IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO … · Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 at p. 416 : AIR 2008 SC 907 28 25 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC

~ SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION~ P a g e | - 1 -

~MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT~

3RD

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHHOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION,2018

BEFORE

HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CITY OF JOY

IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY

(PIL UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NARNIA)

(PIL NO. ___OF 2018)

MR. TRUE LIES……………………................................................................PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDIA............................................................................................RESPONDENT -1

SAYPM…..........................................................................................................RESPONDENT - 2

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TEAM CODE: T331



TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................................... 3.

LIST OF CASES................................................................................................................................3.

STATUTES........................................................................................................................................5.

BOOKS.............................................................................................................................................6.

RULES…………..............................................................................................................................7.

ARTICLES.........................................................................................................................................8.

LEGAL DATABASES..........................................................................................................................8.

OTHER AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................................8

LIST OF ABBREVIATION................................................................................................... ............9.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................................................10.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................. ...........11.

ISSUES RAISED……...............................................................................................................13.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................................................14.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...............................................................................................................16

ISSUE I: Whether the public interest litigation by way of a writ petition in the High

Court of City of Joy is maintainable? …............................................................................16

[A] THAT THERE IS NO BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.........................................................16

[B] THAT THERE IS NO LOCUS STANDI IN THE PRESENT MATTER ………………...………....17

ISSUE II: Whether the data protection provision under the information technology act

is violative of fundamental rights? ……………………………....................................... 18

[A] THAT SAYPM HAS LEGALLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT

ACT IN SHARING DATA WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY…………….. 18

[B] THAT THE GOVERNMENT IN DEMANDING DATA UNDER SECTION 69 OF IT ACT IS USING ITS

PREROGATIVE THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO PROTECT THE LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST AND IS

WITHIN JUST, FAIR AND reasonable RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY………………19



Issue III: Whether SayPM failed to perform the contractual obligations towards its

customer?...............................................................................................................................24

[A]THAT THE SAYPM AGREEMENT WAS NOT UNREASONABLE ………………24

[B] THAT THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WAS NOT OPPOSING TO PUBLIC

POLICY OR VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT…………….…..…25

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE DIRECTIONS TO THE CENTRAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY TO

INVESTIGATE ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND SAYPM

RESULTING IN COMPROMISE OF ANY CITIZEN’S PERSONAL DATA IS REQUIRED? ……….27

PRAYER................................................................................................................................29

.



INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

A. SUPREME COURT CASES

SE. NO. CASE LAW NAME PAGE

1 Bhanumati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 1 ;

21

2

Bihar State Electricity Board v. Green Rubber Industries;

(1990) 1 SCC 731

24

3 Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 954 ;

21

4

Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India, AIR 1951

SC 41 ;

21

5

Collector of Customs V. Nathella Sampathu Chetty, AIR 1962

SC 316, 21

6 Govind v state of M.P. and Anr. 1975 AIR 1378 21

7

H.R. Basavaraj (dead) by his LRs. & another vs. Canara Bank

& others; (2010) 12 SCC 458

26

8 Keshavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) SCC 225 21

9 K.S. Puttaswamy v. union of India-(2017) 10 SCC 1 16, 19, 20

10

K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC

1 ; 21

11 Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U. P; AIR 1991 SC

537 26

12

Laxman Singh Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2007

NOC 595 (MP)(DB).

16

13 LIC of India and Ors. Vs. Consumer Education & Research

center and Ors; (1995) 2 SCC 482 25

14 Mafatlal Industries V. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536

21

15 Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 ;

21



16

Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo

Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521

28

17 M.P.Sharma v Satish 1954 SCR 1077.

21

18 Mr X v Hospital Z (1998) 8 SCC 296

22

19 Namit Sharma v.Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745.

21

20 Pathumma v. State of Kerala (1970) 2 SCR 537 ;

21

21

People’s union for civil liberty v. union of India AIR 2004

SC456

16, 21, 24

22

Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R.Tendolkar, AIR 1958

SC 538 ;

21

23 R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 ;

21

24

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 at p. 416 : AIR

2008 SC 907

28

25 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 (188).

18

26

State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Purushottam Reddy (2003) 9

SCC 564, ;

21

27

State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Limited, AIR 1997 SC 1511

;

21

28

State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat,

2005 (8) SCC 534 ;

21

29 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Kohli, (2012) 6 SCC 312;

21

30 State of Madras v V G (1952) SCR 597.

23

31 State of Rajasthan V. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCR 1

21

32

Sujatha Ravi Kiran vs State of Kerala And Ors 2016 SCC

OnLine Ker 787

28

33

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, Dattaraj

Nathji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590.

18



B. HIGH COURT CASES


1 Mr.Doraisamy v. The Assisitant General Manager, State Bank

Of India [2007] 136 Comp Cases 568 (Mad). 22

2

Karmanya Singh Sareen and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.,

W.P.(C) 7663/2016.

26

C. FOREIGN CASES


1

Photo Production Ltd, v. Securicor Transport Ltd. 1980 A.C.

827 25

2 Schroder Music Co. Ltd. v. Macaulay; (1974) 3 All ER 616;

27

3

Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England

(192) 1 KB 461 at 472

23

4 Uzun v Germany Application No. 35623/05 22

STATUTES

SE. NO. NAME OF STATUTE

1 The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000

2 The Indian Contract Act, 1872, No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1872

3

The Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, No. 25, Acts of

Parliament,1946



BOOKS

A. INFORMATION TECHNILOGY LAWS

SE. NO. PARTICULARS

1 AMIT VERMA, CYBER CRIMES AND LAW (eds. 2009, Central Law Publication).

2

ANIRUDH RASTOGI, LAW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNET(eds.

2014, Lexis Nexis).

3 APARNA VISHWANATHAN, CYBER LAW INDIAN AND INTERNATIONAL

PERSPECTIVE(eds. 2015, Lexis Nexis).

4

APAR GUPTA, COMMENTARY ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT(3rd

ed.2015,

Lexis Nexis).

5

NANDAN KAMATH, COMPUTERS INTERNET & E-COMMERCE(4th

ed.2009,

Universal Law Publication Co.).

6

J.P.MISHRA, CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIOS, AN INTRODUCTION TO CYBER LAW (

2nd

ed.2014).

7 KARNIKA SETH AND JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR, COMPUTERS INTERNET AND NEW

TECHNOLOGY LAWS(2nd

ed.2013, Lexis Nexis).

8 TALAT FATIMA, CYBER CRIMES (2

nd ed.2016, Eastern Book company).

9 AMIT VERMA, CYBER CRIMES AND LAW (eds. 2009, Central Law Publication).

10

ANIRUDH RASTOGI, LAW OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNET(eds.

2014, Lexis Nexis).

11 APARNA VISHWANATHAN, CYBER LAW INDIAN AND INTERNATIONAL

PERSPECTIVE(eds. 2015, Lexis Nexis).

12

APAR GUPTA, COMMENTARY ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT(3rd

ed.2015,

Lexis Nexis).

B. CONTRACT ACT

SE. NO. PARTICULARS

1

SACHIN RASTOGI, INSIGHTS INTO E- CONTRACTS IN INDIA(eds.2013, Lexis

Nexis).

2 ROBERT L. SNOW, TECHNOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (eds. 2007, Pentagon

Press).

3 POLLOCK & MULLA, THE INDIAN CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF ACTS (Nilima

Bhadbhade 14th

ed.2013, Lexis Nexis).



4

R K SINGH, LAW RELATING TO ELECTRONIC CONTRACTS (2nd

ed.2016, Lexis

Nexis).

C. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

SE. NO. PARTICULARS

1 4, DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF India (ed. 9,

Lexis Nexis)

2 JUSTICE GP SINGH, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, (11th

ed., Lexis Nexis).

3 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (ed. 7, Lexis Nexis)

D. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATON

SE. NO. PARTICULARS

1

SAMPAT JAIN, PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION(eds. 2003, Deep and Deep

Publication).

2

B.L. WADEHRA, PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION(3rd

2012, universal Law

Publication).

RULES

SE. NO. PARTICULARS

1 The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures

and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011



ARTICLES

SE. NO. PARTICULARS

1

Francois Nawrot, Katarzyna Syska and Przemyslaw Switalski, “Horizontal

application of fundamental rights (May 2010).

2 Yvonne McDermott, “Conceptualizing the right to data protection in an era of

Big Data”, (2017).

LEGAL DATABASES

SE. NO. PARTICULARS

1 HEINONLINE

2 JSTOR

3 LEXIS NEXIS

4 MANUPATRA

5 SCC ONLINE

6 WESTLAW

OTHER AUTHORITIES

SE. NO. PARTICULARS

1 Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary 1700 (9th

ed. 2009).

2 St. Paul, Minn , Black's Law Dictionary, (ed. 2).

3 Halsbury’s Laws of England



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& AND

§ Section

§§ Sections

¶ Paragraph

¶¶ Paragraphs

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Assn. Association

Ed. Edition

EU European Union

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

Ltd. Limited

Mad. Madras

MANU Manupatra

No. Number

Ors. Others

Pvt. Private

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UOI Union of India

US United States

v. Versus



STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached the Hon’ble High Court of City of Joy under a Public Interest

Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of Narnia.

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,

throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to

any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,

within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature

of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any

of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for

any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to

any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court

exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of

action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding

that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is

not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of

injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings

relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support

of the plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the

High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such

application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the

counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a

period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on

which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where

the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the

next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is

not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as

the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in

derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of

Article 32

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/452476/








STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND: Republic of Narnia (“Narnia”) is a democratic republic having a stable

government (“Government”) in power after long. SayPM is a Narnian electronic payment

system and digital wallet company that was founded by Mr. Money Bag in January 2009 and

is based out of the City of Joy in Narnia. SayPM has international investors, such as Chinese

e-commerce giant, Forty-Thieves, and Japanese multinational holding conglomerate,

HardBank. SayPM is available in various Indian languages and offers online payment

services such as mobile recharges, utility bill payments, flight tickets, movie tickets, and

event bookings, as well as in-store payments at various retail stores, restaurants, parking,

tolls, pharmacies and educational institutions. SayPM is now managed by Mr. Money Bag

and his wife Mrs. Money Bag. During demonetization in Narnia in November 2016, SayPM’s

business increased manifold as e-transactions increased. SayPM advertised heavily and its

billboards and print adverts contained the Prime Minister’s photograph and read “SayPM

congratulates the Prime Minister of Narnia for taking the boldest financial decision in the

history of independent Narnia”. This was done by the SayPM to promote nationalist feeling

and to demonstrate positive effects of the demonetization.

BUSINESS OF SayPM: SayPM collects various sensitive data from its customers, such as

their bank account, credit and debit card details and uses the same to allow the customers to

access its e-payment services. Further, SayPM tracks customers‟ usage pattern to make

targeted advertisements to them. In this regard, SayPM claims that it follows the highest

category of data security measures to protect its customer data and is in compliance with all

applicable laws. Customers of SayPM need to agree to a lengthy consent form before they are

allowed to use SayPM” s services. Very often, consumers do not understand the terms and

conditions in the consent form and thus, mechanically press the “I Agree” button to use the

services. With more than 10,00,000 registered merchants and more than 1,00,00,000 users of

SayPM across the country, SayPM is now a diversified e-commerce company, becoming

indispensable for Narnia‟s shoppers. Further, while demonetization brought down Narnia‟s

GDP by 2.75%, SayPM witnessed a 1000% increase in overall usage of its services and

1500% growth in the value of money added to SayPM‟s accounts.

INVESTIGATION BY ANACONDAPOLE: Anaconda Pole conducted an investigation

titled “Operation Swachch Narnia” and alleged that during the course of the investigation it

found that Mrs. Money Bag, who is a director of SayPM, has allegedly claimed, during a

drunken conversation that the e-wallet company had received a call from the Prime

Minister’s Office (“PMO”) demanding some user data, right before the General Elections in



Narnia. AnacondaPole‟s star journalist Mr. Narad Lal posed as a representative of a fictitious

organisation by the name of Jai Narnia Samiti, and met some of SayPM‟s top executives.

Narad Lal informed them that he is meeting at the behest of the “Samiti” to bolster the

prospects of the ruling party in the Parliamentary elections slated to be conducted in 2019.

Mrs. Money Bag said in the sting video: “By the way, let me show you one more thing … this

is our SayPM App. Nowadays, our Prime Minister is right here. He has written a book Chai

Time Tales. We are … we are actually selling this book on our platform... Also, for the

upcoming elections, they wanted our user data regarding the sale and popularity of the book

and some other information”. However, the video did not mention whether or not SayPM

complied with the alleged demand and whether it involved demand of information other than

the book’s sale and popularity.

CLARIFICATION BY SayPM: After Anaconda Pole released the video and transcript,

SayPM, on its official social media profile, posted that “There is absolutely NO TRUTH in

the sensational headlines of a video doing rounds on social media. Our user data is 100%

secure and has never been shared with anyone, except law enforcement agencies on request.

Thank you for your continued support.” SayPM, however, did not reveal the name of “law

enforcement agencies” with whom the company had shared its user data, if any.

CHANGE IN PRIVACY POLICY: SayPM revised its privacy policy and included a new

clause stating, “I understand and permit SayPM, at its sole discretion, to share my data with

any third party for any purpose linked to the business of SayPM.” SayPM constantly

countered the allegation saying that the data was shared as per the contract entered into by the

users and only for purposes which are necessary, for it to fulfil its obligations towards the

users. Thus, they have already complied with all the existing laws by entering into such

contracts with the users of SayPM. SayPM also stated that the money of the users in the

wallet was not completely blocked, rather the users have the option to transfer the amount in

their wallet back to their own bank account linked with the application by paying a minor fee,

if their wallet is blocked.

WRIT BEFORE HIGH COURT: Mr. True Lies, a privacy activist, allegedly inclined

towards the opposition party of Narnia, filed a public interest litigation by way of a writ

petition in the High Court of City of Joy, having jurisdiction over a state of eastern region of

Narnia, Didiland, under Article 226 of the Constitution – alleging that “right to privacy”

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution to citizens of Narnia had been violated.

SayPM was made a party to the said writ petition. In the writ, it has been alleged that the

Government had been trying to hush up the matter and demanded that an independent

investigating agency be appointed that would investigate into the matter of SayPM sharing



the personal information of users. Further, it has been alleged that SayPM and the

Government has acted in collusion and have breached the privacy of citizens of Narnia.

ISSUES RAISED

~ ISSUE I ~

Whether the Public Interest Litigation by way of a writ petition in the High Court of

City of Joy is maintainable?

~ ISSUE II ~

Whether the data protection provisions under Information Technology Act is violative

of Fundamental rights?

~ ISSUE III ~

Whether SayPM failed to perform the contractual obligations towards its customers?

~ ISSUE IV ~

Whether the Directions to the Central Investigating Agency to investigate any nexus

between the Government authorities and SayPM resulting in compromise of any

citizen’s personal data is required?



SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

~ISSUE I ~

Whether the Public Interest Litigation by way of a writ petition in the High Court of

City of Joy is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble High Court of City of Joy that the PIL is not

maintainable since there has been no breach of fundamental right in the present case. The

provisions of Information Technology Act are in consonance with the constitution and does

not take away any right. Moreover, the petition has been moved by a politically motivated

person and thus lacks bonafide interest.

~ ISSUE II ~

Whether the data protection provisions under Information Technology Act is violative

of Fundamental rights?

It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble High Court of City of Joy that the provisions of IT Act

are in consonance of the Constitution of India since it only lays down some of the areas

where government can intercept data only for the interest of larger good. Moreover, the

procedure is just, fair and reasonable and comes within the limitation of art 21. Also,

guidelines relating to interception, monitoring and decryption of information are already laid

down to avoid arbitrary use of IT provisions by the government.

ISSUE III ~

Whether SayPM failed to perform the contractual obligations towards its customers?

It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble High Court of City of Joy that SayPM has not failed to

perform their contractual obligations towards its customers. The Agreement of SayPM was a

standard form of contract which was neither unreasonable nor opposing to the public policy.

The standard form of contract is presumed to be reasonable and once contract is accepted by

the parties, it is binding on them.



~ ISSUE IV ~

Whether the Directions to the Central Investigating Agency to investigate any nexus

between the Government authorities and SayPM resulting in compromise of any

citizen’s personal data is required?

It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble High Court of City of Joy that the case is not fit for

CBI inquiry. The facts of the present case are entirely based on suspicion and doubts. There

has not been even an iota of truth about the relationship between CBI and government since

all the facts are mere allegations. There is no prima facie case established against the parties.



ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I : WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION BY WAY OF A WRIT PETITION IN

THE HIGH COURT OF CITY OF JOY IS MAINTAINABLE?

¶I.1. It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble High Court of City of Joy that that the present

public interest litigation is not maintainable under article 226 of constitution of india. Firstly

it is submitted that there has been no breach of fundamental right per se. Secondly, the

petitioner has no bonafide interest in the present petition and the petition has been moved by

ulterior political motive. Where there is no breach of law and there is no violation of public

rule, the public Interest litigation is not maintainable.1Therefore the counsel submits that the

present PIL should be rejected in limine. The petitioner deals with this issue in two parts, [A]

That there is no breach of fundamental right [B] That there is no locus standi in the present

matter.

[A] THAT THERE IS NO BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

¶I.2 it is humbly submitted that there has been no breach of fundamental right of the people

by the government of India. The provisions of information technology act are in consonance

with the constitution of India and is not violative of any fundamental right.

¶I.3.The petition is filed stating that there is a breach of right to privacy by the government

authorities. But the right to privacy which has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India

in the judgement of K.S Puttaswamy is not absolute but carries with itself the same

limitations which are imposed on Art. 21. There has to be a careful and sensitive balance

between individual interest and legitimate concern of the state.2 While defining the legitimate

concerns of the state, the Supreme Court explicitly marks protecting national security and

prevention and investigation of crime as the prime concerns of the state. In the present case,

the petition is filed claiming that the provision of information technology act which gives the

government some basic right to intercept data in some rare and qualified circumstances

breach the fundamental right to privacy even if it is done in national interest. In many other

cases the like People’s Union Of Civil Liberties ... vs Union Of India & Anr, M.P. Sharma v

Satish Chandra3 and Govind v State of M.P

4 Hon’ble supreme court talked about

1 Laxman Singh Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2007 NOC 595 (MP)(DB).

2 K.S. Puttaswamy v. union of India-(2017) 10 SCC 1.

3 1954 SCR 1077.



maintaining the balance between the individual interest and public interest, howsoever

whenever the question of hierarchy of the interest has come up, the court never hesitated to

put the national interest on the top of all.

¶I.4. In the present case, SayPM has shared the data with the law enforcement agencies only.

As mentioned in the factsheet, the Republic of Narnia is going through a phase of

demonetization to curb the problem of black money. This is an implied situation where the

government especially the law enforcement agencies of the government are tracing the

suspected persons involved in the business of black money to fulfil the objective behind the

significant step of demonetization. Usually, it is seen that when a country goes through

demonetization, several persons who have been supplying the national currencies illegally to

organizations situated outside the country become vulnerable and can be easily caught if

proper investigations are done. And the present case fulfils three conditions of section 69 i.e.

defence of India, security of state and investigation of any offence. Therefore, there is no

ground of breach of fundamental right of privacy.

[B] THAT THERE IS NO LOCUS STANDI IN THE PRESENT MATTER

¶I.5. it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the present petition not only fails to

establish a case of breach of fundamental right per se but also is filed with malicious intent by

a politically motivated person.

¶I.6.The factsheet points out that the petitioner Mr. True Lies is inclined towards the

opposition party of Narnia. This fact itself speaks a lot about the intention behind filing of the

petition. the present government of Narnia is a stable government formed after a very long

time and has taken a very bold decision of demonetization for curbing the big problem of

black money for the citizens of the country. adding to which the people of Narnia has co-

operated with the move of demonetization and has readily opted for other methods of

payment which is evident from the fact that during demonetization there has been a 1500%

growth in the e-payment business and a customer base of 1,00,00,000. This huge

acceptability of the government and its policies have shocked the opposition parties of

Narnia. They are not willing to accept the fact that the people of Narnia is supporting and co-

operating with the ruling party who has formed a stable government. Therefore, in political

interest the opposition party has created a huge hue and cry over the step of demonetization.

4 1975 AIR 1378.



Many PILs have already been filed in the Court. Therefore, this whole issue has become a

publicity interest rather than a public interest.

¶I.7. The Supreme Court has held that howsoever genuine a cause brought before a court by

public interest litigation may be, the court has to decline its examination at the behest of the

person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bonafide and credentials are in

doubt. No trust can be placed by court on a mala fide applicant in public interest litigation.5

These are basic issues which are required to be satisfied by every public interest litigation.

¶I.8. The member of the public, who approaches the court in the cases of this kind is acting

bonafide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique

consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to

delay legitimate administrative action or gain a political objective.6

ISSUE II : WHETHER THE DATA PROTECTION PROVISIONS UNDER INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

¶II.1 It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble High Court of City of Joy that the right to

privacy is not an absolute right and therefore the sharing of its customer data by SayPM, is

just the compliance of the IT Act provisions which is just, fair and reasonable procedure

established by law under article 21 and therefore does not amount to breach of fundamental

right to privacy. The counsel would deal this issue in two parts:- [A] That SayPM has legally

complied with the provisions of the IT Act in sharing data with the Law enforcement Agency.

[B.] That the government in demanding data under Section 69 of IT Act is using its

prerogative that has been granted to protect the larger public interest and is within just, fair

and reasonable restriction on the right to privacy.

[A] THAT SAYPM HAS LEGALLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT IN

SHARING DATA WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

¶II.2. SayPM in their statement have categorically stated that the “data of their user is 100%

secure and they have shared the data only with the law enforcement agency on request, in

doing so SayPM has just complied with the section 69 of the IT Act”.

5 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1947) 1 SCC 546 , Dattaraj Nathji Thaware v. State of

Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590. 6 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 (188).



¶II.3. There has been no breach of data privacy by SayPM due to inadequate security

therefore there can be no liability against SayPM under Section 43A7. The data has been

consciously shared with the government on request by a Law enforcement Agency and

according to the Section 698 which is an exception to the general rule of maintenance of

privacy and secrecy of the information, states that where the Government is satisfied that it is

necessary in the interest of:

the sovereignty or integrity of India,

defense of India,

security of the State,

friendly relations with foreign States or

public order or

for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating

to above or

for investigation of any offence,

¶II.4. It may by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor

or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated,

transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource. This section empowers the

Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt any information including information of

personal nature in any computer resource. Where the information is such that it ought to be

divulged in public interest, the Government may require disclosure of such information.

Information relating to anti-national activities which are against national security, breaches of

the law or statutory duty or fraud may come under this category.

[B] THAT THE GOVERNMENT IN DEMANDING DATA UNDER SECTION 69 OF IT ACT IS USING

ITS PREROGATIVE THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO PROTECT THE LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST

AND IS WITHIN JUST, FAIR AND REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

¶II.5. In the recent judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India9 the Apex Court

unanimously held that Privacy has been held to be an intrinsic element of the right to life and

personal liberty under Article 21. Like the right to life and liberty, privacy is not absolute.

7 “Compensation for failure to protect data (Inserted vide ITAA 2006).

Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information in a

computer resource which it owns, controls or operates, is negligent in 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, not exceeding five crore rupees, to the person

so affected” 8 The Information Technology Act, 2000 (No. 21 OF 2000) INDIA CODE.

9 (2017) 10 SCC 1.



The limitations which operate on the right to life and personal liberty would operate on the

right to privacy.10

The creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance

between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the state. The legitimate aims of the

state would include for instance protecting national security, preventing and investigating

crime, encouraging innovation and the spread of knowledge, and preventing the dissipation of

social welfare benefits.11

¶II.6.The provisions are not arbitrary and the information technology( procedure and

Safeguard for Interception, Monitoring and De-cryption of information) Rules 200912

prescribe the procedure and manner in which the data can be intercepted and following are

some of the safeguards have been formed:-

The interception, monitoring and de-cryption cannot be initiated without the order of

competent authority i.e. Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs and in case of

Central Government and Secretary in the Home Department in case of state

government.13

If the information that is required to be intercepted, monitored and de-crypted is

beyond the jurisdiction of state or unions, then the secretary-in-charge of the home

department of the state or union shall request the union home secretary for issuing any

direction to the appropriate authority for making such interception14

which should

contain the reasons for such interception and the copy of which should be send to the

review committee within the period of 7 working days.15

Such direction will remain in force, if not revoked earlier, for a period not exceeding

60 days from the date of the issue and may be timely renewed for a period not

exceeding 180 days16

.

The designated officer of the intermediary has to maintain record of the points

mentioned in Rule 16 including numbers of copies made of the information,

10

Id. at 257. 11

supra note2, at 264, 265. 12

G.S.R. 780(E), dated 27-10-2009, publishing in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt II, S.3(i), dated October 27,

2009. 13

Rule 3, the information technology (procedure and Safeguard for Interception, Monitoring and De-cryption of

information) Rules 2009. 14

Rule 6, the information technology (procedure and Safeguard for Interception, Monitoring and De-cryption of


Rule, the information technology (procedure and Safeguard for Interception, Monitoring and De-cryption of


Rule 50, the information technology (procedure and Safeguard for Interception, Monitoring and De-cryption

of information) Rules 2009.



electronic record and the mode and method by which copies are made and duration

within which the direction remain in force.17

The security agency has to destroy all the records pertaining to directions of

interception in every six months except such information as likely to be used for

functional requirement.18

Even though in India we hardly have any precedence in the field of digital data

interception but there are various other legislation not only in India but around the

world where the government in order to perform its Sovereign duties to protect the

larger interest of its citizen have been given an exception to even breach the private

rights of individuals. Since the social interest should be placed over and above the

individual interest. In dealing with a substantive challenge to a law on the ground that

it violates a fundamental right, there are settled principles of constitutional

interpretation which hold the field.19

The first is the presumption of constitutionality20

which is based on the foundational

principle that the legislature which is entrusted with the duty of law making best

understands the needs of society and would not readily be assumed to have

transgressed a constitutional limitation. Mere possibility of abuse cannot be counted

as a ground for denying the vesting of powers or for declaring a statute

unconstitutional. 21

¶II.7. In the case of People's Union of Civil Liberties ... vs Union Of India & Anr22

which

involves disclosure of information regarding a candidate contesting an election. The apex

court held that it should not be forgotten that the candidates' right to privacy is one of the

many factors that could be kept in view, though that right is always subject to overriding

public interest. In the case M.P.Sharma v Satish Chandra23

the court took to the view that

17 Rule 16, the information technology (procedure and Safeguard for Interception, Monitoring and De-cryption

of information) Rules 2009. 18

Rule 23, the information technology (procedure and Safeguard for Interception, Monitoring and De-cryption

of information) Rules 2009. 19

supra note2, 238. 20

Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 ; Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R.

Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 ; Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 954 ; Pathumma v. State

of Kerala (1970) 2 SCR 537 ; R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 ; State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery

Limited, AIR 1997 SC 1511 ; State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Purushottam Reddy (2003) 9 SCC 564, ; Mardia

Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 ; State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat,

2005 (8) SCC 534 ; Bhanumati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 1 ; K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of

Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Kohli, (2012) 6 SCC 312 ; Namit Sharma v.

Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745. 21

State of Rajasthan V. Union of India,(1978) 1 SCR 1, Collector of Customs V. Nathella Sampathu Chetty,

AIR 1962 SC 316, Keshavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) SCC 225; Mafatlal Industries V. Union

of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536. 22

AIR 2003 SC 2363. 23

1954 SCR 1077.



search and seizure affect the right to property, such effect was only temporary and was

reasonable restriction on the right to privacy. In the case of Govind v State of M.P.24

held that

the domiciliary visit by the police to home of the acquitted person would not always be

unreasonable restriction on the right to privacy. The court articulated a new balancing test25

in which the fundamental right to privacy may be restricted by compelling State interest.

“The public will be compensated for the costs of diminished privacy in increased security

from terrorist attacks”26

the State does have a legitimate interest when it monitors the Web to

secure the nation against cyber-attacks and the activities of terrorists.27

In apex court while

comparing the various other fundamental rights with the national security upheld later over

individual rights Jeevan Reddy, J. in Cricket Association's case. The learned Judge was of the

view that the freedom of speech and expression cannot be so exercised as to endanger the

interest of the nation or the interest of the society, even if the expression 'national interest' or

'public interest' has not been used in Article 19(2).

¶II.8. In the case of Uzun v Germany28

the ECtHR examined an application claiming

violation of Article 8 of European Convention of Human Rights where the applicant’s data

was obtained via the Global Positioning System (GPS) by the investigation agencies and was

used against him in a criminal proceeding “GPS surveillance of Mr. Uzun had been ordered

to investigate several counts of attempted murder for which a terrorist movement had claimed

responsibility and to prevent further bomb attacks. It therefore served the interests of national

security and public safety, the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights of the

victims. It had only been ordered after less intrusive methods of investigation had proved

insufficient, for a relatively short period of time – three months – and it had affected Mr.

Uzun only when he was travelling with his accomplice’s car. Therefore, he could not be said

to have been subjected to total and comprehensive surveillance. Given that the investigation

concerned very serious crimes, the Court found that the GPS surveillance of Mr Uzun had

been proportionate.”

¶II.9. Mr X v Hospital Z29

Justice Saghir Ahmad, speaking for a Bench of two judges of this

Court, adverted to the duty of the doctor to maintain secrecy in relation to the patient but held

that there is an exception to the rule of confidentiality where public interest will override that

24

1975 AIR 1378. 25

APARNA VISHWANATHAN, CYBER LAW INDIAN AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 209 (ed. Lexis Nexis

2012). 26

Richard A. Posner, “Privacy, Surveillance, and Law”, The University of Chicago Law Review (2008), Vol.75,

at page 251. 27

supra note 2, at 254. 28

Application No. 35623/05 29

(1998) 8 SCC 296.



duty. In another case of Mr. Doraisamy v. The Assisitant General Manager, State Bank Of

India,30

the court considered the issue whether a bank, with whom the customer has fiduciary

relationship, is entitled to disclose or publicize the information in their possession, resulting

in the breach of their duty secrecy and confidentiality owed to their client. In the case the

rights to privacy of the banking customer were curtailed as it conflicted with the right to

information and public information. The court held that right to privacy is not absolute and it

is subservient to the right to information and larger public interest. In an English judgment in

Tournier v National Provincial And Union Bank of England,31

in which it was held that under

four heads the bank could disclose such information namely 1. Where the disclosure is under

compulsion by law, 2. Where there is duty to the public to disclose, 3. Where the interest of

the bank requires disclosure and 4. Where the disclosure was made by the express or implied

consent of the customer.

¶II.10. In the case of Govind v State of M.P. and Anr.32

the court held that there can be no

doubt that privacy-dignity claims deserve to be examined with care and to be denied only

when an important countervailing interest is shown to be superior. If the Court does find that

acclaimed right is entitled to protection as a fundamental privacy right, a law infringing it

must satisfy the compelling state interest test. Then the question would be whether a state

interest is of such paramount importance as would justify an infringement of the right.

¶II.11. In the present case, the step of demonetization was taken by the government in order

to curb and check the black money circulation in the country which was no doubt was an

initiative in public interest and in the shortage of cash the people mostly transact through

SayPM therefore the demand of the customer data required by the law enforcement agency

most probably relates to the larger prospective to the issue related to black money. The

functions performed by the law enforcement agency cannot often be discussed in the public

domain otherwise it would altogether defeat the purpose of secrecy and would even endanger

the national security. Therefore, the courts have always upheld national security over and

above individual interest and in order to avail such larger interest certain exception should be

made for the government. In the case of State of Madras v V G33

the court pointed out that

that following things should also be considered while deciding the constitutional validity of a

provision infringing a fundamental right –“ The nature of the right alleged to have been

infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the

30

[2007] 136 Comp Cases 568 (Mad). 31

(192) 1 KB 461 at 472. 32

1975 AIR 1378. 33

(1952) SCR 597.



evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing

conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict “In people’s union for civil

liberty v. union of India,34

the constitutional validity of Section 14 of the prevention of

terrorism Act 2002 was challenged on the ground that it is violative of right to personal

liberty and privacy as enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution. The act provided

unbridled power to investigating officer to compel any person to furnish information if the

investigating officer has reason to believe that such information will be useful or relevant to

the purpose of the Act. It was pointed out that the provision is without any limits and is

amenable to misuse by the investigating officer. It was argued that it does not exclude

lawyers or journalists who are bound by their professional ethics to keep the information

rendered by their client as privileged communication. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that

the provision is violation of Article 14, 19, 20(3) and Article 21 of the constitution. While

rejecting the contention of the petitioner, the court held that it is duty of everybody to assist

the State in detection of the crime and bringing the criminal to justice and withholding such

information cannot be traced to right to privacy, which itself is not an absolute right. The

court took the view that right to privacy is subservient to that of the security of the state.

ISSUE III: WHETHER SAYPM FAILED TO PERFORM THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

TOWARDS ITS CUSTOMER?

¶III.1. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of City of Joy that SayPM has not

failed to perform their contractual obligation towards the its customers. The contract entered

into by the customers were of a standard form of contract but it was not an unreasonable

contract. It is humbly submitted by the counsel that, “Contracts in standard form are very

frequently embody clauses which purport to impose obligations on him or to exclude or

restrict the liability of the person supplying the document.35

” Moreover, the customers agreed

to this Clickwrap agreement by clicking at the “I Agree” button to use the services. That the

respondent will deal this issue in two parts :- [A.] That the SayPM Agreement was not

Unreasonable. [B.] That the Terms of the contract was not opposing to Public Policy or

violative of the provisions of the IT Act.

[A] THAT THE AGREEMENT TO USE THE SERVICES OF SAYPM WAS NOT UNREASONABLE.

¶III.2. Standard form of contract is presumed to be fair and reasonable36

. It is submitted to

the Hon’ble court that the clauses of the contract were not unreasonable or unfair as the

34

AIR 2004 SC456. 35

Chitty on Contracts 'General Principles' (27th Ed) (vol. I, 1994) 36

Bihar State Electricity Board v. Green Rubber Industries; (1990) 1 SCC 731



parties were having the option of not using the services of the contract and had choices to use

different apps providing same nature. Further, it is stated that the settled law that if a contract

of a clause in a contract is found unreasonable or unfair or irrational one must look to the

relative bargaining power of the contracting parties. In dotted line contracts there would be

no occasion for a weaker party to bargain or to assume to have equal bargaining power. He

has either to accept or leave the services, or goods in terms of the dotted line contract37

. Thus,

the customers were not having weak bargaining power as they had the option to leave the

services for alternates and to avail the same service from the other providers.

¶III.3. Also, Lord Wilberforce during the course of his speech emphasized the unequal

bargaining power as an invalidating factor upheld the contract in that case since it was

commercial bargain between two competent party to enter into a contract on equal bargaining

power. Therefore, it is further submitted to the court that the contract in case of commercial

bargain invalidates the factor of unequal power38

. In the present case the customers were not

having an unequal power and on other hand the contract was valid as the contract is of a

commercial nature.

[B] THAT THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WAS NOT OPPOSING TO PUBLIC POLICY OR

VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT.

¶III.4. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the company SayPM is not a Public

authority or Government or its instrumentality. SayPM is a private company founded by MR.

Money Bag in 200939

. The only government app launched was SayMo which was Prime

Minister’s own mobile application40

.

¶III.5. It is stated that the private parties are concerned only with their personal interest but

the public authority are expected to act for public good and in public interest. The impact of

every action is also on public interest. It imposes public law obligation and impress with that

character, the contracts made by the State or its instrumentality. However, to the extent,

challenge is made on the ground of violation of Article 14 by alleging that the impugned act

is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the fact that the dispute also falls within the domain of

contractual obligations would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the basic

requirements of Article 14. To this extent, the obligation is of a public character invariably in

37

LIC of India and Ors. Vs. Consumer Education & Research center and Ors; (1995) 2 SCC 482 38

Photo Production Ltd, v. Securicor Transport Ltd. 1980 A.C. 827; referred in LIC of India and Ors. Vs.

Consumer Education & Research center and Ors; (1995) 2 SCC 482 39

Refer Moot Proposition Paragraph 1 40

Refer Moot Proposition Paragraph 9.



every case irrespective of there being any other right or obligation in addition thereto. An

additional contractual obligation cannot divest the claimant of the guarantee under Article 14

of non-arbitrariness at the hands of the State in any of its actions41

. The company SayPM was

not a Public authority and was not violating any public policy. SayPM is an intermediary as

per the definition of section 2(w)42

of the IT Act, 2000 and has made the policies in

compliance with Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011. Also, no

sensitive data as per Rule 343

of the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices

and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 was not shared.

SayPM also have not shared any sensitive data as mentioned in the IT rules, 2011.

¶III.6. A standard form enables the supplier to say: "If you want these goods or services at

all, these are the only terms on which they are available. Take it or leave it." It is a type of

contract on which the conditions are fixed by one of the parties in advance and are open to

acceptance by anyone. The contract, which frequently contains many conditions is presented

for acceptance and is not open to discussion. It is settled law that a person who signs a

document which contains contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he has

not read them, even though he is ignorant of the precise legal effect44

. The contract accepted

by the Users of the SayPM is binding on them as the consent is given expressly by clicking

on the “I Agree” button. The whole policy is made available to the users before they accept

the conditions and even after the consent the policies and terms are available on demand.

¶III.7. Halsbury’s Laws of England45

stated that the concept of contracting out reads that any

person can enter into a binding contract to waive the benefits conferred upon him by an Act

of Parliament or as it is said can contract himself out of the Act, unless it can be shown that

such an agreement is in the circumstances of Particular case contrary to public policy46

. The

41

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U. P; AIR 1991 SC 537 42

"intermediary", with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another

person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes

telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers,

search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes;” 43

Sensitive personal data or information of a person means such personal information which consists of

information relating to;— (i) password; (ii) financial information such as Bank account or credit card or debit

card or other payment instrument details ; (iii) physical, physiological and mental health condition; (iv) sexual

orientation; (v) medical records and history; (vi) Biometric information; (vii) any detail relating to the above

clauses as provided to body corporate for providing service; and (viii) any of the information received under

above clauses by body corporate for processing, stored or processed under lawful contract or otherwise:

provided that, any information that is freely available or accessible in public domain or furnished under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 or any other law for the time being in force shall not be regarded as sensitive

personal data or information for the purposes of these rules. 44

Schroder Music Co. Ltd. v. Macaulay; (1974) 3 All ER 616; Referred in the case of Bihar State Electricity

Board, Patna and Ors. Vs Green Rubber Industries and Ors., (1989) 45

Vol. 8, 3rd

Edition, Pt. 143 46

H.R. Basavaraj (dead) by his LRs. & another vs. Canara Bank & others; (2010) 12 SCC 458



Terms of the SayPM agreement is complying with every rule to safeguard the public policy.

The company is not even contracting out themselves from not following the specific IT

provisions.

¶III.8. The Delhi High Court had a similar situation to be dealt recently where the Privacy

policy of an application was contended to be a most valuable, basic and essential feature and

the alteration of such terms without informing its users is not a fair practice and is hit by the

principles of estoppel. The contentions were disregarded by the Hon’ble Court on the grounds

that the users were having an option to delete their accounts anytime they wanted to which

would result in deletion of their data and information47

.Thus, the policy of sharing the data

with any third party was not against the Public policy as it was done for purpose of getting

service and providing the same to the customers. The privacy policies were well available on

the website and the changes were already stated to the users. They were even given the option

to leave the service provided by the SayPM during the change in the policies.

¶III.9. Hence, no information of sensitive nature is shared and if done is as according to and

in compliance with the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and

procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 and Information

Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011. The customers are not at unequal

bargaining power as they can delete their accounts any time they want to and their data will

also be deleted. The change in policy was also expressly intimated to the customers and to get

their money back only a minor fee48

was charged in case of account blockage. The fee was

minor and cannot be termed to be arbitrary as every intermediary charge a large amount of

convenience fee and here only a minor fee was charged which was reasonable. Thus, SayPM

has performed all its contractual obligations keeping in mind the convenience of the

customers.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE DIRECTIONS TO THE CENTRAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY TO

INVESTIGATE ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND SAYPM

RESULTING IN COMPROMISE OF ANY CITIZEN’S PERSONAL DATA IS REQUIRED?

¶IV.1 It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble High Court of City of Joy that that there lies no

ground for CBI investigation in the present case. The entire case has been filed on false and

47

Karmanya Singh Sareen and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 7663/2016. 48

Refer Moot Proposition Paragraph 10.



frivolous grounds and lacks certainty of facts. The investigation is claimed upon mere

allegations and suspicion of facts. The power to direct an investigation by CBI must be

exercised cautiously, keeping in mind that the premier investigating agency should not be

overburdened with matters that did not require such expertise. 49

¶IV.2. In the present case, not a single instance has come up where one can point out that

there exists a relationship between the SayPM and the government. All the facts are mere

allegation without any evidence. Taking up the first instance where it was alleged that the

step of demonetization was taken for commercial purpose. SayPM made a statement where it

clearly said that the use of photographs of PM was just to promote the feeling of nationalism.

The second instance where Mrs. Money Bag was seen in a video released by Anaconda post

claiming that they received a call from Prime Minister’s office is also not a reliable evidence

as it was spoken by Mrs. Money Bag when she was not in her sense but in drunken. Lastly

the sting which was conducted by the Anaconda post holds no good value in law. Supreme

court has held that investigation by C.B.I should be transferred only when there is lack of

confidence in the present investigating agency and a mere allegation that the respondents are

influential person is not enough to transfer a case to CBI.50

¶IV.3. Therefore, this case fails in every aspect in bringing an iota of doubt regarding the

nexus between the government and the SayPM. It has been a matter of record that only those

matters which creates a prima facie case should be ordered by the High court to be

investigated by CBI or another similar agency.51

49

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 at p. 416: AIR 2008 SC 907 50

Sujatha Ravi Kiran vs State Of Kerala And Ors 51

In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521



PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, issues raised, argument advanced and

authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble High Court of City of Joy that

it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The PIL is not maintainable and therefore should be rejected.

2. The provisions of IT Act are not violative of fundamental rights.

3. SayPM has not breached the standard contract.

4. The present case is not fit for CBI inquiry.

The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to pass any other order as it deems fit in the

interest of

Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the Respondents shall duty bound forever pray.

Place: City of Joy Sd/-

Dated: XX/XX/XXXX (Counsel for the Respondents)

Documents

IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT TO … · Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 at p. 416 : AIR 2008 SC 907 28 25 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC