Download 1st MNLU Nagpur National moot , Respondent Memorial and more Assignments Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity!
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS
1 ST^ MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.
TEAM CODE: TCR
1 st^ MNLU NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUREME COURT OF INDICA
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Writ Petition (civil). _/
THE ASSOCIATION OF FILM PRODUCERS…………………………………………………...PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDICA………………………………………………………………………………………...RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (civil). _/
INFLIX AND INZON……………………………………………………………………………………...PETITIONERS
Versus
UNION OF INDICA………………………………………………………………………………………. RESPONDENT
~Memorandum on behalf of Respondents~
1 ST^ MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE - Whether the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 are constitutionally valid, and whether the Ministry of Information Technology has the jurisdiction to promulgate the Rules to regulate OTT platforms? It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 by the government of Indica are constitutionally valid and the Ministry of information technology has the jurisdiction to promulgate the rules to regulate OTT platforms. I. The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 are constitutionally valid. It is humbly submitted that the introduced Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 not violate the law of the land because These rules have been introduced to regulate the intermediaries and data on social media platforms for the welfare of people of Indica and to secure the sovereignty and security of nation. These rules are promulgated to ensure the online safety and dignity of users by removal of unlawful information and mandatory grievances redressal mechanism. The rues are constitutionally valid because, firstly , that there is necessity of such rules and regulations. Secondly that there in no intent on the part of the government to infringe right to privacy and freedom of speech and expression Thirdly , that the censorship s a restrictive measure for the benefit of society and lastly these rules give the user a notice and an opportunity for a hearing on removal of content.
1. NECESSITY OF SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS. (i) It is submitted that the restrictions come at a time when the country is always seeking to safeguard the safety and sovereignty of the online and of personal data. Social media is gradually becoming a crucial component of an individual’s life.
1 ST^ MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.
information” (also known as “traceability”) of messages that cause violence, riots, terrorism, rape, or a threat to national security, falls under reasonable exceptions to the Right to Privacy
- which, once again, is not absolute in nature. (iii) Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the constitution is not absolute and the constitution it self in its article 19(2) provides reasonable restrictions on the same, Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.^3 (iv) These rules provide only reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech to curb misinformation and misleading information and also to maintain morality and decency. These rules are reasonable and not arbitrary and thus pass the test of reasonable restriction as held in case of Madras v. G.V Row. 4 and K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India. (v) It is contended that as reasonable restriction canbe imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interrst of the security of state and to maintain public order as the same held in People’s union for Civil liberties v Union of India.^5 3. CENSORSHIP IS A RESTRICTIVE MEASURE FOR THE BENIFIT OF SOCIETY (i) It is submitted that Censorship prevents disharmony in society by prevention of disclosure of objectionable content that can lead to communal discord, preserves the security of the state, maintains morality in the society, prohibits the spread of false beliefs or rumors, curbs access to harmful activities by preventing their public display and others. (ii) In KA Abbas v Union of India, the Supreme Court held that Censorship is a restrictive measure followed for the benefit of the society^6. Any form of art expresses an idea to the people and art and literature influences people to a very large extend. (^3) Constitution of India, Article 19(2). (^4) 1952 S.C.R 597 (^5) AIR 1997 S.C 568 (^6) KA Abbas v Union of India AIR 1971 SC 481
1 ST^ MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.
(iii) It is a necessary duty of the state to ensure that those words, signs or any form of expression if exposed to those who are open to influences of this sort would corrupt such minds, are censored. (iv) Pre censorship by itself shall not be struck down on grounds of unreasonableness this was also reiterated in the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Renjith D Udeshi v State of Maharashtra.^7
4. GIVES THE USER A NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING ON REMOVAL OF CONTENT (i) In order for SSMIs to comply with Rule 4(8), they must ensure that users are held accountable before removing their content, either through Rule 3(1)(b) or on their own accord. For the above reasons, the SSMI is required by Rule 4(8)(a) and (b) to notify a user before removing their content and to give the user an "adequate and reasonable" opportunity to contest and request that their content be reinstated before any action is taken. (ii) Rule 4(8) further mandates that the SSMI's Resident Grievance Officer keep an eye on any complaints from the user. These principles are in sync with the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency andAccountability, which were adopted in 2018 and endorsed by more than seventy human rights groups, support both the notice and appeal requirements. The IT Rules are laudable for making this requirement a part of the law and making it official. Thus, the counsels on behalf of the respondent pleads that the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 202 2 are Constitutional for the aforementioned reasons. ‘ (^7) Renjith D Udeshi v State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 88
1 ST^ MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.
internet and hence this ministry has jurisdiction to promulgate rules to regulate OTT platforms. Thus, the counsels on behalf of the respondent pleads that Ministry of information technology have the jurisdiction to promulgate the rules to regulate OTT platforms.
1 ST^ MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.
PRAYER
THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED,
REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE RESPONDENTS HUMBLY
SUBMITS THAT THE HON’BLE COURT MAYBE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND
DECLARE:
I. THAT THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARIES GUIDELINES
AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES 2022 ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY
VALID.
II. THAT THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HAS JURISDICTION
TO PROMULGATE THE RULES TO REGULATE OTT PLATFORMS.
AND THE COURT MAY GRANT ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. ALL OF WHICH IS MOST
HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT
