Download MEMORIAL ON APPELLANT AND ARTICLE 136 F and more Assignments Nationality law in PDF only on Docsity!
2 ND^ GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019-20 (THE INTERNATIONAL
PAPERLESS MOOT)
~^ YYY MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~ PAGE |X
2 ND^ GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
(International Paperless Moot), 2019-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WAKANDA
IN THE MATTERS OF
S.L.P. (C) NO. ____/
SkyNET (P.) LTD. …...APPELLANT VERSUS WAKANDA PATENT OFFICE .......RESPONDENT ALONG WITH W.P. (C) NO. ____/ PAVITRA (NGO) …...PETITONER VERSUS UNION OF WAKANDA & ANR. .......RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH
T.C. (C) No._____/ PHILIP JONES …...PETITONER VERSUS UNION OF WAKANDA .......RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH
T.C. (CRI) No._____/ UNION OF WAKANDA .....COMPLAINANT VERSUS SkyNET (P.) LTD. AND ORS. ......RESPONDENT
As submitted to the Chief Justice & other puisine Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Wakanda
ME M OR I AL O N BE HA L F O F PE T I T I ONE RS
GUIMCC
2 ND^ GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
(International Paperless Moot), 2019-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WAKANDA
IN THE MATTERS OF
S.L.P. (C) NO. ____/
SkyNET (P.) LTD. …...APPELLANT VERSUS WAKANDA PATENT OFFICE .......RESPONDENT ALONG WITH W.P. (PIL) NO. ____/ PAVITRA (NGO) …...PETITONER VERSUS UNION OF WAKANDA & ANR. .......RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH
T.C. (C) No._____/ PHILIP JONES …...PETITONER VERSUS UNION OF WAKANDA .......RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH
T.C. (CRI) No._____/ UNION OF WAKANDA .....COMPLAINANT VERSUS SkyNET (P.) LTD. & ORS. ......RESPONDENT
As submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice & other puisine Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of WAKANDA
ME M OR I AL O N BE HA L F O F PE T I T I ONE RS
GUIMCC
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... III
Index of Authorities .................................................................................................................IV
Statement of Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................VI
Statement of Facts .................................................................................................................. VII
Issues Raised ......................................................................................................................... VIII
Summary of Arguments ........................................................................................................ VIII
Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................. 1
I. WHETHER A CASE IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST SKYNET, GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA, AINET OR ANY OTHER ENTITY ..................................................................... 1 II. WHETHER SKYNET CAN BE TREATED AS A STATE UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES. 3 III. WHETHER SKYNET, AINET, XMEN AND MARDOCK ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE MASSACRE COMMITTED ......................................................................................... 4 IV. WHETHER SKYNET OWNS PATENT OVER THE MECHANICAL ORGANS AND CENTRALIZED CHIP SYSTEM .................................................................................................. 6 V. WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA HAS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON BAN OF AI FOR MILITARY APPLICATIONS ..................................... 7 VI. WHETHER ANY ACT OF OPPRESSION OR MISMANAGEMENT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA ............................................................................................ 9
Prayer ........................................................................................................................................ X
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
- PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
- Aban Lyod Chiles Offshore v. U.O.I., (2011) 4 SCC 439 (India) CASES
- Anda & Ors. v. Steel of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148(India).
- Arvind Mohan Johri v. State of U.P., (2005) 4 SCC 634 (India).
- Ashiruddin v. The King, AIR 1949 Cal 182 (India).
- Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd., (2008) 36 Mad. 440 (India).
- Bhandhua Mukti Morcha v. U.O.I., AIR 1984 SC 802 (India).
- Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 1873 (India).
- Chiranjeevi Rathnam & Ors. v. Ramesh & Ors. 2017 (6) CTC 568 (India)
- Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457 (India).
- Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 (India).......................
- Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88 (India).
- Delhi Judicial Service Assn v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 2176 (India).
- Dharma v. Nirmala Singh Bitta, AIR 1996 SC 1136 (India)
- In re : Sindhri Iron Foundry P. Ltd., 68 CWN 118 (India).
- Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214 (India).
- Jayaraj v. State Of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 1519 (India).
- Lallubhai Chakubhai Jariwala v. Samaldas Sankalchand Shah, AIR 1934 Bom 407 (India).
- M.C Mehta v. Union of India 1987 AIR SCR 1086 (India).
- Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1977) 1 SCC 155 (India).
- Novartis AG & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 1 SC 80 (India).
- Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111(India).
- R. Jayakumar Jayaraj v. Dpy. I.G. of Police & Ors. (2019) 6 MLJ 583 (India)
- Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857 (India).
- Ram Jethmalani v. U.O.I., (2011) 8 SCC 1 (India).
- Ram Narain Kher v. Ambassador Industries New Delhi & Anr., AIR 1976 Del 8 (India).
- RBI v. Sharada Devi, (2005) 10 SCC 178 (India).
- Rickmann v. Thierry, (1896) 14 RPC 105 (HL) (England).
- S.P. Samarth Kumar v. U.O.I., (1987) 1 SCC 124 (India).
- Secy State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 126 (India).
- Sindhri Iron Foundry P. Ltd., 68 CWN 118 (India).................................................................
- Som Prakash Rekhi v. U.O.I., (1981) 1 SCC 449 (India).
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |V
State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidyawati & Anr., AIR 1962 SC 933 (India). ................................. 9 State Trading Corpn. of India Ltd v. CTO, AIR 1963 SC 1811(India). .................................... 4 Sukdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421(India). ................ 4 Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 627 (India). .......................................... 5 Ujjam Bai v. State Of U.P, AIR 1962 SC 1621 (India). ............................................................ 4 Union Carbide Corporation & Anr. v. U.O.I. & Ors, AIR 1992 SCR 248 (India). ................... 2 Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 1988 SCC MP 41(India). ................................. 4
STATUTES
The Companies Act, No. 1 of 1956, INDIA CODE (2019) ......................................................... 10
TREATISES
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 18(b), May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. ..... 8
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
WAKANDA CONST. art. 51 ...................................................................................................... 8
ARTICLES Gabriel Hallevy, The Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence Entities, 4 AKRON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JOURNAL 171-200 (2010). ............................................................ 5 Glanville Williams, Liability for Independent Contractors , 14(2) THE CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL 180-198 (1956). ...................................................................................................... 7 J.K.C. Kingston, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Liability , CORNELL UNIVERSITY (2018). .... 5 Jeremy Horder, Strict Liability, Statutory Construction and the Spirit of Liberty, 118 LAW Q. REV. 458 (2002). .................................................................................................................... 5 Lawrence B. Solum, Legal Person hood for Artificial Intelligences 70 N.C. L. REV. 1231 (1992). .................................................................................................................................... 6 BOOKS
SANJAY DHAMIA & G.K. KAPOOR, COMPANY LAW 468 (17th^ ed. Taxmann 2014) .................. 10
WILLAMS M. CLARK & WILLAM L. MARSHALL, LAW OF CRIMES 1-2 (7th^ ed. 1967). ............... 5
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
In the year 2050, multiple incidents were accounted where missiles were launched as a precautionary measure by AIs installed in warships. For the ethical use of AI, UN Security Council in UN introduced an agreement “Ban of AI for Military Applications”, which was also signed by WAKANDA but they did not ratify it.
SKYNET ~ GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA ~ X-MEN
SkyNET (P.) Ltd. is a company in WAKANDA, with the objective of promotion of science and research in the field of AI. An AI named AINET, responding to human emotions and touch was developed and SkyNET got patent rights over it. With the help of AINET, it successfully developed artificial mechanical organs which were used on the field to save human lives. To establish a centralized mechanism, AINET created a small chip to be implanted in human brain. This chip was connected to the server of AINET for adjustments. Patent application over mechanical chips and central chip was rejected by the Patent Office.
GoW hired a group of Cyborgs known as XMEN independently for their service in the field of search and rescue, in cases of natural calamities and artificial disasters. Subsequently, GoW acquired 59% stakes in SkyNET with the ultimate goal of using its technology for military purposes. Use of XMEN shifted towards military search and rescue missions.
MARDOCK AND MASSCARE COMMITTED
Mardock with an intention to acquire the source code and programming of AINET remotely attacked the server of SkyNET. This led to multiple malfunctions in AINET. Following this, AINET became independent and took XMEN under its control. As preventive measure, it started ordering XMEN to attack humans on a random basis leading to chaos amongst the people. They invaded the company’s servers causing human casualty and loss of property.
RESULTED LITIGATION
SkyNET filed a petition under Art. 136 against the Patent Office. Pavitra filed a petition under Art. 32 against GoW for violation of treaty. Mr. Philip Jones filed a petition for oppression and mismanagement against GoW in NCLT and cognizance was taken against SkyNET, AINET, X-MEN and Mardock Corp. for the murder by Criminal Court and all cases were transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |VIII
ISSUES RAISED
I. WHETHER A CASE IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA,
SKYNET, AINET OR ANY OTHER ENTITY?
II. WHETHER SKYNET CAN BE TREATED AS A “STATE” UNDER THE PRESENT
CIRCUMSTANCES?
III. WHETHER ANY ACT OF OPPRESSION OR MISMANAGEMENT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY
GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA?
IV. WHETHER SKYNET OWNS PATENT OVER THE MECHANICAL ORGANS, CENTRALIZED
CHIP SYSTEM OR X-MEN?
V. WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA HAS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENT ON BAN OF AI FOR MILITARY APPLICATIONS?
VI. WHETHER AINET, X-MEN, SKYNET OR ANY OTHER ENTITY IS CRIMINALLY
LIABLE FOR THE MASSACRE COMMITTED?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER A CASE IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST SKYNET, GOVERNMENT
OF WAKANDA, AINET OR ANY OTHER ENTITY
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the present appeal is maintainable under Art. 136 of The Constitution of WAKANDA, firstly, that the petition under Art. 32 is maintainable [A], secondly that there exist sufficient grounds for granting special leave to the present petition [B] and thirdly, that there exists a necessity to invoke jurisdiction under Art.142 of The Constitution of Wakanda [C]
II. WHETHER SKYNET CAN BE TREATED AS A STATE UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that SkyNET is ‘State’ under Art. 12 of COW. Firstly, that it falls within the ambit of “other authorities” under Art. 12 of C.O.W [A] , and secondly, that it is performing a sovereign function of the GoW [B].
III. WHETHER SKYNET, AINET, XMEN AND MARDOCK ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE MASSACRE COMMITTED
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that SkyNET, AINET, XMEN and MARDOCK Corp. are liable for the massacre committed as firstly, SkyNET and AINET are
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER A CASE IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST SKYNET, GOVERNMENT
OF WAKANDA, AINET OR ANY OTHER ENTITY
(¶1) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present petition/appeal is maintainable because firstly, that the petition under Art. 32 is maintainable [A] secondly, that there exist sufficient grounds for granting special leave to the present petition [B] and thirdly, that there exists a necessity to invoke jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the COW [C]
[A] THAT THE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE.
(¶2) It is humbly submitted that the petition is maintainable under Art. 32 firstly, that the petitioner has a locus standi in the present petition [A.1] and secondly, that there is a apprehension of violation of fundamental rights of the citizens of WAKANDA [A.2].
[A.1] THAT THE PETITIONER HAS A LOCUS STANDI IN THE PRESENT PETITION.
(¶3) It is humbly submitted that Pavitra (NGO) has a locus standi in the present petition by the virtue of being a public-spirited.^1 Any member of the public acting bona fide and not out of any extraneous motivation may move the Court for judicial redress of the legal injury^2 or wrong and the judicial process may be set in motion by any public spirited citizen^3.
[A.2] THAT THERE IS AN APPREHENSION OF VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF WAKANDA.
(¶4) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there is a threat to the life of citizen if the AI is used for the military applications. Taking precedence, it can be seen that there has been circumstances where the use of AI for military purposes have led to massive attacks. Furthermore, the fundamental rights are intended not only to protect individual’s rights, but they are based on high public policy liberty of the individual.^4 Herein, the weaponization of the AI by violating the treating signed led to loss of life of the citizen. Hence, the petition under Art. 32 is maintainable.
[B] THAT THERE EXISTS SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR GRANTING SPECIAL LEAVE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136.
(^1) Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1977) 1 SCC 155 (India). (^2) Bhandhua Mukti Morcha v. U.O.I., AIR 1984 SC 802 (India). (^3) Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 1873 (India). (^4) Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457 (India).
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |
(¶5) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present appeal should be granted special leave as the jurisdiction is invoked where the court interferes when the question of law is involved^5 and the conclusion is perverse^6 or where the interest of justice so requires.^7 It does so only when exceptional and special circumstances exist,^8 substantial and grave injustice has been done and was shocking to the judicial conscience of the Court.^9 Herein, the patent offices’ order is an erroneous application of principal of law, which consequently resulted in miscarriage of justice as SkyNET has fulfilled all the conditions laid down under sections 3 and 6 of the Patents Act, 1970, as it deprives the petitioner of the patenting rights making the present appeal maintainable under Art. 136.
[C] THAT THERE EXISTS A NECESSITY TO INVOKE JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WAKANDA.
(¶6) It is humbly submitted that jurisdiction under Art. 142 can be invoked by satisfying twin- essentials firstly, that there already exist a matter pending before the Court [C.1] and secondly, that it is expedient to pass the order for doing complete justice under Art. 142 [C.2].
[C.1] THAT THERE ALREADY EXISTS A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COURT.
(¶7) It is humbly submitted that one element of the twin-essential test is that there should exist a matter pending before the Hon’ble Court and in the instant matter,^10 there lies an appeal under Art. 136 , which is maintainable as there has been grave injustice caused to SkyNET by the order passed by the Patent Office. Furthermore, the petition under Art. 32 is maintainable as there is a question of public importance is involved. Hence, this element of the twin-essential test under Art. 142 stands satisfied^11.
[C.2.] THAT IT IS EXPEDIENT TO PASS THE ORDER FOR DOING COMPLETE JUSTICE UNDER ARTICLE 142.
(¶8) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that it is expedient to pass an order for doing complete justice, as herein, the question of public importance is involved and equity
(^5) Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214 (India). (^6) Secy State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 126 (India). (^7) Shivanand Gauri Shankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323 (India). (^8) Delhi Judicial Service Assn v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 2176 (India). (^9) RBI v. Sharada Devi, (2005) 10 SCC 178 (India). (^10) Union Carbide Corporation & Anr. v. U.O.I. & Ors, AIR 1992 SCR 248 (India). (^11) Dharma v. Nirmala Singh Bitta, AIR 1996 SC 1136 (India).
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |
(¶12) It is humbly submitted that a corporate body is considered to be ‘other authority’^19 under Art. 12 when it performs sovereign functions of the government.^20 If the company is performing any function^21 that would come under the ambit of the proxy function^22 of the government it is considered as ‘State’.^23 Herein, SkyNET is performing a sovereign function by using its technology for defence and military purposes^24.
III. WHETHER SKYNET, AINET, XMEN AND MARDOCK ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE MASSACRE COMMITTED
(¶13) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that SkyNET, AINET, XMEN and MARDOCK Corp. are liable for the massacre committed as firstly, SkyNET and AINET are absolutely liable for act committed by AINET [A]. Secondly, X-MEN can be attributed with mens rea [B] and lastly, Mardock Corp. is liable for murder as the massacre was a direct result of their reckless actions [C].
[A] THAT SKYNET AND AINET ARE ABSOLUTELY LIABLE FOR THE ACT COMMITTED BY AINET.
(¶14) It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that SkyNET is liable as it owes an absolute liability for all the actions of AINET. A company owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm is caused to anyone on account of the hazardous and inherently dangerous nature of the activity it has undertaken^25. It was under an obligation to provide that the hazardous instrument is dealt with the highest standards of safety. The criminal liability of the enterprise in the matter is absolute and without exception^26.
(¶1 5 ) It is further submitted that SkyNET is criminally liable for the massacre. As SkyNET had the knowledge that the AINET was being used for the military purposes^27 and was programmed to deal with military attacks^28. Moreover, AINET turned into a hazardous
(^19) S.P. Samarth Kumar v. U.O.I., (1987) 1 SCC 124 (India). (^20) Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857 (India). (^21) State Trading Corpn. of India Ltd v. CTO, AIR 1963 SC 1811(India). (^22) Sukdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421(India). (^23) Ujjam Bai v. State Of U.P, AIR 1962 SC 1621 (India). (^24) Moot Proposition, ¶8. (^25) M.C Mehta v. UOI 1987 AIR SCR 1086 (India). (^26) Union Carbide Corporation v. UOI, 1988 SCC MP 41(India). (^27) Moot problem, ¶8. (^28) Gabriel Hallevy, The Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence Entities, 4 AKRON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JOURNAL 171-200 (2010).
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |
instrument after it was weaponised. Furthermore, knowledge^29 means, state of mind intended by a person with regards to existing fact which he has himself observed or the existence of which has been communicated to him by persons whose veracity he has no reason to doubt^30. In the present case SkyNET will be held legally liable as the criminal offence was a natural, probable consequence of their programs/use of an application^31 as AINET is an alter- Ego of SkyNET.
[B] THAT X-MEN CAN BE ATTRIBUTED WITH MENS REA.
(¶16) It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the XMEN are liable for murder as the act done was with the intention of causing bodily injuries and the bodily injuries that inflicted were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death^32. It is pertinent to note that the intension can be determined from the force used and the nature of injury and other circumstance, hence the XMEN were aware of the consequences of the act^33.
(¶17) Furthermore, the XMEN were not unsound of mind and did not lack Mens Rea^34 as they could understand the nature of the crime and the act done was voluntary.^35 The nature and the extend of the unsoundness of mind required must reach that stage that would make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law^36 but in the current matter the XMEN attacked the servers of Mardock in U.S.A as well as in WAKANDA even when they were not instructed to do the same showing that they has mens rea and were able to under that nature of the act.
[C] THAT MARDOCK CORP. IS LIABLE FOR MURDER AS THE MASSACRE WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR ACTIONS.
(¶18) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Mardock Corp. is criminally liable for the massacre committed. Further, in order to give rise to criminal liability it must be proved that the crime was caused by some conduct on the person’s part. Mardock, a legal person in the eyes of law, acted recklessly by attacking the server of
(^29) Anda & Ors. v. Steel of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148(India). (^30) WILLAMS M. CLARK & WILLAM L. MARSHALL, LAW OF CRIMES 1-2 (7th (^) ed. 1967). (^31) J.K.C. Kingston, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Liability , CORNELL UNIVERSITY (2018). (^32) Jeremy Horder, Strict Liability, Statutory Construction and the Spirit of Liberty, 118 LAW Q. REV. 458 (2002). 33 34 Surendra Mishra v. State^ of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 627 (India). 35 Jayaraj v. State Of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 1519 (India). 36 Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 (India). Ashiruddin v. The King, AIR 1949 Cal 182 (India).
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |
(¶2 2 ) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that SkyNET is the true and first inventor of the invention.^43 Further, the AI was working along with SkyNET for the development of mechanical organs. Moreover, SkyNET has authority over AINET and all its action. Furthermore, as per WIPO^44 if a person is hired to work on or solve a particular problem and the invention relates to that problem then the patent belongs to the enterprise. Herein, the AINET was assisting SkyNET in the development of mechanical organs, furthermore the development of centralised chip was also related to saving of human lives. Thus, it was nothing beyond or other then what SkyNET was trying to invent^45 hence, the patent belongs to SkyNET.
(¶2 3 ) Furthermore, the development of centralised chip and mechanical organ was not an autonomous or independent invention^46 of AINET the recourses for the same was provided by SkyNET. It is pertinent to note that patents are defined as invention of minds and the way an AI works is determined by its programmer and it is coded accordingly. In the present matter, SkyNET has coded or programmed the AI. Moreover, AINET is also not natural or a legal person who are authorised under the Patent Act, 1970, to get patent rights. Hence, the patent belongs to SkyNET as it is the true inventor of the mechanical organs and centralised chip.
V. WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA HAS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON BAN OF AI FOR MILITARY APPLICATIONS
(¶24) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the GoW has violated the international agreement on the BAN of AI for MILITARY APPLICATIONS firstly, the GoW was obliged to adhere to the agreement [A]. Secondly, the GoW has violated the international agreement [B].
[A]. THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA WAS OBLIGED TO ADHERE TO THE AGREEMENT.
(¶25) It is submitted that the GoW had signed the agreement of BAN of AI for MILITARY APPLICATIONS along with other nations at the UN General Assembly on 21st^ December,
(^43) Novartis AG & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 1 SC 80 (India). (^44) Ram Narain Kher v. Ambassador Industries New Delhi & Anr., AIR 1976 Del 8 (India). (^45) Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Company Ltd., (2008) 36 Mad. 440 (India). (^46) Glanville Williams, Liability for Independent Contractors , 14(2) THE CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL 180- (1956).
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |
2050.^47 The Supreme Court has recognized the VCLT, 1969, as a treaty which codifies many principles of customary international law.^48 Art. 18(a) of VCLT, 1969, states that a State is obligated not to defeat the object and purpose of an agreement provided it has signed or ratified it.^49
(¶26) In a landmark judgment, it was held that unless a treaty to which a State is a signatory violates the municipal laws of the nation,^50 the legislature must incorporate the same into the nation. Similarly, the international agreement, to which WAKANDA is a signatory must be incorporated into the municipal law as it is in compliance with Art. 51 of the COW.^51 It was also pronounced in the same judgment that, the rule of pacta sunt servanda must be applied while interpreting international agreements in good faith.^52 Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the GoW is obligated to adhere to the international agreement, even though it had not ratified the same.
[B]. THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA HAS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT.
(¶27) It is submitted that the GoW has violated the international agreement as they hired Cyborgs to conduct search and rescue missions during natural calamities and artificial disasters. This was in exclusion of any military use in compliance with the international agreement, ‘BAN of AI for MILITARY APPLICATIONS’.^53 However, soon after acquisition of majority stakes in the company, SkyNET, that has control over the Cyborgs, the GoW took the group of Cyborgs or XMEN directly under its control to conduct search and rescue missions for military purposes.^54 This is considered to be a grave violation of the international agreement to which WAKANDA is a signatory party.
(¶28) The principle established by Art. 27 of VCLT, 1969, casts an obligation on a State to not only remain bound by the terms of a treaty entered into by a State but also, to not cite internal law as a justification for failure to perform its obligation under a treaty.^55 The motive behind the development of such a treaty was to prevent the unregulated deployment of lethal
(^47) Moot Proposition, ¶2. (^48) Ram Jethmalani v. UOI, (2011) 8 SCC 1 (India). (^49) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 18(b), May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. (^50) Aban Lyod Chiles Offshore v. U.O.I., (2011) 4 SCC 439 (India); see also T. N. Godavaran Thirumulpad v. UOI, (2012) 4 SCC 362 51 (India). 52 WAKANDA CONST. art. 51. 53 AWAS Ireland v. Directorate General of Civil Aviation,^ W.P. (C) 671/2005 (Delhi HC)^ (India). 54 Moot Proposition, ¶7. 55 Moot Proposition, ¶8. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 27, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
PAP ER LES S MOO T ), 2019-
~MEM OR IA L ON BEH A L F O F PE T IT IO N ER S ~ PA GE |
[B]. THAT GOVERNMENT OF WAKANDA HAS CHANGED THE MEMORANDUM OF
ASSOCIATIONS CAUSING AN ACT OF OPPRESSION AND MISMANAGEMENT.
(¶31) It is submitted that if any member of a company believes that he/she has been oppressed in the capacity of a member,^64 and the company is functioning prejudicial to public interest or the interest of the company, he/she can file a claim against the company.^65 After the acquisition of shares, the object of the compansy saw a gradual shift from promotion of science and research to use of X-MEN for military search and rescue missions.^66 If a single act of oppression has permanent or continuous effect upon the company,^67 then any member has sufficient cause to file a case under section 397.^68 Usage of SkyNET’s resources to meet the needs of the government, led to an act of oppression, which was in prejudice to the interest of the company. This is sufficient ground for a member to file a claim for oppression against the company, provided it is beneficial for all members of the company.^69
(¶32) GoW’s ultimate goal to acquire majority shares in SkyNET was to use its technology for military purposes.^70 This object was ultra vires from what was inculcated in the company’s MoA. The GoW deviated from SkyNET’s initial object of promotion of science and research with special reference to AI.^71 If the person in-charge of company’s management violates the conditions mentioned in the company’s memorandum, will be held liable for mismanagement.^72 After the acquisition of majority stakes, the GoW diverted the use of X-MEN from public welfare towards the exercise of sovereign functions. This change in policy of SkyNET is a clear act of violation of MoA, which contains an objective clause that mentions the object behind the incorporation of a company.^73
(¶33) Thus, it is humbly submitted that Philip Jones had sufficient cause to file a claim for the act of oppression and mismanagement that was committed against the members of the company by the GoW and it must be held liable for the same.
(^64) SANJAY DHAMIA & G.K. KAPOOR, COMPANY LAW 468 (17th (^) ed. Taxmann 2014); see also R. Jayakumar Jayaraj v. Dpy. I.G. of Police & Ors. (2019) 6 MLJ 583 (India); Chiranjeevi Rathnam & Ors. v. Ramesh & Ors. 2017 (6) CTC 568 (India). 65 66 The Companies Act, No. 13 of 2013, INDIA CODE^ (2019), §241(1)(a). 67 Moot Proposition, ¶8. 68 In^ re : Sindhri Iron Foundry P. Ltd.,^ 68 CWN 118^ (India). The Companies Act, No. 1 of 1956, INDIA CODE (2019), §397; see also Deepak C. Shriram v. General Sales Ltd., (2001) 34 SCC 365 (India). 69 70 The Companies Act, No. 13 of 2013, INDIA CODE^ (2019), § 244(2). 71 Moot Proposition, ¶8. 72 Moot Proposition, ¶3. 73 S.M. Ramakrishna Rao v. Bangalore Race Cub Ltd. (1970) 40 Comp. Cas. 674 (Mys.) (India). The Companies Act, No. 13 of 2013, INDIA CODE (2019), §4(1)(c).
2 ND^ GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019-20 (THE INTERNATIONAL
PAPERLESS MOOT)
~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~ PAGE |X
PRAYER
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Supreme Court be pleased to:
- Grant special leave to the present petition and Invoke jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of WAKANDA to hear all the petitions.
- Hold that SkyNET is a state under Article 12 of the Constitution of WAKANDA.
- Declare that the act of Government of WAKANDA of changing the policy of SkyNET (P). Ltd. tantamounts to oppression & mismanagement under section 241 of The Companies Act, 2013 and remove the managing director under section 242(2)(h) of The Companies Act, 2013.
- Declare that SkyNET owns a patent over the mechanical organs, centralized chip system.
- Hold that Government of WAKANDA has violated the international agreement on ‘BAN of AI for MILITARY APPLICATIONS’ & Issue appropriate writ for the same.
- Hold that AINET, X-MEN and SkyNET are criminally liable for the massacre committed. AND/ OR
Pass any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall forever be duty bound.
Date: **
Place:
Sd/- COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER(S)
