the press, is not an absolute
31
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. of Law, (2016) 7 SCC 221.
32
S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam, (1989) 2 SCC 574.
33
Indian Const.Art. 19(1)(a).
34
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27

right," the Supreme Court also concluded in State v. CharulataJoshi35.
3.3. RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR NEWGUIDELINES
3.3.1. The Rules are intended to empower everyday social media users. Victims of
harassment on social media sites should have a place to go to get their complaints
heard36. The adoption of new IT Rules was prompted by broad worries about issues
such as terrorist recruiting through social media and digital platforms, the distribution
of obscene information, the propagation of discord, financial scams, incitement to
violence, and public order, among others.etc.
3.3.2. In the Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India 37, case, the Supreme Court in 2018
instructed the government to limit and prohibit the broadcast of explosive words and
films on different digital media platforms that have the potential to instigate mob
violence and lynching of any type. Again Supreme Court of Indica in two judgments
— the Prajwala case38of 2018 and Facebook Inc. v. Union of India39in 2019 —
had instructed the government of India to adopt appropriate rules to eradicate child
pornography and associated content from internet platforms and other apps.
3.3.3. The Indian Parliament has frequently urged the Indian government to tighten the
legislative framework and hold social media sites responsible for Indian laws. The IT
Rules of 2021 are the law of the nation, and the Petitioner is obligated to follow
them40.We think that the protection granted to intermediaries under Sec. 79(1)41 is
conditional on the intermediary meeting the requirements set out in Sec. 79(2) and
79(3)42. Failure to comply with the IT rules,2021 results in the requirements of
Section 79(1) of the IT Act, 2000 not applying to such an intermediary,” as stated in
Rule 7.
35
State v. Charulata Joshi, (1999) 4 SCC 65
36
IT (Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 , Rule 11
37
Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India,AIR 2018 SC 5538
38
Prajwala, vs Union Of India and Ors., (2015)17SCC29
39
Facebook Inc. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/1429/2019
40
Sidhartha and Pankaj Doval, ‘Rules protect rights of users, were framed because social media giants failed to
do so: IT and law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad’ The Times of India, June 1, 2021.
41
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 79(1).
42
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 79(2) &§ 79(3).

3.4. NEW IT RULES, 2021 HAS BEEN FRAMED IN EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER THE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 AND ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.
3.4.1. “Recognition and institutionalization of media content in the digital space” is one of
the legislative goals of the IT Act. The Act's scope includes media content utilized in
electronic communications. Part III of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, is
confined to "news and current affairs content" and "online curated content," and so
falls well within the Act's purview.
3.4.2. The rules, which were notified in February 2021, were drafted using the rule-making
authority granted to the government under Sec.69A and 79 of the IT Act, as
referenced in Sec. 87(2) (zg) and Sec. 79(2) of the IT Act, and supersede the
Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 201143. In 2018,
Amendments to the 2011 rules were proposed. Following a call to attention motion
in Parliament on "Misuse of Social Media Platforms and the Spread of Fake News,"
the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) floated the
Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018
(hereinafter referred to as "the 2018 draft rules"), which were subject to
publicconsultation.
3.4.3. Notably, the 2018 draft rules had concerned themselves solely with the regulationof
‘intermediaries’ as defined within Section 2(w) of the IT Act. Finally, in February
2021, the MeitY published the regulations under debate here, with the stated goals
of “[social media] responsibility against misuse and abuse,” as well as a “robust
grievance resolution mechanism” for “digital media and OTT.”
3.5. IMPOSING REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE
PUBLIC.
3.5.1. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021) are fully within the limits of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, and that it does not infringe any fundamental rights and that
there is little evidence to show that they have had a chilling effect on the right to
43
Govt. notifies IT rules 2021, https://www.meity.gov.in/content/notification-dated-25th-february-2021-gsr-
139e-information-technology-intermediary

freedom of speech. In the leading case of People’s Union for Civil Liberty v. Union
of India44, it was observed that reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the
freedom of speech and expression, in the security of the state. In Virender v. State
of Punjab45, there is no distinct protection of press freedom to publish anything they
choose under the Freedom of Speech and Expression. There is always the possibility
of acceptable limitations onviewpoints.
3.5.2. The misuse of information exchanged in the digital media domain has obvious
repercussions for people' democratic rights. Disinformation, or simply fake news, on
digital media may lead to violations of the audience's other fundamental rights,
including violation of the right to privacy through unlawful depiction in the media,
and violation of the right to life and personal liberty through disturbance of public
order, among other things. In K.A. Abbas v. Union of India 46, the Supreme Court
addressed the issue of film censorship for the first time under Article 19(1) (a)47. The
court upheld the issue of film censorship under Article 19(2)48, acknowledging that
freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right and that reasonable
restriction can be imposed, and thus dismissed thepetition.
3.5.3. The Court remarked that in the recent case of Modern Dental College & Research
Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh 49, it was held that due to the interdependence of
all rights, no constitutional right can be claimed to be absolute, and hence can be
limited. When there are conflicts between fundamental rights, the Court found that
they must be balanced against one other so that “they happily coexist with
eachother.”
44
People’s Union for Civil Liberty v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568
45
Virender v. State of Punjab, 1957 AIR 896
46
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, 1971 SCR (2) 446
47
Indian Const.Art. 19(1)(a).
48
Indian Const.Art. 19(2).
49
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SEIJI FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
VALID IN LAW?
4.1. SEIJI PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN SHAPING THE REPUBLIC OF NANDA’S POLITICS.
4.1.1. Nanda is amongst the heaviest internet bandwidth per capita users in the world. An
app and online website called “Seiji”, created and wholly-owned in Nanda, was the
preferred social media in the country.50
4.1.2. Seiji was an application that allowed its users to share posts, comments and also to
disseminate information anonymously. It has a similar model as that of Twitter. Seiji
did not create or manufacture any content of its own, but rather facilitated post
various types of content.51
4.1.3. In fact, the political parties in the Republic of Nanda used social media to increase
their public relations, which was majorly utilised by the Tandav Party, because of
which they won the general elections in 2018. Tandav party has a right-wing
ideology.52
50
Moot Prop. ¶ 3
51
Moot Prop. ¶ 3
52
Moot Prop. ¶ 2

4.1.4. Many groups, particularly those recognizing themselves as left and radical left also
increased significantly. Also, the opposition party United Nanda Party used Seiji to
express their views and to gain support.
4.1.5. Thus, it can be concluded that social media applications, especially “Seiji” played a
very key role in shaping the politics of the Republic of Nanda.
4.2. SEJI IS A NEWS AGGREGATOR.
4.2.1. The term “aggregator” is defined as “news aggregator means an entity who,
performing a significant role in determining the news and current affairs content being
made available, makes available to users a computer resource that enables such users
to access the news and current affairs content which is aggregated, curated and
presented by such entity.”53
4.2.2. The Union Government used “Seiji” to circulate information and update regarding
various government policies and decisions. Also, the ministers used “Seiji” to inform
the citizens regarding the activities undertaken by the various ministries.
4.2.3. Thus, this rightfully indicates that “Seiji” also functions as a “News Aggregator”.
That is it showcases the current affairs regarding the various policies that the
government is undertaking.
4.2.4. The counsel on behalf of the respondent would like to humbly and respectfully state
that a “News aggregator” plays a very significant role in determining the politics of a
country. Therefore, “Seiji” plays a very vital role in Nandan politics.
4.3. THE CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED BY SEIJI VIOLATES SEC. 3 OF THE FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION
REGULATION ACT, 2010
4.3.1. As explained54, Seiji plays a very significant role in the politics of the Republic of
Nanda. It violates Sec. 3 of the FCRA Act, 2010.
4.3.2. As Seiji plays a significant role in the politics of the Republic of Nanda, the foreign
contribution received by Axel Inc. is not acceptable.
53
Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, § 2(o).
54
¶ 4.1, ¶4.2. Memo.

4.3.3. As stated in Sec. 3(1)(f)55 “organisation of a political nature as may be specified under
Sec. 5(1)56by the Central Government”.
4.4.4. As regards the activity of the organisation, Seiji plays a very important role in the
politics of the country. Thus, it is considered as a political organization under FCRA
ACT, 2010.
4.4.5. India Social Action Forum challenged various provisions of the Foreign Contribution
(Regulation) Act, 2010 that regulate foreign funding to Indian organizations in the
case of Indian Social Action Forum Vs. The Union of India.57
4.4.6. It was held that if an organisation has any political intent or supports any political
party if it receives any foreign contribution, such contribution should be prohibited.
4.4.7. Sec. 558 of the act is not vague and is expansive, covering a large set of terms. The
object of the act is to ensure that parliamentary institutions, political associations and
other voluntary organisations as well as individuals working in the important areas of
national life should function in a manner consistent with the values of the sovereign
democratic republic without being influenced by foreign contribution.
4.4.8. Political influence is very dangerous thing for a country. The FCRA Act aims to
protect sovereignty and peace within the country. The Importance of the same was
observed in the case of Association for Democratic Reform & Anr. v. The Union of
India & Anr.53 It was found that the political parties were receiving funds, which
vilolates the provision of this act.
4.4.9. Thus, Seiji is a political organization under the FCRA Act, 2010. Thus, the notice
served for the violation of the Act is valid.
55
Foreign Contribution Regulations Act, 2010, 2010, § 3(1)(f).
56
Foreign Contribution Regulations Act, 2010, 2010, § 5(1).
57
Indian Social Action Forum Vs. The Union of India,2020 SCC OnLine SC 310
58
Foreign Contribution Regulations Act, 2010, 2010, § 5.
53
Association for Democratic Forum and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1878

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, the Respondents
humbly pray before Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari to adjudge and declare that:
1. Blocking Indu’s access to the personal and official accounts of Prime Minister,
Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP on Seji is lawful.
2. Dhriti Tiwari has violated the Copyright of Balbir Sen.
3. Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital

Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are constitutionally valid.
4. the notice issued by the Government to Seiji for the alleged violation of FCRA,2010
is valid.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in favour of the Respondents in the
interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the Respondents shall as in duty bound, ever pray.
Sd./-
Counsel on behalf of Respondents

NMCC14 Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NMCC14 Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NMCC14 Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

.

TEAM CODE: NMCC-14

12TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

The HonorableHigh Court of Kalbari

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF NANDA

THE UNION OF NANDA……………………….……………..………….RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE HIGH

COUNSEL ON THE BEHALF OF THE Respondents

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

ISSUE 3: Whether Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for

1.1 Blocking from the personal accounts is valid because..........................................13

1.2 Blocking from official accounts is because..........................................................14

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page

2.2. Violation of fair use policy has been made...........................................................16

2.3. Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is violated.................................................17

ISSUE 3: Whether Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for

3.1. Due Diligence Requirement to be followed by Intermediaries is in the Interest of

3.2. Dissemination of Correct Information lies at the heart of democratic discourse.. 20

3.3. Rationale and Justification for New Guidelines....................................................21

3.5. Imposing Reasonable Restrictions on Speech and Expression is in the Interest of

4.2. Seji is a news aggregator.......................................................................................25

Prayer for Relief.....................................................................................................................28

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page

AIR All Indian Reporter

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page

23 S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam (1989) 2 SCC 574 22

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page

 Constitution of Indica, 1950.

 Information Technology Act, 2000.

 Foreign Contribution Regulation Act,2010.

 Copyright Act, 1957.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 7

Seji- A medium to circulate information

Reorganization of the States

What is said to be wrong in Indu’s Tweets?

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 8

IT (Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 9

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 10

Whether Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 11

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble high that blocking Indu’s access to the

1.1. Blocking from the personal accounts is valid because

1.1.1. She was mentally harassing them regularly.

1.2. Blocking from official accounts is because

1.2.1. Involvement of national interest

ISSUE 3: WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (GUIDELINES FOR INTERMEDIARIES

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 12

3.2. Dissemination of Correct Information lies at the heart of democratic discourse.

3.3. Rationale and Justification for NewGuidelines

4.2. Seiji is a news aggregator.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 13

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble high that blocking Indu’s access to the

1.1.1. She was mentally harassing them regularly.

1.1.2. Privacy is a concern for them too

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 13

1.1.3. Involvement of national interest

Memorial on behalf of Respondent Page 14