THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY

30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY

TH
30 ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

BEFORE
THE HONO’BLE COURT OF MAYOORSTHAN

WRIT PETITION NO. ****

IN THE MATTER OF:

COUNCIL OF CIVIL LIBERTY PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF MAYOORSTHAN RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF HIGH COURT OF MAYOORSTHAN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF STATE OF MAYOORSTHAN

0
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .........................................................................................8

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................... 12

SUMMARY OF ISSUES ...................................................................................................... 12

ISSUES ADVANCED ............................................................................................................... 13

1. THAT THE STATUE DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1.1 There exist intelligible differentia in the enactment of this statue …………………………13

1.2 The statue is enacted for the sake of public order, tranquility and safety,………………….14

1.3 The High Court of Mayoorsthan has issued direction to the government to bring such an
act…………………………………………………………………………………………..15

1.4 In Mayoorsthan fake news is a real issue to be dealt with…………………………………16

1.5 The Legislative Assembly of Mayoorsthan had the Legislative competency to enact the
statue………………………………………………………………………………………..17

1.6 The powers given to the administrative office under the act are not arbitrary. ……………18

2. THE STATUE DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
2.1 This works on the principle of Sic tuou tolienum non leades………………………………19
2.2 Already a lot of Penal Provision exist...................................................................................21
2.3 Already such information check exists in other forms of media…………………………..24
2.4 The provisions of the statue is a reasonable restriction to article 19.....................................26
2.5 The legitimate speech and expression shall be untouched…………………………………..28

3. THE STATUE DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
3.1 The statute aims at stopping the reckless violation of people’s right to life………………30
1
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
3.2 The act doesn’t violate
30th ALL INDIA the rightCOURT
MOOT to liberty…………………………………………………31
(FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021
3.3 The uncontrollable oratory on social media violates several laws………...………………33
3.4 Article 21 is subject to articles 14 and 19………………………………………………….34

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 35

2
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

& And

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

All ER All England Law Reports (United Kingdom)

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

Assn. Association

Asst. Assistant

Bom. Bombay

CTO Commercial Tax Officer

Corp. Corporation

DLT Delhi Law Times

Govt. Government

3
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

p. no. Page Number

QB Queen Bench

R. Regina

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Secy. Secretary

T.N. Tamil Nadu

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

UOI Union of India

UT Union Territory

V Versus

4
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Constitutional Provisions
ART. 14, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950, ........................................................................ 13
Art. 19(1) (a), CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950…………………………………………19
ART. 21, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950 ......................................................................... 29

Indian Cases
Menaka Gandhi V UOI 1978 AIR 597 ……………………………………………………….. 13
LaxmiKhandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 SC 873, 891: (1981) 2 SCC 600 ………….. 13
Budhan v. State of Bihar, AIR 970 SC 1453: (1969) 2 SCC 166
Ram krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 ……………………………… 13
B. Banerjee vs Anita Pan AIR 1975 SC 1146 ………………………………………………..14
C.I. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1960 SC 548 ……………………………………..14
Tehseem poonawal v UOI (2018) 9 SCC 501 ………………………………………………...14
Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 246 …15
Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi 1950 AIR 129 …………………………….15
State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 469 ……………………………15
Nandini Sundar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) 8 SCR 1028 ……………………...17
Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 2009 ….19
Alakh Alok Srivastava vs Union Of India (2018) 5 SCC 651 ………………………………….20
Ram Nandan V State of UP AIR 1959 All 101………………………………………………..22
Madhu Limaye V Sub- Divisional Magistrate AIR 1971 2486 ………………………………...22
Suramaniyam Swamy V Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221……………………………………………22
Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabho V Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Ors. 1996 (1) SCC 130 ……22
Pravasi bhalai sangathan vs UOI AIR 2014 SC 1591…………………………………..………23
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 620 ……………………………………………26
Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768 ………………………………………….26
Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of Bihar AIR 1951 SC 318 …………………………………….26
Foundation for Media Professionals v. State (UT of J&K), (2020) 5 SCC 746 …………………...26
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, [1952] S.C.R. 597, 606-07 ……………………………………..26
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637 ……………………………………………...…26
5
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

State of Maharastra V Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate (2010) 7 SCC 398 …………………….27

Shreya Singhal V Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1……………………………………………..27
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 ……………………………………….28
M.C. Mehta (Stubble Burning & Air Quality) v. Union of India, (2020) 7 SCC 573 ………...29
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1963 AIR 1295 ………………………………………29
A.K.Gopalan vs State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27 ……………………………………………30
Sewakram Sobhani v RK Karanjiya 1981 AIR 1514………………………………………….31
K.S.Puttuswamy v. Union of India([Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of 2012]) ………………….32
Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 AIR Bom R 140 ……………………32
Sahib Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1451 ………………………………………….32
Budhan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1453: (1969) 2 SCC 166 ……………………………..33
Bihar State Mineral Dev. Corpn. v. Encon Builders(I) Pvt. Ltd, 2003 7 SCC 418 …………….33
T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of T.N., AIR 1983 SC 361 ………………………………………..34

Reports and Articles

LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, THE TRAIL AND PUNISHMENT OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
OFFENCES, 47TH REPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 9
https://www.gktoday.in/gk/types-of-majorities-in-indian-constitution/ ……………………….17
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52131338 .............................................................20
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53165436 ...............................................……….20
Snigdha Poonam & Samarth Bansal, Misinformation Is Endangering India’s Election, The
Atlantic (Apr. 1, 2019) ………………………………………………………………………….20
https://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/draft-information-technology-intermediaries-guidelines-
amendment-rules-2018 ………………………………………………………………………..22
https://presscouncil.nic.in/OldWebsite/NORMS-2010.pdf ........................................................24
Press Release, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Guidelines for Accreditation of
Journalists Amended to Regulate Fake News (Apr. 2, 2018), https://perma.cc/E3AH-ZBJT.
………………………………………………………………………....................................................………….25
https://www.deccanherald.com/business/ib-psu-floats-tender-to-fact-check-posts-on-social-
media-report-847843.html ................................................................................................................25
http://in.reuters.com/article/india-protests-muslims-beef-idINKBN19J2BV ...........................29

6
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/how-the-government-should-tackle-the-
menace-of-fake-news-5295501/ ………………………………………………………………30
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46146877............................................................................30
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47797151 .........................................................30
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Act No. 45 of 1860 …………………………………………………21
Representation of People Act 1951 Act No. 43 of 1951………………………………………21
Cinematography Act 1952 Act No. 37 of 1952………………………………………………..21
Criminal Code of Procedure 1973 Act No. 2 of 1974 ………………………………………..22
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Act no. 5 of 1908…………………………………………………23
Press Council Act, 1978 Act No. 37 of 1978 …………………………………………………..24

Books
P J Fitzgerald, Salmond on Jurisprudence, Universal Law Publishing Co, (12th Ed. 2010) …..17
KAPOOR S.K. INTERNATIONAL LAW & HUMAN RIGHTS,Central Law Agency,(14th Ed. 2002)…19
Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, Cambridge(2012)……21

7
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the appellant has approached the Hon‟ble High
Court of Mayoorsthan invoking the writ of Prohibition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Mayoorsthan.
Article 32 provides for the Right to Constitutional Remedies which means that
a person has a right to move to Supreme Court for getting his Fundamental
Rights protected.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in
the present case.

8
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

Mayoorsthan is a State in the Indian Union having a population of 5,48,57,600 with

Unicameral Legislative Assembly and 99%. A recent study undertaken by the Social
Welfare Department of the Government of Mayoorsthan revealed that 60% of the
population is active in social media. In the election to the Mayoorsthan Legislative
Assembly, 2016 Mayoorsthan Republic Party secured 121 seats out of 232 against
main political party Mayoorsthan Socialist Party. The year saw the outbreak of corona
virus which was declared to be a pandemic by WHO in March 2020. From 2016, many
news reports highlighted the misuse of social media by people for instance the video of
a woman being dragged and murdered on road uploaded by a social media user in
March 2017. Many articles from the BBC like “The rise and the rise of fake news”,
“WhatsApp: The „Black hole‟ of Fake News in India‟s Election”, etc unearthed the fake
news being spread on social media and being used for the purposes of election and
framing allegations against ruling parties. A recent Reuters Institute survey of
English-language Indian internet users found that 52% of respondents got news via
WhatsApp and Facebook. But content shared via WhatsApp has led to murder. At
least 31 people were killed in 2017 and 2018 as a result of mob attacks fuelled by
rumours on WhatsApp and social media, a BBC analysis found. In May 2019, the
School of Media Studies of Mayoorsthan University published “Influence of Fake News
in the Indian Electoral Process” and observed that more than 300 million people of

India use what‟s app and 88% of the population feel that fake news is a real issue. An
article under the title “Social Media in India fans Fake News” published in Interpreter
on 02.06.2019 by Australian Lowy Institute, reported that information is crucial and is
likely to affect the electoral process. Late last year, for instance, rumors on social
media of strangers abducting children from villages were enough to trigger mob
attacks where at least 20 people were killed. The Indian Express under the heading
“Fake News shared over two million times on Social Media during Lok Sabha polls”
reported that about 50,000 fake news stories were published during the recent Lok

9
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

Sabha elections and shared 2 million times, according to a study conducted by fact-
checking startup logically. “Of the 9,44,486 articles analyzed, 14.1% were found to be
unreliable and 25% were fake,” it added. Nicknamed the „WhatsApp lynching‟s, often
the killings were a direct result of rumors about child abductions which spread over
the messaging platform to rural communities and other instances of mob violence
were related to cow vigilantism. “Social Media Firms Fail to act on Covid-19 fake news”
published that Hundreds of posts spreading misinformation about Covid-19 are being
left online, according to a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Some
649 posts were reported to Facebook and Twitter, including false cures, anti-
vaccination propaganda and conspiracy theories around 5G. 90% remained visible
online afterwards without any warnings attached The BBC Reality Check published in
BBC News under the title “Corona virus: The Human Cost of Fake News in India” that
Of the 1,447 fact-checks on five Indian websites, claims around corona virus
dominated, making up 58% of them.
From August 2020, new allegations of illegalities, irregularities, corruption and
nepotism started appearing against the Government. The State Government readily
agreed to the demands for investigations and officially wrote to the Central
Government seeking investigations into the allegations by the Central Agencies. The
Central Government is formed by the political front, led by the political party Indian
Socialist Party, which is a close ally of Mayoorsthan Socialist Party, the principal
opposition in Mayoorsthan. Since September 2020, there were innumerable instances
of members of the public including non-political persons openly defying the COVID-19
protocols and restrictions. This was mainly fueled by social media messages, many of
which were fake, propagated by automated sources.
Government Steps: On 07.08.2020, the state government appointed a Committee to
study the social impact of fake news and to suggest the remedial measures. On
02.10.2020, the Committee submitted its report. The last paragraph of the report read
as follows: Inaccurate beliefs poses serious threat to the fabric of democracy and fake
news represents a particularly egregious and direct avenue by which inaccurate beliefs
have been propagated via social media…..A new system of safeguards is needed. It is
better to enact penal provisions to control this social evil. the State Government
piloted the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill
2020 in the State Legislative Assembly on 20.10.2020. The opposition parties strongly

10
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

opposed the Bill and questioned the timing of presenting the Bill and demanded that it
be referred to a Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly, which was not agreed to
by the Government. So the opposition political parties staged a walk out and the Bill
was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 20.10.2020 without any opposition. On
02.11.2020, the Governor of the State gave assent to “Mayoorsthan Protection from
Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020”.
On 16.11.2020 Council for Civil Liberty, a charitable society registered in Mayoorsthan
for the protection and promotion of human rights filed a writ petition before the High
Court of Mayoorsthan challenging the constitutional validity of “Mayoorsthan
Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020”. It is contended that
the Act is unconstitutional on the grounds of lack of legislative competency and
violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.

11
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

-I-
WHETHER THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND
MANIPULATION ACT 2020 VIOLATES ART.14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ON THE
GROUNDS OF LACK OF LEGISLATIVE COMPENTENCY AND SHEER ARBITRARINESS.

-II-
WHETHER THIS BILL ALSO VIOLATES ARTICLE 19(1)(A) AND PLACES UNNECESSARY AND
DISPROPORTIONATE RESTRICTION.

-III-
WHETHER IT VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION CURTAILING
INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT.

12
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

ISSUES ADVANCED

1 ISSUE 1- THE STATUTE DOESN’T VIOLATE ARTICLE 14 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble High Court of Mayoorsthan that the
enactment of the statute was prompted by the concurrent situations existent in
the state whereby the spreading of rumors and fake news on the online
platforms and social media is leading to a number of crimes. The act was
passed by following full legislative procedure so it has not been passed
arbitrarily. The statute has defined the scope of its functioning in accordance
with the apex court‟s directions and has been brought in order to safeguard the
public order. The powers given to the administrative officer under the statute is
similar to that of a quasi judicial authority and its sense of discretion can‟t be
demeaned.1

1.1. There exist intelligible differentia in the enactment of this statute.

Each citizen has the fundamental right of receiving equal protection of law but
intelligible differentia is an exception to this right2. The supreme court gave the
very famous “classification test” and permitted the state to make differential
classification of subjects, which would otherwise be prohibited by article 14,
provided that classification is founded on intelligible differentia (i.e. object
within the class are clearly distinguishable from those that are outside) and
have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the classification.3
It is humbly submitted with emerging time the types of crime is emerging and
the horizon of criminal activity is expanding with emergence of new types of
crime due to which every now and then new statutes are enacted to provide
safeguards against these evils and bring the wrongdoer in the claws of law.
Proceedings of legislature can be referred to for the limited purpose of
1
Menaka Gandhi V UOI 1978 AIR 597
2
LaxmiKhandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 SC 873, 891: (1981) 2 SCC 600; Budhan v. State of Bihar, AIR
1970 SC 1453: (1969) 2 SCC 166
3
Ram krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538

13
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

ascertaining the conditions, prevailing at or about the time of the enactment in

question, which actuated the sponsor of the bill to introduce the same and the
extent and urgency of the evil, sought to be remedied4. It is humbly submitted
to the hon‟ble court that the incidences of mob lynching, killings and riots
prompted by fake and false information has been on the rise in past 2 years.
Delivering hate speech is becoming new trend of expressing one‟s disagreement
with the government. The constitution gives the right to criticize the
government but the self-proclaimed people‟s representatives often forget that
the uncontrollable oratory power of theirs aimed at the government often gets
converted into a standpoint against the nation. This is the intelligible
differentia that prompts and necessitates for the government to introduce
certain laws to tackle the situation in favor of the integrity and dignity of India.
while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification for the purposes of legislation. Two conditions, however, must be
fulfilled in order to pass the test of permissible classification, viz., (1) that the
classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group,
and (2) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to
be achieved by the statute in question.5 As the statute is in direct relation to
the object sought to be achieved and the basis adopted by the legislature is
completely reasonable6 therefore it s humbly submitted that the statute is
completely constitutional and not violative of art.14 of the constitution.

1.2. The statute has been enacted for the sake of public order, tranquility
and finance.
Presently, the Covid-19 pandemic times is the critical time when cooperation
with the health measures taken by the government is needed but if people
march and collect on the streets, violating the rules and guidelines laid down
by the govt. regarding lockdown, due to fake news then a control tactic shall be

4
B. Banerjee vs Anita Pan AIR 1975 SC 1146
5
Supra 3
6
C.I. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1960 SC 548

14
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

required to deal with such inciting elements7 like fake news, misinformation
and hate speech because the priority in this period is health and anything
endangering the health of the citizens shall be considered as the threat to
public safety which is an all-time prime concern for a country like ours. Also,
its humbly submitted that public order as mentioned in entry 1 of list I of the
seventh schedule of the constitution of Mayoorsthan is a wide term to enough
to encompass insurgency etc.8 It is clear that anything which
affects public tranquility within the State or the Province will also
affect public order and the State Legislature is therefore competent to frame
laws on matters relating to public tranquility and public order9.These terms
though being incapable of being defined but the court has permitted the terms
ill of being defined before.10

1.3. Supreme Court of India has given the directions to that effect.
It is humbly submitted that the SC has repeatedly told the government to make
regulations regarding misinformation and fake news. From 2016 onwards,
there were several newspaper reports in India highlighting the misuse of social
media by the members of public and organized groups, especially the spreading
of fake news prejudicially affecting the Society11. In March 2017, a social media
user uploaded a video of a woman being dragged and murdered in broad
daylight. The up loader claimed that the victim was murdered by a particular
religious group as she was a believer of another religion with different political
views. In reality the clip was that of a street play depicting the murder of a
journalist in the country12. On 14.02.2018 the leading news paper of the state,
Mayoorsthan Times published the following news: Anti-Religion Messages are
shared by the social media users often through WhatsApp and Facebook
without even reading them. At times, even National News Channels have

7
Tehseem poonawal v UOI (2018) 9 SCC 501
8
Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 246
9
Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi 1950 AIR 129
10
State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 469
11
¶ 4, Moot Proposition
12
¶ 6, Moot Proposition

15
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

shared these views without checking their authenticity…Random videos are

circulated with contradictory messages.13 In Tehseem poonawala v UOI14, the
court iterated the directions echoing the meaning that killing by vigilantism of
any form prompted by fake or false information is a potential subject of
legislation. Late last year, for instance, rumors on social media of strangers
abducting children from villages were enough to trigger mob attacks where at
least 20 people were killed.15 Any fake information that triggers mob lynching
through sensitive issues like child stealing must be checked. So it is humbly
submitted that the apex court already through its directions justify the making
of such a statute.

1.4. In Mayoorsthan fake news is a real issue to be dealt with.

It is humbly submitted that law is meant to serve the people and in a state with
99% literate people 88% of first time voters believe that fake news is a real
issue.16 Therefore enacting law on the issue is completely reasonable and
constitutional. A country where 300 m people use What‟s app17, one of the
largest statistics in this regard in the world, it is obvious that such a platform
could be misused to misinform people and analysis have found that various
groups of people circulates fake news on the social media platform. The BBC
Reality Check published in BBC News in India on 30.06.2020 under the title
“Corona virus: The Human Cost of Fake News in India” that Of the 1,447 fact-
checks on five Indian websites, claims around corona virus dominated, making
up 58% of them.18 In many cases, in which owing to some kind of emergency or
a grave situation having arisen, even public disorders of comparatively small
dimensions may have far- reaching effects on the security of the State.19 Also
the fact checking organizations are absent and social media giants aren‟t really
succeeding in controlling the fake news. Some 649 posts were reported to

13
¶7, Moot Proposition
14
Supra 7
15
¶10, Moot Proposition
16
¶9 Moot Proposition
17
Id.
18
¶13 Moot Proposition
19
Supra 9

16
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

Facebook and Twitter, including false cures, anti-vaccination propaganda and

conspiracy theories around 5G. 90% remained visible online afterwards
without any warnings attached, the report suggests.20 Even though fact
checking initiatives are popping up on several media fronts in the country,
nearly 45 percent of respondents in the survey stated that they were not aware
of any fact checking organization.21 The Indian Express under the heading
“Fake News shared over two million times on Social Media during Lok Sabha
polls” reported on 21.10.2019 that “About 50,000 fake news stories were
published during the recent Lok Sabha elections and shared 2 million
times...”22 Hence, such a statute was badly needed in Mayoorsthan.

1.5. The legislative assembly of Mayoorstha had the legislative competency

to pass this statute.
The legislation was passed by majority23 in the house as the ruling party
Mayoorsthan Republic Party secured 121 seats out of 232 seats in the house.
It‟s not that the government passed the law arbitrarily- the committee
appointed by the government in this regard suggested that penal provisions are
required as a new safeguard.24
It is the duty of the States to strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote
fraternity amongst all citizens so that the dignity of every citizen is protected,
nourished and promoted.25 Apart that it is the responsibility of the States to
prevent untoward incidents and to prevent crime. When the law recognizes an
act as a duty, it commonly enforces the performance of it, or punishes the
disregard of it.26
The Act is a piece of special legislation providing for special measures and the
central idea dominating it is public safety and maintenance of public order in a

20
¶12, Moot Proposition
21
¶9, Moot Proposition
22
¶11, Moot Proposition
23
https://www.gktoday.in/gk/types-of-majorities-in-indian-constitution/ retrieved 7 January 2021
24
¶14, Moot Proposition
25
Nandini Sundar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) 8 SCR 1028
26
P J Fitzgerald, Salmond on Jurisprudence, Universal Law Publishing Co, 446 (12th Ed. 2010)

17
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

situation requiring special measures27 to tackle the situations like mob

lynching and vigilantism. There can be no shadow of doubt that the authorities
which are conferred with the responsibility to maintain law and order in the
States have the principal obligation to see that vigilantism, be it cow
vigilantism or any other vigilantism of any perception, does not take place.
Lynching and mob violence are creeping threats that may gradually take the
shape of a typhoon-like monster as evidenced in the wake of the rising wave of
incidents of recurring patterns by frenzied mobs across the country instigated
by intolerance and misinformed by circulation of fake news and false stories. In
a civilized society, it is the fear of law that prevents crimes. It shall be the duty
of the Central Government as well as the State Governments to take steps to
curb and stop dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages, videos
and other material on various social media platforms which have a tendency to
incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.28 Thus if the administrative
authorities are conferred with the powers to find out the culprit of spreading
fake news and levy punishment upon him then that can by no means be an
arbitrary action.

1.6. The powers given to the administrative officer under the statute are not
arbitrary.
The act gives power to the communication officer to issue correction direction29 and
stop communication direction30 against a fake statement. It is humbly submitted that
the power is to be exercised with full discretion by the officer keeping in regard the
standards of truth and fairness. Like many other statutes this statute is about
administrative enquiry rather than judicial scrutiny. The aim of both administrative
inquiry as well as the quasi-judicial enquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a rule
of natural justice is calculated to secure justice or to put it 'negatively, to
prevent miscarriage of justice, it is difficult to see why it should be

27
Supra 9
28
Supra 7
29
§8, Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehoods And Manipulation Act 2020
30
§10, Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehoods And Manipulation Act 2020

18
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

applicable to quasi- judicial enquiry and not to administrative enquiry.31

The counsel humbly submits that when the statute is made which grants
administrative authority certain powers to exercise its discretion then the principle of
fairplay in action is required in such cases and when fairplay is attracted then the
doctrine of natural justice comes into play.32 The court made a distinction between the
statutes which themselves make a classification and those which authorize the
executive to make a classification. In the first case, the statue will be invalid if it fails
to meet the reasonable classification test. In the latter, if the statue provides
guidelines, whether express or implied, to the executive to make classification,
executive fails to meet the test, only the action will be invalid not the statue itself. 33 If
the legislation goes hand in hand with the natural justice then it need not be tested on
the grounds of fundamental rights.

2. ISSUE 2- THE STATUTE DOESN’T VIOLATE ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

2.1 The works on the principle of Sic utero tuoutolienum non leades
The constitution grants a plethora of freedoms to an individual but these
freedoms are not and cannot be absolute, for absolute and unrestricted
freedom of one may be destructive of the freedom of another.34 One must use
his rights or interest in such a manner as to not harm other‟s rights or
interest.35 In corollary to this doctrine there are reasonable restrictions to the
right to freedom of speech and expression.
These reasonable restrictions over the dissemination of fake news and
misinformation on social media needed to be engrafted in the legal provisions.
The major platform that fuels fake news is social media and even in the recent
elections in Mayoorsthan over 50,000 news stories were shared 2 million times
31
Supra 1
32
Id.
33
Magan Lal Chaggan Lal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 2009
34
Supra 1
35
KAPOOR S.K., INTERNATIONAL LAW & HUMAN RIGHTS, Central Law Agency, 399 (14th Ed. 2002)

19
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

and were found to be fake.36 From 2016 onwards, there were several
newspaper reports in India highlighting the misuse of social media by the
members of public and organized groups, especially the spreading of fake news
prejudicially affecting the Society. People mostly receive news and information
from social media and they forward it even without checking its authenticity.37
Whats app, the social media messaging app used by over 300 million citizens of
india38, also says that it bans two million accounts globally every month that
are sending automated spam messages. If these stories are being spread by
bots, then there is a high probability that its content is inaccurate and being
maliciously propagated.
In first half of the year 2020, most fake news and misinformation was about
corona virus, including the anti-mask and anti-vaccination propaganda and
false information regarding govt. guidelines and policy measures, succeeded by
rumors and false interpretations regarding CAA referred from the BBC analysis
of Media Reports.39
Religious fault lines of the country are the most delicate one and they are often
played with like guitar strings by stirring the pot up through innumerous
messages and fake stories regarding islamophobia spreading on the social
media. According to the BBC analysis the misinformation targeted at muslims
were at its peak during the first week of the april this year when the Tablighi
Jamaat was alleged to spread corona virus on purpose.40 Many of India‟s
misinformation campaigns are developed and run by political parties with
nationwide cyberarmies, they target not only political opponents, but also
religious minorities and dissenting individuals, with propaganda rooted in
domestic divisions and prejudices. The consequences of such targeted
misinformation are extreme, from death threats to actual murders. In the past
year, more than two dozen people have been lynched by mobs spurred by

36
¶11, Moot Proposition
37
¶4, Moot Proposition
38
¶9, Moot Proposition
39
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53165436 retrieved 29 December 2020
40
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52131338 retrieved 10 January 2021

20
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

nothing more than rumors sent over WhatsApp.41

The Supreme Court42 said that “We expect the Media (print, electronic or social)
to maintain a strong sense of responsibility and ensure that unverified news
capable of causing panic is not disseminated.” A further direction was sought
to prevent fake and inaccurate reporting whether intended or not, either by
electronic print or social medial which will cause panic in the society. The
statute serves this purpose and thus its completely constitutional.

2.2 Already a lot of such penal provision exist

No penal provisions directly or expressly regulate hate speech because there is
no general legal definition of hate speech, perhaps for the apprehension that
setting a standard for determining unwarranted speech may lead to
suppression of this liberty. The freedom of expression was one of the core
freedoms that were incorporated in the Fundamental Rights. The greater value
accorded to the expression, in the scheme of rights, explains the reluctance of
the law makers and judiciary in creating exceptions that may curtail the spirit
of this freedom. Perhaps, this is the reason behind the reluctance in defining
hate speech.43 However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select
forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech.
(i) the Indian Penal Code, 186044 Section 124A IPC (sedition), 153A IPC
(„promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts
prejudicial to maintenance of harmony‟), 153B IPC („imputations,
assertions prejudicial to national-integration‟), 295A IPC („deliberate
and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class
by insulting its religion or religious beliefs‟) 298 IPC (uttering, words,
etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any
person), 505(1) and (2) (publication or circulation of any statement,

41
Snigdha Poonam & Samarth Bansal, Misinformation Is Endangering India’s Election, The Atlantic (Apr. 1,
2019), https://perma.cc/Y39M-KGWU
42
Alakh Alok Srivastava vs Union Of India (2018) 5 SCC 651
43
Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 87-88 (2012)
44
Act No. 45 of 1860

21
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

rumour or report causing public mischief and enmity, hatred or ill-

will between classes)
(ii) The Representation of The People Act, 195145, Section 8 disqualifies a
person from contesting election if he is convicted for indulging in acts
amounting to illegitimate use of freedom of speech and expression and
123(3A) and section 125 prohibits promotion of enmity on grounds of
religion, race, caste, community or language in connection with
election as a corrupt electoral practice and prohibits it.

(iii) The Cinematograph Act, 1952,46 Sections 4, 5B and 7 empower the

Board of Film Certification to prohibit and regulate the screening of a
film.
(iv) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,47 Section 95 empowers the
State Government, to forfeit publications that are punishable under
sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 292, 293 or 295A IPC, Section 107
empowers the Executive Magistrate to prevent a person from
committing a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or
to do any wrongful act that may probably cause breach of the peace
or disturb the public tranquillity and Section 144 empowers the
District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive
Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this
behalf to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended
danger.

The provision of 124 A has been held constitutional in Ram Nandan V state of
UP48 and in Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate49, the Supreme Court
upheld the Constitutionality of Section 144 on the reasoning that it constituted
a reasonable restriction in the interest of public order. The Supreme Court of

45
Act No. 43 of 1951
46
Act No. 37 of 1952
47
Act No. 2 of 1974
48
AIR 1959 All 101
49
AIR 1971 2486

22
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

India has upheld restrictions on free speech such as in the case

of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India50, which upheld the constitutionality
of the criminal defamation sections of the Indian penal code. In Dr. Ramesh
YeshwantPrabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Ors.,51 Section 123 (3A) of
the Representation of People Act was upheld only if the enmity or hatred that
was spoken. It is humbly submitted to the Hon‟ble High Court of Mayoorsthan
when these provisions have been held constitutionally valid on the ground that
the restriction they place on the right of freedom of speech and expression is
reasonable then the given statute is also completely valid.
The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 201152, rule 3(2)
guides the display that is permissible for the computer resource users and
prohibits, under clause (b) hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable,
disparaging information among other things, under clause (f) communicating
any offensive or menacing information an under clause (i) any information that
threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly
relations with foreign states, or public order or causes incitement to the
commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence
or is insulting any other nation and along with this Information Technology
(Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public)
Rules, 2009 (known as the Blocking Rules) curtail freedom of speech to some
extent and are totally constitutional. Hate speech is an expression which is
likely to cause distress or offend other individuals on the basis of their
association with a particular group or incite hostility towards them. Thus, the
regulations similar to the one engrafted in these provisions can be enacted with
regards to hate speech. It is humbly submitted that the Mayoorsthan Assembly
statute purports to exercise such control therefore it stands completely
constitutional.
Law Commission‟s 267th Report recommended adding two new provisions to

50
(2016) 7 SCC 221
51
1996 (1) SCC 130
52
https://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/draft-information-technology-intermediaries-guidelines-amendment-rules-2018
retrieved 2 January 2021

23
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

the Penal Code to further discourage hate speech. The report suggests that a
section 153C be added to prohibit incitement to hatred and a section 505A to
prohibit speech that causes fear, alarm, or provocation of violence to CPC
190853. In the case Pravasi bhalai sangathan vs UOI54, the supreme court of
India observed that the issue of hate speech deserved deeper consideration by
the law commission of India. This directly indicates judiciary‟s intention to
direct the law commission to design a legal framework regulating hate speech.
Therefore, in the wake of judiciary‟s clear direction this piece of legal work by
the Mayoorsthan Assembly is completely constitutional.

2.3 Already such information check exists in other forms of media

Recognizing that the Press which enjoys the utmost freedom of expression has
a great and vital role to play in educating and molding public opinion on
correct lines in regard to the need for friendly and harmonious relations
between the various communities and religious groups forming the fabric of
Indian political life and in mirroring the conscience of the best minds of the
country to achieve national solidarity, the Press Council of India considers that
this object would be defeated, communal peace and harmony disturbed and
national unity disrupted if the Press does not strictly adhere to proper norms
and standards in reporting on or commenting on matters which bear on
communal relations. Council considers the following as offending against
journalistic proprieties and ethics55:
1. Distortion or exaggeration of facts or incidents in relation to communal
matters or giving currency to unverified rumors, suspicions or inferences as if
they were facts and base their comments on them.
2. Employment of intemperate or unrestrained language in the presentation of
news or views, even as a piece of literary flourish or for the purpose of rhetoric
or emphasis.
3. Encouraging or condoning violence even in the face of provocation as a

53
Act no. 5 of 1908
54
AIR 2014 SC 1591
55
https://presscouncil.nic.in/OldWebsite/NORMS-2010.pdf retrieved 10 January 2021

24
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

means of obtaining redress of grievances whether the same be genuine or not.

4. Scurrilous and untrue attacks on communities, or individuals, or
exaggerating real grievances fostering feelings of distrust between communities.
5. Publishing alarming news which are in substance untrue or make
provocative comments on such news or even otherwise calculated to embitter
relations between different communities or regional or linguistic groups.
6. Making disrespectful, derogatory or insulting remarks on or reference to the
different religions or faiths or their founders.
In co-relation to these ethics, section 14 (1) of press council act , 197856 lays
down that when the council receives complaint against a news agency or a
journalist of not following these ethics then it shall undertake an enquiry and if
it deems necessary it may also admonish them according to the provisions of
statute. The same reasoning and considerations can be applied to the social
media and the posts, information, news or statement falling under either of
these categories. When, in any newspaper, any factual error or mistake is
detected or confirmed, the newspaper should suo-motu publish the correction
promptly with due prominence and with apology or expression of regrets in a
case of serious lapse. Similarly section 857 of the statute lays down for a
correction direction that a person issuing any statement which is false or fake
or misinforming then such a person shall be required to issue a correction
notice. The provision is the engraftment of an already legally accepted
procedure therefore it is undoubtedly constitutional.
On April 2, 2018, “[n]oticing the increasing instances of fake news in various
mediums including print and electronic media,”58 the Press Information
Bureau of India amended the Guidelines for Accreditation of Journalists to
provide for the suspension of a journalist‟s accreditation for creating or
propagating fake news under the following process: Now on receiving any
complaints of such instances of fake news, the same would get referred to the

56
Act No. 37 of 1978
57
Supra 30
58
Press Release, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Guidelines for Accreditation of Journalists Amended to
Regulate Fake News (Apr. 2, 2018), https://perma.cc/E3AH-ZBJT. retrieved 10 January 2021

25
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

Press Council of India (PCI) if it pertains to print media & to News Broadcasters
Association (NBA) if it relates to electronic media, for determination of the news
item being fake or not. Determination is expected to be completed within 15
days by these regulating agencies. Once the complaint is registered for
determination of fake news, the correspondent/journalist whoever created
and/or propagated the fake news will, if accredited, have the accreditation
suspended till such time the determination regarding the fake news is made by
the regulating agencies mentioned above. PIB does a fact check based on any
news or report that comes in traditional media or otherwise any report that
goes viral.59
It also laid down the guidelines in 1991 as The State Government should take
upon themselves the responsibility of keeping a close watch on the communal
writings that might spark off tension, destruction and death, and bring them to
the notice of the Council and also outlined the manner of reporting in print
media that the headlines should contain exclamation marks at the end or the
figures should be doubted or expressed as minimum, provocative and
sensational headlines should be avoided and lack value judgment and
opinions, etc.
So when other forms of media are already under such great degree of control
then why not social media. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that a fact
checking to social media news and exercising control is nothing new or
unconstitutional.

2.4 The provisions of the statute is a reasonable restriction to art.19

The statute purports to regulate the information circulating online in favor of
public tranquility, finance and safety. The Supreme Court in Brij Bhushan v.
State of Delhi60 opined that public order was allied to the public safety and
considered equivalent to security of the State. It was also held by the Court
that the expression in the „interest of public order‟ mentioned in article 19(2) is

59
https://www.deccanherald.com/business/ib-psu-floats-tender-to-fact-check-posts-on-social-
media-report-847843.html retrieved 29 December 2020
60
Supra 6

26
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

much wider that „maintenance of public order‟. Therefore, even if an act does
not actually cause breach of public order, its restriction „in the interest of
public order‟ will be deemed reasonable.61 Even if something doesn‟t affect the
national security but is a potential threat to public order then it must be
regulated. It is also well-settled that interpretation of the Constitution of India
or statues would change from time to time.62 Thus, with increasing threat to
national security and public order the right to speech and expression can be
restricted. The court observed in Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of Bihar63 “One
has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest
circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest
circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect
law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but
not security of the State.” Fundamental rights need to be balanced with
national security concerns, in line with the constitutional principles, when
situation so demand.64 Thus bringing §3 of Myoorsthan Protection From Online
Falsehoods And Manipulation Act 2020 within the purview of article 19(2) and
imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom
of speech and expression in the interests of public order indirectly which is
completely valid.65
Even if the court tests the reasonability of a statute then the Court should
consider not only factors such as the duration and the extent of the
restrictions, but also the circumstances under which and the manner in which
their imposition has been authorized. The nature of the right alleged to have
been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent
and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the
imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the

61
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 620
62
Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768
63
AIR 1951 SC 318
64
Foundation for Media Professionals v. State (UT of J&K), (2020) 5 SCC 746; Anuradha Bhasin V uoi and ors.
(2020) 3 SCC 637
65
Supra 48

27
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

judicial verdict.66 Therefore, it is humbly submitted that this statute harbors

the reasonable restriction to the freedom of right to speech and expression as
we can‟t let it go unrestricted when uncontrolled speech and expression is
directly affecting the public order of the state.

2.5 The legitimate speech and expression shall be untouched

The purpose of the statute is to reprimand the ones spreading fake news and
making hate speeches and not to bother the legit and innocent speech and
expression. The Supreme Court67 referred to the Law Commission to examine if
it deems proper to define hate speech and make recommendation to the
parliament to strengthen the election commission to curb the menace of hate
speech. Hate speech and fake news haven‟t yet been defined probably because
it would lead to a rigid compartmentalization of a form speech and expression
as illegal and would put certain restraints on the right of freedom to speech
and expression but there are several standards devised and guided by the
court at several times to decide as to what constitutes hate speech and fake
news. So the intention of the state is to provide freedom of speech and
expression as much as possible but where the exercise of this right violates the
fundamental rights of others, there certain level of restriction is deemed
necessary. The context of speech plays an important role in determining its
legitimacy under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In State of Maharasthra v.
Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate68 the Court observed that the effect of the words
used in the offending material must be judged from the standards of
reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak
and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of
view. The scope within which the statute is to work has been well-defined in
section 3 by enumerating the activities which if resulted by a statement then
only and only such statement shall be acted upon. The terminologies used in
the statute though not defined on the statute but have clearly distinct

66
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, [1952] S.C.R. 597, 606-07
67
Supra 51
68
(2010) 7 SCC 398

28
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

meaning. In shreya singhal V union of India69 the court enumerated all the
terminologies used in sec-66A in their general meaning and also the
terminologies used in sec. 14 and 19 of COI haven‟t been defined in the
constitution but it still prevails in India and courts have interpreted its
meaning in depth repeatedly. Thus the terminologies used in this statute shall
be interpreted by general meaning.
The main aim of the statute is to save people from falsehood on Internet,
cyberspace and social networking. Freedom of speech and expression through
medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Art. 19(1)(a). Any
restriction on the same must be in accordance with Art. 19(2) inclusive of the
test of proportionality.70 Criminality would not include insults to religion
offered unwittingly, carelessly or without deliberate or malicious intent to
outrage the religious feelings. Only aggravated form of insult to religion when it
is perpetuated with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage the religious
feelings of that group is punishable.71 Criticism and comments on
government‟s action in howsoever strong words would not attract penal action
as they would fall within the fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression.72
Falsehoods deter citizen participation by eliminating their trust in public
discourse, it appeal to emotions and amplify hate speech, which incites
vehement responses that may overpower minority or rational voices, both
online and offline, manipulate public elections and threaten the state‟s ability
to respond to crises. Online falsehoods cannot be left unregulated because of
the public‟s potential inability to recognize them. Consumers‟ media literacy is
insufficient to shield them from online falsehoods. Even highly educated
university undergraduates are susceptible to fake news. Therefore, it is humbly
submitted that the statute works in public interest with the intention of
keeping people informed rather than misinformed and is completely

69
(2015) 5 SCC 1
70
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637
71
Supra 58
72
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955

29
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

constitutional keeping in mind the need of the hour.

3. ISSUE 3- THE STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

3.1The statute aims at stopping the reckless violation of people’s right to life

Article 21 of the constitution safeguards right to life for people which has been
consolidated by various courts time and time again.73 The fake news and
misinformation spread by the use of social media is recklessly hampering
people‟s right to life which is quite evident by the killings that have taken place
as a result of the rumours spread through these being fake news circulated on
social media. rumours on social media of strangers abducting children from
villages were enough to trigger mob attacks where at least 20 people were
killed.74 Nicknamed the „WhatsApp lynchings‟, often the killings were a direct
result of rumours about child abductions which spread over the messaging
platform to rural communities. The victims were mostly strangers, passing
through communities and not known to the locals who – spurred on by false
rumours – carried out the attacks.”75 According to a Reuters report, a total of
63 cow vigilante attacks had occurred in India between 2010 and mid 2017,
mostly since the Modi government came to power in 2014. In these attacks
between 2010 and June 2017, "28 Indians – 24 of them Muslims – were killed
and 124 injured", states the Reuter's report.76 The content shared via
WhatsApp has led to murder. At least 31 people were killed in 2017 and 2018
as a result of mob attacks fuelled by rumours on WhatsApp and social media, a
BBC analysis found.77 Other instances of mob violence were related to cow

73
M.C. Mehta (Stubble Burning & Air Quality) v. Union of India, (2020) 7 SCC 573; Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh 1963 AIR 1295
74
¶ 10, Moot Proposition
75
¶ 11, Moot Proposition
76
http://in.reuters.com/article/india-protests-muslims-beef-idINKBN19J2BV Retrieved January 19, 2021
77
¶ 8, Moot Proposition

30
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

vigilantism directed towards Muslims and Dalits, an excerpt of the study

stated.78 On May 24, a 26-year-old man was beaten to death in Bangalore by a
mob that mistook him for a „child-lifter‟. This has caused even the Supreme
Court to urge the government to use an iron hand against mob violence.79 We
cannot, out of fear, that such power will be misused, refuse to permit
Parliament to entrust even such power to executive authorities as may
be absolutely necessary to carry out the purposes of a validly exercisable
power.80 Therefore, the grant of wide discretionary power to the executive
authorities cannot be considered as unreasonable yet there must be procedural
safeguards to ensure that the Power will not be used for purposes extraneous
to the grant of the power. The procedural proprieties must be insisted
upon instead of strucking the whole legislation down.

3.2The act does not violate the right of liberty

Article 21 also emancipates the right to liberty which has been held by the
court time and again.81 It is no lie that social media is used by the political
parties to influence the voters and the electoral process in India and well as
Mayoorsthan was a recent event when social media was used as a platform to
several anti-harmonious propagandas. About 16,000 Twitter accounts and
3,000 Facebook pages were analysed. The results showed a strong and
coherent promotion of right-wing messages, while left-wing fake news networks
were loosely organised, if at all, and less effective.82 On 1 April, Facebook
removed 687 pages or accounts that it said were linked to a particular party for
"co-ordinated inauthentic behaviour".83 that is why the govt. wants to control
the information that flows on the social media to safe guard the citizens from
the incoherent behavior of certain irresponsible elements of the society who are

78
¶ 11, Moot Proposition
79
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/how-the-government-should-tackle-the-menace-of-fake-news-
5295501/ Retrieved January 21, 2021
80
Supra 1
81
A.K.Gopalan vs State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
82
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46146877 retrieved December 29 2021
83
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47797151 retrieved December 29 2021

31
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

driven by self-interest and political aims as no one has the right or any special
privilege with regard to the publication of news items in the garb o
fundamental rights which hurt the legal framework.84

The provisions of the given enactment are not baseless but are based on some
materials even though those materials may concern some reasonable suspicion
upon the credible statement made by a person. The credible statement if found
to be false then it must be eliminated legally. For the above said purpose the
act is required and it does not takes away people‟s right of personal liberty
under procedure established by law85 The procedure prescribed by law has
to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. The
question whether the procedure prescribed by law which curtails or takes away
the personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 is reasonable or not has to be
considered not in the abstract or on hypothetical considerations but in
the contest, primarily, of the purpose which the Act is intended to achieve
and of urgent situations which those who are charged with the duty of
administering the Act may be called upon to deal with.86 The audi
alteram partem rule may, be excluded, if importing the right to be heard has
the effect of paralyzing the administrative process or the need for
promptitude or the urgency of the situation so demands.87 They cannot be
divorced' from the needs of the nation.88 The life of the law is not logic but
experience. Therefore, every legal proposition must in the ultimate analysis
be tested on Me touch-stone of pragmatic realism in Menaka Gandhi case89
the court held that holding of petitioner‟s passport under passport act without
supplying a reason and giving her an opportunities to be heard in order to
safeguard public interest is not unconstitutional or arbitrary and similarly the
authorization given under this act to the communication officer to issue

84
Sewakram Sobhani v RK Karanjiya 1981 AIR 1514
85
Supra 69
86
Supra 1
87
Id.
88
Supra 9
89
Supra 1

32
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

direction asking a person to amend or take down his statement is not arbitrary
and unconstitutional.

3.3 The uncontrolled oratory on social media violates several laws.

The fake news spread on the social media has potentially larger impact than
that spread through any other media thus a stringent control is required
because internet has no boundaries and its reach is global, internet can be
accessed by literate and illiterate both since one click is needed to download an
objectionable post or a video and no pre-censorship is possible and each
individual is publisher, printer, producer, director and broadcaster of the
content without any statutory regulation.90 It is humbly submitted that Right
to Privacy has been given the status of Fundamental Right flowing from the
Right to Life.91 Right to privacy has been constitutionally held to be a part of
article 21.92 It is humbly submitted that in order to combat the illicit impact of
such information on the innocent citizens the government needed to introduce
such an enactment posing regulation on the dissemination of information and
news on social media. Also in case of an internet, morphing of images, change
of voices and many other technologically advance methods to create serious
potential social disorder can be applied. The press has great power in
impressing the minds of the people so reckless comments should be avoided.
When one is proved to have made defamatory comments with an ulterior
motive and without the least justification motivated by self-interest, he
deserves a deterrent sentence.93 Internet can be used for accessing information
from the devices hurting people‟s right to privacy which is the prime concern of
art. 21. On internet mostly the abuse takes place under the garb of anonymity
which can be unveiled only after thorough investigation. There are several laws
which safeguard the citizens from such activities and also, sec 69 of

90
Id.
91
K.S.Puttuswamy v. Union of India([Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of 2012])
92
Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 AIR Bom R 140
93
Sahib Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1451

33
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

Information Technology Act94 states that any government or any officer

authorized by it can 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 for the reasons to be recorded in writing.95 The violation of
all law whether statutory or of any other kind is itself an infringement of the
guaranteed fundamental right.96 Thus anyone infringing this law and
spreading fake news and misinformation would be guilty of violating the
fundamental rights of people and to bring such people within the bounds of law
the enforcement of this act is essential as this act aims at restoring people‟s
fundamental right provided under article 21 of the constitution.
3.4 Article 21 is subject to article 19 and 14.
Even executive authorities when taking administrative action which involves
any deprivation of or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens
must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to
be done.97 They (fundamental rights) are all parts of an integrated scheme in
the Constitution. Their waters must mix to constitute that grand flow
unimpeded and impartial justice, freedom or equality and of fraternity which
our Constitution visualises. Isolation of various aspects of human freedom, for
purposes of their protection, is neither realistic nor beneficial but would
defeat the very objects of such protection.98 Reasonable classification99 for the
sake of public tranquillity, finance and order100 envisaged in the statute based
on intelligible differentia101 and having direct nexus to the object sought to be

94
Act No. 21 of 2000
95
Supra 69
96
Supra 1
97
R v. Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy (1924) 1 KB 256; Bihar State Mineral Dev. Corpn. v. Encon Builders(I) Pvt.
Ltd, 2003 7 SCC 418
98
Supra 1
99
Supra 3
100
Supra 9
101
LaxmiKhandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 SC 873, 891: (1981) 2 SCC 600; Budhan v. State of Bihar, AIR
1970 SC 1453: (1969) 2 SCC 166

34
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

achieved102 and direction of the Supreme Court to enact such a law103 renders
this enactment non-violative of article 14 of the constitution. Additionally,
fundamental rights aren‟t absolute, so where one‟s exercise of fundamental
right violates another‟s fundamental right there regulation of such right
becomes obvious and legally permissible104 through article 19(2) of constitution
and already a lot of such penal provisions105 exist which have been held
constitutional by the court repeatedly.106 Hence, as already humbly submitted
that the enactment doesn‟t violate article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. The State
must satisfy that both the fundamental rights are not infringed by showing
that there is a law and that it does amount to a reasonable restriction within
the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It is now settled that the
validity of a law coming under Art. 21 must be tested also with reference to
Arts. 14 and 19. Arts. 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive, but they
“sustain, strengthen and nourish each other.”107 Thus it is humbly submitted
that the violation of art. 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 is so inter-twined that if the former
are not violated then the latter is also not violated by the enactment.

102
Supra 3
103
Supra 7
104
Supra 1
105
§s 124A, 153A,B, 295A, 298, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act No. 45 of 1860
106
Ram Nandan V state of UP AIR 1959 All 101; Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate AIR 1971 2486;
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
107
T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of T.N., AIR 1983 SC 361.

35
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

==================================================================
PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited

and arguments advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored
before the Hon‟ble High Court of Mayoorsthan to adjudge and declare:

 That Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and

Manipulation Act 2020 is not unconstitutional as it does not
violate article 14 of Constitution of India as it was the need of the
time.
 That it doesn‟t violate article 19(1)(a) and does not place any
unnecessary or disproportionate restriction.
 That it doesn‟t violate article 21 of the Indian Constitution and
doesn‟t curtail individual‟s right.

And/ Or

Pass any order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Counsel from the side of Respondent.

36
 THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY MOOT COURT SOCIETY
30th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT (FIRST VIRTUAL) COMPETITION 2021

37