TC- 12

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF
JAMBURIYAT

IN THE MATTER OF –

Ms. Akriti Barauah v. Union of Jamburiyat & Ors.

PETITIONER(S) v. RESPONDENT(S)

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

 TABLE OF CONTENT MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT ..........................................................................................................

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...............................................................................................

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................

STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................................

ISSUES RAISED................................................................................................................

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................
1. Whether the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat before the
Supreme Court of Jamburiyat is maintainable?

2. Whether the internet shutdown in Jamrajya and 3 other states maintainable under the laws
of Jamburiyat?

3. Does a nationwide ban on Jam-talk violate fundamental rights under the Constitution of
Jamburiyat?

PRAYER....................................................................................................................................

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

LIST OF ABBREVIATION MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

& And

¶ Paragraph

§ Section

AIR All India Reporter

ANNX. Annexure

Art. Article

UOI Union of India

CONST. Constitution

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

L. Law

MP Member of Parliament

No. Number

Ors. Others

P. Page Number

Para Paragraph

SCC Supreme Court Cases Online

Sch Schedule

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

LIST OF ABBREVIATION MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

U/a Under Article

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1950) SCC 228. ........................................................
2. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla ..................................................................................
3. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637. .................................................
4. Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India ..................................................................................
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab ......................................................................................
6. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) ..........................................................
7. Common Cause v. Union of India ...................................................................................
8. Golaknath v. State of Jamburiyat .....................................................................................
9. Indra Das v. State of Assam .............................................................................................
10. Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India. ....................................................................
11. Indian Broadcasting Foundation v. Union of India, (1995) .............................................
12. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar .................................................................................
13. Keshavananda Bharati vs. Union of India .......................................................................
14. K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India ...................................................................................
15. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh ...............................................................
16. Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India .............................................................................
17. Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi ..........................................................
18. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation ...............................................................
19. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India .........................................
20. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of India ..............................................................................
21. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu ...............................................................................
22. R. v. Sussex Justices, ex p. McCarthy, (1924) .................................................................
23. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India .........................................
24. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras ..................................................................................
25. Sakal Papers v. Union of India, (1962) ............................................................................
26. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram ....................................................................................
27. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India .......................................................................................
28. Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association
of Bengal ..........................................................................................................................
29. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India .....................................................................................
30. State of U.P v. Raj Narain, (1975) ...................................................................................

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

31. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) ...................................

32. Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation .............................................................
33. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan ......................................................................................

STATUTES

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ..................................................................

2. Constitution of India. ...............................................................................................
3. Indian Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021. ..........................................................................................................
4. The Indian Penal Code 1860. ................................................................................
5. Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 .........................................................................................
6. Information Technology Act, 2000.............................................................................
7. Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and
Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009. ................................................................

8. Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 ..............................................................................

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

1. INDIA CONST. art. 14.........................................................................................................

2. INDIA CONST. art. 19.........................................................................................................
3. INDIA CONST. art 21 .........................................................................................................

JOURNALS
1. AIR - All India Reporter

2. SCC - Supreme Court Cases

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER
BOOKS
1. K.I VIBHUTE, P.S.A PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW (LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERSWORTH, NAGPUR,
2012) ....................................................................................................................................
2. R.V. KELKAR, R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 486., EASTERN BOOK CO.,
LUCKNOW 1993 ............................................................................................................
3. RATANLAL RANCHHODDAS. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL’S INDIAN PENAL CODE (ACT XLV
OF 1860): WADHWA & CO., 2007....................................................................................

4. SHUKLA, V.N. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. LUCKNOW: EASTERN BOOK CO. (2012) ........
5. M.V. Pylee, Constitutional Amendments in India, 3rd ed. 2010

WEB SOURCES
1. http://www.scconline.com

2. http://www.manupatra.com

3. http://www.heinonline.com

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The case shall be initiated before the Supreme Court of Jamburiyat, which possesses the utmost
jurisdictional power within the nation. The submission shall be made in light of Article 32 of
the Constitution of Jamburiyat, which grants the right to constitutional remedies. Furthermore,
the petition contests the executive directives issued by the State of Jamrajya and three other
states, along with the nationwide prohibition on Jam-talk, citing the provisions of Articles 14,
19, and 21 of the Constitution. These articles pertain to the principles of equality before the
law, freedom of speech and expression, and safeguarding life and personal liberty, respectively.

BARE PROVISIONS PRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR YOUR REFERENCE

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part— (1) The right to move the
Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part
is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part. (3)
Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament
may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any
of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2). (4) The right guaranteed by this
article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
14. Equality before law—The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. — (1) All citizens shall
have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and
without arms; (c) to form associations or unions 2 [or co-operative societies]; (d) to move freely
throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; 1
[and] 2 [(f)* * * * *] (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business.

21. Protection of life and personal liberty—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

 STATEMENT OF FACTS MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Jamburiyat's Political Landscape:

Jamburiyat, a democratic country with British colonial roots, adopted the Westminster style of
Parliamentary Democracy and a bicameral legislature. Governed by the Constitution of Jamburiyat
since gaining independence in 1947, it has become the world's third-largest economy with rapid
growth, aiming to be the largest by 2075.

Political Tussle Over Foreign Apps:

In 2018, the Jamboorees Hukoomat Party (JHP) gained a 3/4th majority, emphasizing economic
prosperity and technological development. However, the rise of foreign-developed Apps,
especially in social media, led to a political tussle. The JHP proposed reducing the market share of
foreign Apps, causing opposition from the Democratic Party of Jamburiyat (DPJ), emphasizing
alternative economic strategies.

The Influence of Jam-talk:

A specific App, Jam-talk, became a political discussion platform, influencing public opinion and
attracting commercial advertisements. In 2023, as elections approached, violent clashes erupted
between JHP and DPJ supporters, particularly on Jam-talk. The situation escalated into religious
turmoil, prompting the JHP-led government to ban Jam-talk and shut down the internet in some
states to control law and order.

Legal Challenges and Awaited Verdict:

The Union Home Minister cited reports of opposition-funded violence, leading to the nationwide
ban on Jam-talk. The internet shutdown persisted, affecting economic activities in the four states.
Constitutional challenges were filed in the Supreme Court against the internet shutdown and the
nationwide ban on Jam-talk under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The matter is
currently awaiting final arguments.

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

ISSUES RAISED MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1
Whether the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat before the
Supreme Court of Jamburiyat is maintainable?

ISSUE 2
Whether the internet shutdown in Jamrajya and 3 other states maintainable under the laws of
Jamburiyat?

ISSUE 3
Does a nationwide ban on Jam-talk violate fundamental rights under the Constitution of
Jamburiyat?

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER
ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

The petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat is maintainable as Article
32 grants the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Since
the petitioner, Ms. Akriti Baruah, challenges the executive order of the State of Jamrajya and
three other states, alleging violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, the
Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters related to fundamental rights.

ISSUE II

The petitioner argues that the internet shutdown infringes upon the citizens' right to freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat.

ISSUE III

The petitioner humble submits in the hon’ble supreme court of jamburiyat that The nationwide
ban on Jam-talk violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Jamburiyat,
specifically Articles 14, 19, and 21.

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 1P A G E

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat

before the Supreme Court of Jamburiyat is maintainable?

1. It is humbly proffered before the Hon’ble court that the petition filed by Ms. Akriti
Baruah is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat. Article 32
grants the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
2. The petitioner challenges the executive order of the State of Jamrajya and three other
states, alleging violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, the
Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters related to fundamental
rights.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner's arguments focus on the unconstitutional nature of
the internet shutdowns and the ban on the Jam-talk application, highlighting violations
of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat.
Hence, it is humbly submitted that; the petition filed before the hon’ble supreme court
under article 32 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat is maintainable it is further submitted
that the internet ban in the 4 states is unconstitutional also the ban on the jamtalk app
is unconstitutional under the healing shadows of the fundamental rights

4. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that a basic ingredient for invoking a
petition under article 32 is violation of Fundamental Rights stated in the constitution
from Art.12-35.

5. According to the Constitution of Jamburiyat article 32 comments that the citizens are
entitled to appropriate relief U/a 32 Provided it is shown to the satisfaction of the court
that fundamental right of petitioner has been violated; Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar, AIR
2010 SC 1384:(2010)4 SCC 460: JT 2010 (3) SC 259

1
MOOT PROPOSITION
2
The Indian Penal Code 1860
3
Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar, AIR 2010 SC 1384:(2010)4 SCC 460: JT 2010 (3) SC 259
4
Constitution of India

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

6. It that government of jumburiyat imposed a ban on the application of jam talk which
is the symbol of right to speech and liberty of the citizen of Jamburiyat and was used
as a platform for healthy political discussion which enabled with the common man of
this country to participate in decision making to some extent also it is pertinent to
mention that the government of Jamburiyat Imposed a ban on the Internet in the four
states of Jamburiyat Which is a clear violation of fundamental right of the people of
this land because the Internet itself represents the freedom of speech and liberty, which
subsequently curtailed by the government of Jamburiyat for their own personal
benefits and gains.
7. It is humbly submitted that the Article 14: Equality before law is violated as- The
petitioner contends that the executive order of the State of Jamrajya and the subsequent
nationwide ban on Jam-talk violate the principle of equality before law. The arbitrary
and blanket ban on a specific application without due process discriminates against the
users and creators of Jam-talk, depriving them of equal protection under the law

8. It is humbly submitted that the Article 19: Freedom of speech and expression is
violated as - The petitioner argues that the ban on Jam-talk infringes upon the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Jam-talk has become a
platform for political discussion and social commentary, allowing citizens to engage
in public discourse. The ban curtails this freedom and stifles dissenting voices,
undermining the democratic fabric of republic of Jamburiyat. In the case of Shreya
Singhal v. UOI AIR 2015 SC 1523; Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 OF 2012
affirms the importance of freedom of speech and expression on online platforms. The
Supreme court declared Section 66A of the IT ACT-2000(Amended in 2008)
unconstitutional for “being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article
19(2).

9. It is humbly submitted that the Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty is violated
and the petitioner asserts that the prolonged internet shutdown in the affected states
violates the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Access to the
internet is essential for various aspects of daily life, including communication,
education, and livelihood. The arbitrary deprivation of internet services disrupts the
normal functioning of society and adversely impacts the well-being of the citizens.
4
MOOT PROPOSITION
5
Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar, AIR 2010 SC 1384:(2010)4 SCC 460 : JT 2010 (3) SC 259
6
Shreya Singhal v. UOI AIR 2015 SC 1523; Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 OF 2012
7
Constitution of India
3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 PAG E
ARGUMENT ADVANCED MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

10. It is humbly submitted that in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. state of Kerala
(1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461 establishes the doctrine of basic structure and
the supremacy of the Constitution .In the Kesavananda Bharati Case 1973, the Supreme
Court established some landmark principles it was ruled that Parliament can amend the
Constitution but only in line with its fundamental principles, including the alteration of
Fundamental Rights .The concept of the basic structure doctrine was upheld, restricting
Parliament from making changes that violate the Constitution’s fundamental structure.
11. It is humbly submitted that in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI AIR 1978 SC 597;
(1978) 1 SCC 248 expands the scope of Article 21 to encompass the right to
information and freedom of expression. The important judgment in Maneka Gandhi vs.
Union of India, which serves as a bastion of Article 21’s Right to Personal Liberty,
began when the officials confiscated the petitioner’s passport under the Passport Act.
This arbitrary passport seizure finally resulted in a unanimous judgment by a seven-
judge bench of the Supreme Court.
12. It is humbly submitted that the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
recognizes the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. It was held that
privacy concerns in this day and age of technology can arise from both the state as well
as non-state entities and as such, a claim of violation of privacy lies against both of
them. The Court also held that informational privacy in the age of the internet is not an
absolute right and when an individual exercises his right to control over his data, it may
lead to the violation of his privacy to a considerable extent. It was also laid down that
the ambit of Article 21 is ever-expanding due to the agreement over the years among
the Supreme Court judges as a result of which a plethora of rights has been included
within Article 21.
13. And hence it is concluded, that the petitioner asserts, that the petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of Jamburiyat is maintainable, and the actions of the executive
authorities violate fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme
Court is urged to uphold the rule of law, strike down the arbitrary bans, and restore the
constitutional rights of the citizens

9
MOOT PROPOSITION
10
The Indian Penal Code 1860
11
Kesavananda Bharati v. state of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
12
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248
13
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
14
Constitution of India

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 PAG E

ARGUMENT ADVANCED MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

2. Whether the internet shutdown in Jamrajya and 3 other states maintainable

under the laws of Jamburiyat?

14. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Ms. Akriti Baruah (hereinafter
called ‘The petitioner’) submits that the internet shutdown imposed in Jamrajya and the
three other states is in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14,
19, and 21 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat. Article 14 ensures equality before the law
and equal protection of the laws, while Article 19 guarantees the right to freedom of
speech and expression, including the right to access information and communicate
through the internet. Additionally, Article 21 safeguards the right to life and personal
liberty.

15. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the petitioner argues that the internet
shutdown constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the
citizens. While the government can impose reasonable limitations on these rights for the
sake of public order and security, the shutdown should be proportionate and necessary.
The prolonged disruption of internet services affects various aspects of life, including
communication, education, business, and access to essential services, thereby
disproportionately impacting the citizens.

16. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the executive order to shut down the internet
lacks procedural safeguards and due process. The order was initially issued for a
duration of two weeks, with a subsequent extension of two weeks. However, the order
has expired, yet the internet shutdown remains in place.

17. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court the petitioner highlights the adverse
economic impact of the internet shutdown on the residents of the affected states is also
emphasized by the petitioner. Economic activities, such as online businesses, e-
commerce, and digital transactions, have been severely disrupted, resulting in financial
losses and unemployment. This not only violates the right to livelihood but also hampers
the overall economic development of the states.

18. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the nationwide internet ban infringes upon the
freedom of expression of the citizens of Jamburiyat. The internet serves as a vital
medium for accessing essential services and has become indispensable for
communication. The shutdown imposed by the executive authorities of Jamrajya and the
three other states directly violates the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression,
including the right to access information and communicate freely. Additionally, it also
violates Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty, including
access to essential services and information necessary for livelihood. The citizens' daily
lives and livelihoods are disproportionately impacted by this internet shutdown.
15
MOOT PROPOSITION
16
Constitution of India

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 PAG E

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

19. The petitioner, in this case, fervently urges the esteemed court to uphold the utmost
principles of democracy, rule of law, and fundamental rights as enshrined in the
Constitution of Jamburiyat. It is emphasized that striking a delicate balance between
maintaining law and order and safeguarding individual liberties is of paramount
importance, particularly in the modern digital age where access to information and
communication plays a vital role.

20. Furthermore, reference is made to the notable case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of
India (2020) 3 SCC 637, wherein the Honorable Supreme Court of India aptly
emphasized the vital need for proportionality and reasonableness when imposing
restrictions on the internet. The court held that any enforced internet shutdown should
scrupulously adhere to the principles of proportionality and necessity.

21. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that in summation, it is vehemently
asserted by the petitioner that the enacted internet shutdown and ban on Jam-talk defy
the bounds of constitutionality and represent arbitrary measures that flagrantly violate
fundamental rights and undermine democratic values. In light of this, the esteemed
Supreme Court of Jamburiyat is earnestly beseeched to strike down these grievous
orders and steadfastly uphold the principles of rule of law and constitutionalism.

17
MOOT PROPOSITION
18
Constitution of India
19
Faheema Shirin v/s state of Kerala AIR 2020 KERALA 35, AIRONLINE 2019 KER 383, (2019) 4 KER LJ
634, (2019) 4 KER LT 301, (2019) 4 RECCIVR 585, 2020 (1) ALLMR (JS) 1
20
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
21
Legality of the Internet Shutdown under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 3 CMET
(2016) 95

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 PAG E

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER
.

3. Does a nationwide ban on Jam-talk violate fundamental rights under the

Constitution of Jamburiyat?

22. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the petitioner contends that the
nationwide ban on Jam-talk violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of Jamburiyat, specifically Articles 14, 19, and 21. Article 14 ensures
equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, Article 19 guarantees the
freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21 protects the right to life and personal
liberty.

23. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble by the petitioner that the the ban on Jam-talk
infringes upon the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens of Jamburiyat. The
Article 19: Freedom of speech and expression is violated as Jam-talk has become a
platform for political discussions and debates, allowing citizens to express their opinions
and engage in public discourse. Banning this platform restricts the free flow of ideas and
stifles democratic dialogue. "Jam-talk serves as a crucial medium for the distribution of
news and updates, empowering the public to remain abreast of ongoing events and
governmental directives. The prohibition of Jam-talk not only impedes the flow of
information but also infringes upon the fundamental right to knowledge. Such a measure
can be seen as a direct assault on the very foundations of our democratic society."
24. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, which dealt with the validity of
restrictions on online speech. The Supreme court declared Section 66A of the IT ACT-
2000(Amended in 2008) unconstitutional for “being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and
not saved under Article 19(2).
25. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble by the petitioner that Right to Livelihood
(Article 21) is violated as the ban adversely affects the livelihoods of individuals who
rely on Jam-talk for income generation. Many content creators and influencers earn a
living through the platform, and the ban deprives them of their means of livelihood
without due process of law. The petitioner contends that the government's actions are
disproportionate and fail to address the root causes of the violence and disturbances.

26. The executive orders imposing the ban lack legal justification and due process. The
government failed to provide substantial evidence to support the necessity of such
drastic measures. Additionally, the prolonged internet shutdown in certain states violates
the rule of law and democratic principles. The prolonged internet shutdown in the
affected states severely infringes upon the residents' right to access information and
communication. The ban disrupts essential services, such as healthcare, education, and
business activities, adversely affecting the livelihoods and well-being of the citizens.

22
MOOT PROPOSITION
23
Constitution of India
24
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
25
Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962) 3 SCR 842
26
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram
27
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (Freedom of speech and expression) 1966 AIR 740 1966
SCR (1) 709

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

27. It is submitted in the case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram the importance of free
speech in a democratic society. The case of S. Rangarajan V/s P. Jagjivan Ram directed
that there should be a correct balance between one among the proper free speech and
restriction of any social interest.

28. Furthermore, the government's failure to restore internet services exacerbates the
situation, causing undue hardship and distress to the population. The nationwide ban on
Jam-talk disproportionately targets a specific form of communication and expression,
discriminating against users of the platform.
29. It is humbly submitted the petitioner contends that the nationwide ban on Jam-talk is
unconstitutional and violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of
Jamburiyat. The ban infringes upon the rights of freedom of speech and expression, as
well as the right to life and personal liberty. The case of Indra Das v. State of Assam
emphasizes on the right to personal liberty The petitioner urges the Supreme Court to
strike down the ban and uphold the principles of democracy and fundamental rights.The
petitioner also seeks relief for the affected individuals and restoration of access to Jam-
talk and the internet in the states where they have been banned.

28
MOOT PROPOSITION
29
Constitution of India
30
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram
31
Indra Das v. State of Assam
32
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (Freedom of speech and expression) 1966 AIR 740 1966 SCR (1)
709

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E

 PRAYER MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

PRAYER
The petitioner, Ms. Akriti Baruah, respectfully submits the following prayer before this
Honorable Court:

1. Maintainability of Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat:

It is requested that this Honorable Court adjudicate upon the maintainability of the petition
filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Jamburiyat. The petitioner asserts that the
issues raised in this petition concern the fundamental rights enshrined under the
Constitution of Jamburiyat, thereby necessitating the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

2. Internet Shutdown in Jamrajya and Other States:

The petitioner humbly seeks the intervention of this Honorable Court to declare the internet
shutdown imposed by the Government of Jamrajya and three other states as unconstitutional
and illegal. The prolonged suspension of internet services has severely impacted the daily
lives and livelihoods of the residents of these states, infringing upon their fundamental
rights under the Constitution of Jamburiyat.

3. Legality of Nationwide Ban on Jam-talk:

The petitioner urges this Honorable Court to examine the legality of the nationwide ban
imposed on Jam-talk by the Government of Jamburiyat. Such a ban infringes upon the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of
Jamburiyat, specifically the rights to freedom of speech and expression, freedom to engage
in trade and commerce, and the right to life and personal liberty.

4. Urgent Relief:

In light of the urgency of the matter and the severe repercussions of the impugned actions of
the respondents, the petitioner prays for immediate relief in the form of lifting the internet
shutdown in the affected states and revoking the nationwide ban on Jam-talk. This will
restore normalcy and safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizens of Jamburiyat.

5. Any Other Relief Deemed Fit by this Honorable Court:

The petitioner requests this Honorable Court to grant any other relief or remedy that it
deems just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case, considering the gravity of the
violations of fundamental rights and the interests of justice.

The petitioner, therefore, respectfully prays for the above reliefs and any other relief or
direction that this Honorable Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice.

Respectfully Submitted,

Counsels on behalf of Petitioner

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 |PA G E