XXVIII ALL INDIA

MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2024

BENCH MEMORANDUM

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNION OF DEVANALA

RAKTASURA
V.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND UNION OF DEVANALA

SUMMARY OF FACTS

INTRODUCTION

Devanala is one of the largest Asian countries in the world. It operates under a Democratic Federal
System of Government. The country's astounding ecosystems, particularly on the islands under the
Union of Devanala, attract countless tourists each year. One of such islands includes Dvipa, ranked as
the most beautiful destination in the world thanks to its unique pink sand beaches. Kutira, a luxury
resort situated on Dvipa, is a magnet for tourists.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

I. ACTION OF THE POLICE -

To address the increase in crime rates, the Police Commissioner of Dvipa introduced ankle bracelets
with GPS tracking for individuals with criminal records and considered a danger to society.
Raktasura, a pool attendant working at the Kutira Luxury Resort, was pinpointed as a candidate for
the same.

II. RAKTASURA’S PROFILE -

Raktasura, a member of an ethnic group in Dvipa, committed serious offenses under sections 354 and
376 of the Devanala Penal Code, 1860, in January 2019. At the time of the crime, he was 16 years old
and hence, was placed in a detention center. While in detention, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation
and was diagnosed with Multiple Personality Disorder, indicating a propensity for violence and
posing a threat to others.

III. BREACH OF DATA -

Mr. Joshi, a National Editor for ‘Verdict Times, noticed Raktasura's ankle bracelet while on duty.
Using AI chatbots and other software, he hacked into police data records, despite precautions taken by
the Police Department. This breach unraveled Raktasura's criminal records. Mr. Joshi later published
these details through the media.

AFTERMATH
Consequently, Raktasura was promptly dismissed from his job at Kutira. The media began pursuing
him for interviews regarding his experience wearing the ankle bracelet and the breach of his privacy.

ACTIONS TAKEN
I.BY PETITIONER -
Raktasura filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court of Devanala, alleging violations of his
fundamental rights under the Constitution of Devanala, 1950. He also sought compensation for
damage to his reputation and called for the regulation of AI under the Digital Personal Data Protection
Act, 2023.

II. BY RESPONDENTS -
Expecting legal action, the Commissioner of Police and the Union of Devanala filed a caveat with the
court. They argued that for protection of societal interests, individuals posing a threat to society
should be detained under Article 19, emphasizing the right to life of Devanala's citizens.

EPILOGUE
Currently, the Supreme Court of Devanala has issued notices to all parties involved and scheduled the
case for final arguments.

Note: The laws of Union of Devanala are in Pari-Materia with that of the laws of Union of India.
 ISSUES RAISED

The following issues have been framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for
consideration-

I. ISSUE 1 – Whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to address the
issues raised by Raktasura in Writ Petition as under the Constitution of Devanala,
1950?
II. ISSUE 2 - Whether Dvipa has violated any fundamental rights of Raktasura and is it
justified to introduce a system of Ankle Bracelets to be worn by the convicts?
III. ISSUE 3 - Whether the State failed to take necessary steps to protect the data as per
the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023?
IV. ISSUE 4 - Whether Dvipa can be held liable to compensate Raktasura for the acts of
Mr. Joshi in publishing his personal information in Media?
 POTENTIAL ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 – Whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to address the
issues raised by Raktasura in Writ Petition as under the Constitution of Devanala,
1950?

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

I. VIOLATION OF RAKTASURA’S I. NO LOCUS STANDI AND NO

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Article 21 – right to privacy has been violated
due to the usage of ankle bracelets. A citizen has the right to approach the
Supreme Court under Article 32 only when
The Right to be Left Alone and the Right to be
there is infringement or violation of the
Forgotten has been violated due to the news
Fundamental rights. In the instant there is
published by the media.
no violation of any fundamental rights.
K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India - (2017) 10
The actions taken by the respondents were in
SCC 1 – the Right to Privacy was declared a
furtherance of the principles of social interest.
fundamental right by the Supreme Court. The
There was no violation of fundamental rights
right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part
as the actions were taken to balance
of the right to life and personal liberty under
individual rights and societal interests via
Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms
some reasonable restrictions as according to
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
the Constitution and as the DOCTRINE OF
The Right to Livelihood of the petitioner has
SOCIAL INTEREST STATES Public interest
been affected due to the actions following the
outweighs any individual interest.
publishing of his data, which led to him being
The Supreme Court in the case of Manish
fired, ultimately affecting his livelihood.
Kumar v. Union of India (2021) of Instead of
The Right to Dignity has been affected –
directly approaching the Supreme Court, the
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1
Petitioner should have sought remedies in
SCC 248 – “Right to Life includes Right to
lower courts regarding the actions of the
Human Dignity”
Respondents concerning the ankle bracelet.
Article 14 – the Right to Equality has been The same could be considered as being
violated - Raktasura, an ex-convict, is now a upheld in the case of M/s. HCL Infosystems
free man and must be treated equally as other Limited v. State of Rajasthan (2019).
citizens. The usage of ankle bracelets denies this
Article 19 (1) (d) – Though the constitution
right.
guarantees the right to move freely, this
Article 19(1)(d) – provides right to move freely can be reasonably restricted according to
throughout the territory of Devanala. The ankle Article 19(5).
bracelets violate this right as they hinder
Also, Article 14 forbids class legislation, but
movement due to restrictions it brings along.
does not forbid classification or
II. THERE IS NO NEED TO differentiation which rests upon reasonable
EXHAUST THE ALTERNATIVE grounds of distinction.
REMEDY
Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the
Article 32 - Anyone can move to the Supreme rights guaranteed under article 21 in the
Court for appropriate remedy if their interests of public order, national security
Fundamental Rights have been violated. The etc.
aggrieved citizens can directly move to Supreme
In Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. [1950
Court to seek remedy for violation of his
SCC 695] succinctly defined the expression
Fundamental Rights.
“reasonable restrictions” - “The phrase

In this case, the act of the Commissioner of ‘reasonable restriction’ connotes the

Police of Dvipa to make Raktasura wear an limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment

ankle bracelet is inhumane and arbitrary. of the right should not be arbitrary or of an
excessive nature, beyond what is required in
Banti Kanda Das & Anr. v. State of Assam the interests of the public. The word
(2009) - Underlying the significance of Article ‘reasonable’ implies intelligent care and
32, the Supreme Court has characterized the deliberation, that is, the choice of a course
jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 32 as an which reason dictates.
important and integral part of the basic structure
II. ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS NOT
of the Constitution because it is meaningless to
EXHAUSTED.
confer fundamental rights without providing an
effective remedy for their enforcement, when It is submitted that the petitioner had an
they are violated alternative remedy to approach the High court
under Article 226.
Common Cause, a Registered Society v.
In Secretary, Govt. of India v. Alka Subhash
Union of India (AIR 1999 SC 3020) - Article
Gadia, 1990 SCR, Supl. (3) 583, it has been
32 provides a guaranteed, quick and summary
held that Article 32 confers ‘extra- ordinary
remedy for enforcing the fundamental rights
jurisdiction’, the same must be used sparingly
because a person can go straight to the Supreme
and in circumstances where no alternative
Court without having to undergo dilatory
remedy is available.
process of proceeding from the lower court to
the higher court as he has to do in ordinary In Union of India v. Paul Manickam – AIR
2003 SC 4622- it was held that “in order to
litigation. invoke jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution to approach this Court directly, it
The supreme court cannot merely refuse the
has to be shown by the petitioner as to why
application under Article 32 on the following
the High Court has not been approached,
grounds:
could not be approached or it is futile to
That such application has been made to the SC approach the High Court.” In the instant case,
in the first instance without resort to the HC Raktasura failed to show as to why the High
under Article 226. - P.N.Kumar v. Municipal Court has not been approached first to direct
Corporation of Delhi - (1987) 4 SCC 609 the State to take immediate actions.

That there is some alternative remedy available. In P.N. Kumar and Anr. v. Municipal
- State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection Corporation of Delhi - 1987 SCC (4) 609, the
of Democratic Rights - (2010) 3 SCC 571 writ petition of petitioners was dismissed by
the apex court and the petitioner was asked to
In Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni file the same writ jurisdiction in the
Moopil Nayar vs. State of Madras - AIR 1960 respective High Court because the High Court
SC 1080, it has been observed that an has a wider ambit in Article 226.
application made under Article 32 cannot be
Considering the principles of federalism and
rejected on the simple ground that the petitioner
the precedent set by cases such as L Chandra
has an alternative remedy open to him
Kumar v Union of India - 1997 (3) SCC 261,
it is apparent that matters falling within the
jurisdiction of the state should ideally
undergo adjudication at the state level. The
petitioners have failed to follow the hierarchy.

It was held by this Hon’ble apex court in

Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson
Hosiery - 1979 (4) SCC 22, where there is
alternative remedy, the court should not
interfere unless the alternative remedy is too
dilatory or cannot grant quick relief.
ISSUE 2 - Whether Dvipa has violated any fundamental rights of Raktasura and is it
justified to introduce a system of Ankle Bracelets to be worn by the convicts?

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

I. VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO I. PRESENCE OF INTELLIGIBLE

EQUALITY DIFFERENTIA AND
RATIONAL NEXUS
Article 14 talks about equality before law and
the equal protection of the laws within the In National Council for Teacher Education v.
territory of Devanala. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan -
(2011) 3 SCC 238, it was observed that Article
In National Council for Teacher Education v.
14 forbids class legislation but permits
Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan -
reasonable classification provided that it is
(2011) 3 SCC 238, it was observed that Article
founded on an intelligible differentia which
14 forbids class legislation but permits
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped
reasonable classification provided that it is
together from those that are left out of the group
founded on an intelligible differentia which
and the differentia has a rational nexus to the
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped
object sought to be achieved by the legislation
together from those that are left out of the group
in question.
and the differentia has a rational nexus to the
object sought to be achieved by the legislation In State of MP v. Bhola - (2003) 3 SCC 1, the
in question. Hon’ble Court held that the classification of
offenders on the basis of their antecedent or
There is selective usage of ankle bracelets to
past conduct and gravity of conduct was a
track individuals with criminal antecedents.
valid and permissible classification under
Since any individual can prove to be a threat to
Article 14.
society there is no intelligible differentia. A
person who is wearing the ankle bracelet may The classification made was based on an
ignore the consequences and commit any crime. intelligible differentia since the system of ankle
Hence there is no rational nexus. bracelets were introduced for individuals with
criminal antecedents. There must also be
II. VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF
rational nexus between the classification and the
MOVEMENT
object sought to be achieved. The provision of
Article 19(1)(d) guarantees to every citizen the
‘ankle bracelets’ equipped with GPS tracking
right to move freely throughout the territory of
was introduced with the objective of reducing
India. The restraints imposed on the movement
crime rates in Dvipa.
of the petitioner are arbitrary, unreasonable and
II. EQUALITY TEST AND TEST
do not constitute as an exception provided under
Article 19(5). OF REASONABLENESS

In Gobind v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And To establish the violation of Article 21, the act
Another, (1975) 2 SCC 148, with respect to should be subjected to the equality test of
Article 19(1)(d), it was observed that the right Article 14 and test of reasonableness under
under that sub-article is not mere freedom to Article 19.
move without physical obstruction and observed
Article 14 ensures fairness and guarantees
that movement under the scrutinizing gaze of
against arbitrariness. Article 19 provides that an
the policeman cannot be free movement, that
act can be characterized to be reasonable if it
the freedom of movement in clause (a) therefore
strikes a balance between the fundamental
must be a movement in a free country i.e. in a
right and restriction imposed thereon.
country where he can do whatever he likes,
Raktasura, having antecedent criminal records
speak to whomsoever he wants, meet people of
along with being a threat to society, was made
his own choice without any apprehension,
to wear the ankle bracelet keeping in view that
subject of course to the law of social control and
the Right to Life of the citizens of Devanala
that a person under the shadow of surveillance is
should be safeguarded.
certainly deprived of this freedom.
III. ARTICLE 21 IS NOT AN
III. VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO
ABSOLUTE RIGHT
LIVELIHOOD
In Mohd. Shakeel Ahmed v. State of
In Delhi Development Horticulture v. Delhi
Telangana - CRIMINAL PETITION No.736
Administration, 992 AIR 789, it was opined
OF 2019, it was held that Article 21 of the
that the right to life would include the right to
Constitution is not an absolute fundamental
livelihood and, therefore, the right to work.
right but qualified. There is no denying the fact
Hence if an individual is deprived of his/her
that the liberty of an individual is precious and
right to work, it would also amount to the
is to be zealously protected by the courts.
deprivation of right to livelihood of the
Nonetheless, such protection cannot be absolute
individual.
in every situation. The fundamental Right to be
The failure of the State to protect the private Forgotten and Right to Privacy, being implied
information of the Petitioner has led to its rights under Article 21, can be considered as
publication on national media because of which, qualified rights.
the Petitioner was terminated from his
In Ramlila Maidan Incident, in re - (2012) 5
employment as he was a threat to the guests.
SCC 1, Right to Privacy has been held to be a
IV. VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO BE fundamental right of the citizen being an
FORGOTTEN AND RIGHT TO BE integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of
LEFT ALONE India by this Court. Illegitimate intrusion into
privacy of a person is not permissible as the
It was observed in the case of Justice K.S. right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and
Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India liberty guaranteed under our Constitution.
& Ors. - (2017) 10 SCC 1, that “The right “to be However, the right of privacy may not be
let alone” thus represented a manifestation of absolute and in exceptional circumstances,
“an inviolate personality”, a core of freedom particularly surveillance, in consonance with the
and liberty from which the human being had to statutory provisions may not violate such a
be free from intrusion.” right.

The High Court of Delhi in its judgment in The Right to Life of the people of Dvipa was
Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. Quintillion Business at stake. Though there is surveillance on the
Media Pvt. Ltd. - CS(OS) 642/2018, has Petitioner through the ankle bracelets, this is
recognized the “Right to be forgotten” and done to maintain public order. This is a
‘Right to be left alone’ as an integral part of reasonable restriction on the Right to Privacy
individual's existence. of the Petitioner.

Right to be Left Alone has been violated since IV. PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED
the Petitioner has already served his sentence in BY LAW
the detention center and is no longer a convict.
Article 21 of the Constitution states that no
Also, the Right to be Forgotten, a concept
person shall be deprived of his life or personal
rooted in privacy rights, is also infringed upon.
liberty except according to procedure
Despite serving his sentence and attempting to
established by law. It recognizes the right of the
reintegrate into society, the continuous tracking
State to deprive a person of his life or personal
of his movements hinders his rehabilitation
liberty in accordance with fair, just and
efforts.
reasonable procedure established by valid law.
V. VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras - AIR 1950
PRIVACY
SC 27, the Court observed that no extrinsic aid
In R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N - (1994) 6 SCC is needed to interpret the words of Article 21,
632, it was observed that the Right to Privacy which are not ambiguous. Therefore, the
is implicit in the Right to Life and Liberty deprivation of life is constitutionally
guaranteed to the citizens of this country by permissible if that is done according to
Article 21. It is a ‘right to be left alone’. procedure established by law.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India - (1978) 1 Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution states “In
SCC 248, the Supreme Court affirmed the right this article, unless the context otherwise
to privacy as an integral aspect of the right to requires, "law" includes any Ordinance, order,
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or
Indian Constitution. usage having in the territory of India the force
Right to Privacy has been blatantly violated. of law.”
The GPS tracking system gave the police
The introduction of the system of ankle
complete access to all movements of the
bracelets was backed by an executive order for
Petitioner.
maintenance of law and order. By virtue of
VI. DOCTRINE OF NON- Article 13(3)(a), this can be considered as a law.
RETROGRESSION
V. PRIVATE INTEREST v.
The doctrine of non-retrogression states that PUBLIC INTEREST
governments should not take actions that
In Masroor v. State of U.P - 2009 (14) SCC
deliberately reduce the enjoyment of rights.
286, it was observed that the valuable right to
In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh - the liberty of an individual and the interest of
AIR 1963 SC 1295, the Supreme Court of India society in general must be balanced. It is
held that 'life' encompasses something more possible that in each situation, the collective
than mere animal existence and includes the interest of the community may outweigh the
right to live with dignity and freedom from right of personal liberty of the individual
arbitrary state interference. concerned.

In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu - AIR In Smt. Lucy R. D'Souza And Etc. Etc. v. State
1974 SC 555, the Supreme Court held that of Goa and Others – AIR 1990 BOM 355, it
administrative action must not be arbitrary, was well settled that if there is a conflict
unfair, or unreasonable, and must be based on between the right of an individual and public
valid reasons. interest, the former must yield to the latter.

There is insufficient evidence to suggest that The reasonableness of the restrictions must be
ankle bracelets effectively deter criminal investigated in an objective manner and from
behavior or enhance public safety. the standpoint of the interests of the public and
not from the standpoint of the interest of the
VII. REFORMATIVE
person on whom the restriction is imposed.
APPROACH
When we look at the instant case from the
The reformative theory of punishment is based
standpoint of the public, they have a right to
on the belief that human nature is capable of
lead a life without any fear or threat.
reform and that the object of punishment is not
Though the Right to be Forgotten as well as
to inflict retribution but to reform the offender.
Right to Privacy are undoubtedly fundamental
In Narotam Singh v. State of Punjab - A. I. R.
rights, a person may be deprived of these rights
1978 S. C. 1542, the Supreme Court said:
to serve a larger public purpose.
“Reformative approach to punishment should be
the object of criminal law, in order to promote
rehabilitation without offending community
conscience and to secure social justice.”

The State's continued surveillance of Raktasura,

hinders his attempt to reform and reintegrate
into society.
ISSUE 3: Whether the State failed to take necessary steps to protect the data as the the
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023?

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

I. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE I. STATE HAD TAKEN

UNDER THE DPDP ACT 2023: LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN
STORING THE DATA:
Section 17(2)(a) provides a blanket exemption
from the whole law to any government agency Section 7 of the Act states that there are certain
that the government may notify, in the interests legitimate situations where the Data Fiduciary
of sovereignty, security, integrity, public order, has the right to process the data without
and preventing incitement. This provision does fulfilling the requirement of consent of the Data
not apply in the present case and hence the State Principal and one of such situations which has
must adhere to the data protection principles been enlisted explicitly is “the performance by
outlined in the Act. the State or any of its instrumentalities of any
function under any law for the time being in
Section 8(5) of DPDP Act, 2023 mandates Data
force in India or in the interest of sovereignty
Fiduciaries (here, the Police Department) to
and integrity of India or security of the state”.
implement reasonable security safeguards to
prevent personal data breaches. The hacking by a) Storage of data for a legitimate
Joshi demonstrates the Police Department’s purpose
failure to implement safeguards, allowing
Raktasura was diagnosed with Multiple
unauthorized access to Raktasura’s data.
Personality Disorder, exhibiting violent and
II. NEGLIGENCE OF THE STATE IN threatening behavior, particularly towards
PROTECTING THE DATA women with sadism and perversion. He was also
RECORDS: working at the Kutira Resort, a popular
destination for tourists, including lone female
The negligence of the State in protecting the
travelers who saw the island as a safe haven. To
‘Data Records of Police’ cost Raktasura various
prevent potential crimes, the petitioner's
fundamental right violations including the
personal data was stored.
‘Golden Triangle’ violation which proves the
injustice on the face of the record. II. STATE ACTION COMPLIES TO
DPDP ACT 2023:
In Commonwealth v. Ferrara - 376 Mass. 502
(1978), the court affirmed the trial judge’s According to Section 17 (4) of the DPDP Act,
decision denying access to criminal records individuals cannot exercise their right to erasure
owing to confidentiality attached to juvenile personal data when the processing of such data
records. Likewise. Raktasura’s criminal records is being carried out by the State or ‘any
containing his criminal antecedents of offenses instrumentality of the State’. The State performs
he committed as a minor also demand protection essential governmental functions that are critical
with utmost safety. The judgements highlight for public safety, security, and administration of
the importance of the State’s duty and liability justice.
to maintain consistent security safeguards for
Section 17(1)(c), the law exempts the
such data records.
requirements of notice and consent, among
III. DUTY OF THE POLICE AND others, for the purposes of processing for
BREACH OF ITS DUTY “prevention, detection, investigation or
prosecution of any offence or contravention of
According to Section 2(i) of the DPDP Act, a
any law.”
Data Fiduciary is defined as any person who,
alone or in conjunction with others, determines III. BALANCING INDIVIDUAL
the purpose and means of processing personal RIGHTS WITH SOCIETAL
data. INTEREST

Additionally, the term 'person' under the The government possesses a significant amount
DPDPA extends to the State, which of authority over matters of national security,
encompasses the Police Department performing public welfare, state’s interest, and defense
public duties as supported by Article 12 of the although there exists a certain radius of
Constitution. Thus, the Police Department, constitutional limitations.
being a state entity engaged in public service,
In this case, the police felt the need for
falls within the scope of a Data Fiduciary,
inculcating stringent measures of Surveillance
responsible for determining how personal data is
for protecting the interests of the state and
processed.
for national security and to balance the same
S. 9(2) of DPDP Act, “a Data Fiduciary shall with the individual’s right to privacy, for these
not undertake such processing of personal data purposes they had stored the data but due to
that is likely to cause any detrimental effect on unethical way of hacking by Mr. Joshi the data
the well-being of a child”. Under Section 2(f) got leaked.
Raktasura was a ‘child’ at the time of
In the Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh -
commission of crime.
1975 AIR 1378, the Supreme Court was faced
Section 2 (t) of the DPDP Act 2023 defines with a question related to the right to privacy.
"personal data" "means any data about an The Supreme Court recognized the significance
individual who is identifiable by or in relation to of the right to privacy but said that it should
such data. give way to a larger state interest. It states that
the right to privacy has its own set of
In K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union
restrictions, such as public order, morality,
of India & Ors. (2017), or the Aadhaar case.
This case created a legislative foundation for national security, etc.
data protection in India and emphasized the IV. MAINTENANCE OF RAKTASURA’S
significance of safeguarding peoples' personal DATA
information.
The non-expungement of Raktasura’s personal
There was a breach of S. 8(1) of the DPDP Act data by the Police Department does not
which imposes an obligation on Data Fiduciary represent a violation of the DPDP Act.
to be responsible for complying with the
Section 7(a) of the DPDP Act requires Data
provisions of the Act in respect of any
Fiduciaries to delete personal data unless there
processing undertaken by it. In the instant case,
is a legal obligation to retain it.
the Police Department failed to carry out its
duty to prevent "personal data breach" as Section 4 of the Act stipulates that personal data
defined under S. 2(u). may only be processed for lawful purposes,
either with the consent of the Data Principal or
IV. PROVISIONS OF THE RELAVANT
for specific legitimate uses outlined in the Act.”
ACTS:
 JJ Act, 2015 a) The State retained data does not
require consent
S. 99(1) – ‘All reports related to the child and
considered by the Committee, or the Board shall A data fiduciary may process personal data of a
be treated as confidential’. Data Principal for any uses necessary for the
performance by the state or any of its
S.74(1) - ‘No report in any newspaper,
instrumentalities of any function under any law
magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual media or
currently in force in India. Section 3(xiv) of the
other forms of communication regarding any
Juvenile Justice Act outlines the Principle of
inquiry or investigation or judicial procedure,
Fresh Start, which mandates the erasure of all
shall disclose the name, address or school or
past records of any child, except in special
any other particular, which may lead to the
circumstances.
identification of a child in conflict with law or a
child in need of care and protection or a child Section 24 of JJ Act provides for the
victim or witness of a crime, involved in such destruction of records of conviction of juveniles
matter, under any other law for the time being in conflict of the law, however, in cases of
in force, nor shall the picture of any such child heinous offences, where the child is found in
be published’. conflict of the law by the Children's Court, the
relevant records shall be retained. The term
 Information Technology (Reasonable
"heinous offences" has been defined to include
security practices and procedures and
offences for which the minimum punishment
sensitive personal data or
under the Devanala Penal Code or any other
information) Rules, 2011 -
law for the time being in force is
According to Rule 3 of the said Rules, sensitive imprisonment for seven years or more.
personal data or information are such personal
Raktasura has been charged with offences under
information relating to physical, physiological
Sections 354 and 376 of the Devanala Penal
and mental health condition that are not
Code. Notably, the penalty for an offence under
available in the public domain that are to be
Section 376 includes rigorous imprisonment for
protected by the State with reasonable security
a term of no less than ten years, and it may
safeguards.
extend to life imprisonment. This classifies
V. ABSENCE OF CONSENT the offence committed by Raktasura as “heinous
offence” despite committing the act at the age of
Grounds for processing personal data-
16, his data can be legally retained following his
S. 4 (1) A person may process the personal data
conviction.
of a Data Principal only in accordance with the
b) Compliance of Digital Personal Data
provisions of this Act and for a lawful purpose,
Protection Act
(a) for which the Data Principal has given her
Section 7(c)& (h) of the DPDP Act permits a
consent
Data Fiduciary to process personal data for the
S.6 (1) – ‘The consent given by the Data
performance by the State or any of its
Principal shall be free, specific, informed,
instrumentalities of any function under any law
unconditional and unambiguous with a clear
for the time being in force in India or in the
affirmative action, and shall signify an
interest of sovereignty and integrity of India or
agreement to the processing of her personal
security of the State.
data for the specified purpose and be limited to
Raktasura, was subject to monitoring through
such personal data as is necessary for such
ankle bracelets equipped with GPS trackers, as
specified purpose’.
part of a preventive measure by the State to
Raktasura had not given consent in any manner
ensure public safety and to maintain law and
whatsoever for the basis of processing of his
order and sought to mitigate potential risks and
personal data. Consent is sine qua non to an
safeguard the interests of the community.
individual’s sphere of privacy.
Issue 4 - Whether Dvipa can be held liable to compensate Raktasura for the acts of Mr.
Joshi in publishing his personal information in Media?

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

I. VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL I. DATA WAS LEAKED BY MR.

RIGHTS JOSHI AND NOT THE STATE

Firstly, Dvipa has violated numerous The personal data of Raktasura was leaked by
fundamental rights of the Petitioner, from Art 21 Mr. Joshi and not the State. In this instance, the
of the Constitution, infringing on the Right to State was merely trying to comply with the
Life and Personal Liberty, Right to Privacy, duties vested in it. The State has complied with
Right to be Left Alone, Right to be Forgotten, all its duties as prescribed under the Digital
as well as the Right to Freedom of Movement Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
under Art 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. Therefore, compensation is required to be given
by Mr. Joshi and he must be penalized as per the
The court in Rudal Shah v State of Bihar
provisions of the Information Technology Act,
(1983) 4 SCC 141, opined that the plaintiff has
2000.
the right to compensation if there is a violation
of their fundamental rights along with Section 72 of the IT Act, 2000 provides for the
penalizing the authorities which acting in the following: -
name of public interest, use their powers as a
Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any
shield to prevent themselves from scrutiny.
other law for the time being in force, any person
In the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of who, in pursuance of any of the powers
Orissa and Ors, AIR 1993 SC 1960 it was held conferred under this Act, rules or regulations
that The State may be held responsible for made thereunder, has secured access to any
infringing upon individuals' fundamental rights electronic record, book, register,
through the actions of its officials. In this correspondence, information, document or other
instance, the negligent conduct of the Police material without the consent of the person
officials has resulted in the violation of concerned discloses such electronic record,
Fundamental Rights, including the Right to book, register, correspondence, information,
Privacy, the Right To be Left Alone, and the document or other material to any other person
right to be free from unwanted publicity. shall be liable to penalty which may extend to
Consequently, the State could be deemed liable five lakh rupees.
for these violations.
Section 72 and Section 72A of the
Further in Bhim Singh v. State of J & K the Information Technology Act 2000 indeed
Supreme Court AIR1986SC494 upon address criminal liability regarding breaches of
violation of Art. 21 exercised its power to award privacy or lawful contracts. Section 72
compensation under Art. 32 and directed the specifically deals with breaches of
State to pay monetary compensation to the confidentiality and privacy, while Section 72A
petitioner for the violation of his constitutional pertains to the disclosure of information in
right by exemplary costs. breach of a lawful contract. So, the state is not
liable for the act of a third party i.e., Mr. Joshi
Also, in the State of T.N. v. Ganesan (1998) 4
and he should be held liable.
SCC 45, the Supreme Court upon survey of the
entire judgements of the Supreme Court as well II. THE STATE IS NOT LIABLE TO
as the other High Courts, on the question of COMPENSATE FOR THE ACTS
award of compensation for violation of the OF A THIRD PARTY
fundamental rights, some principles were
The hacking by Mr. Joshi was an independent
deduced. One of which was that the Supreme
act, and the state had taken all reasonable
Court or the High Court are entitled to render
precautions to safeguard the data as mandated
compensatory justice by awarding reasonable
by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act
monetary compensation under Art. 32 or 226 of
2023. The doctrine of strict liability, as
the Constitution of India, for the injury mental,
established in Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR
physical, fiscal suffered by the individual for
3 HL 330 is inapplicable as the State did not
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed
engage in any non-natural use of land or data
under the Constitution.
that could foreseeably result in harm.
II. LOSS OF REPUTATION
For breach of statutory duty, the duty of care
The petitioner has suffered reputational damage. must be established in conjunction with the
A good reputation is an element of personal breach of statutory duty. If the State has adhered
security. It has been held to be an important to the prescribed standards under the Act, it
element of the right to life of a citizen under Art cannot be held liable for the unauthorized acts
21 the same was held in Urnesh Kumar v. of a third party that were beyond its reasonable
State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013),10 SCC 591, control.

The data breaches have the potential to seriously In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
harm a person's or an organization's reputation v. Subhagwanti and ors, 1966 AIR 1750 1966
by eroding stakeholder confidence and trust. SCR (3) 649 the Supreme Court reiterated that
Cases such as Wyndham v. Federal Trade the State can only be held liable for data
Commission and Hunt v. Washington State breaches if there is evidence of negligence or
University have brought attention to the failure to fulfil statutory obligations.
damage that data breaches may do to people's
The Court emphasized that liability cannot be
reputations and held companies responsible for
imposed on the State in the absence of fault.
it.
III. LACK OF DIRECT CAUSATION
Notable rulings in India, Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy and Anr. vs. Union of India and For the State to be liable, there must be a direct
Ors (2019) 1 SCC 1., emphasize how important causal link between the State's actions and the
reputational harm is when there have been data harm suffered by Raktasura. In this case, the
breaches. To prevent identity theft, financial direct cause of the harm was the criminal act of
fraud, and reputational harm, it is imperative hacking by Mr. Joshi, not any action or inaction
that strong data protection measures be in place by the state. There is no causation in claims of
to guard against unauthorized access, misuse, compensation.
and data breaches.
Further, in the case of Rickards v. Lothian,
III. COMPENSATION UNDER DPDP (1913) AC 263, where some strangers blocked
ACT 2023 AND IT ACT 2000 the water pipeline, which is usually under the
control of the defendant. Such a blockage
According to section 43A OF DPDP Act,
resulted in an explosion which eventually
“Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing or
caused damage to the plaintiff. It was held that
handling any sensitive personal data or
the defendant can’t be made liable as it was due
information in a computer resource which it
to the act of a third party which was not in
owns, controls or operates, is negligent in
control of the defendant.
implementing and maintaining reasonable
security practices and procedures and thereby
causes wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any
person, such body corporate shall be liable to
pay damages by way of compensation to the
person so affected"

According to section 43A of the IT Act 2000,

police officers come under body corporate and
the data which is stored is sensitive personal
data of Raktasura and is the duty of the police
officers to take the necessary measures to
protect the data. As the police officers were
negligent towards the data Mr. Joshi has hacked
the data. Hence Dvipa will be responsible for
compensating Raktasura for their negligence
with relation to Raktasura
electronically stored data.