1st DR. D. Y.

PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

SUMMARY OF FACTS 6

ISSUES RAISED 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS TO THE UAPA ACT, 1967 VIDE THE
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2019, VIOLATE
ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JANANI? 10

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE EXCESSIVE POWERS GRANTED TO NATIONAL

INVESTIGATION AGENCY, VIDE THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019, VIOLATE THE QUASI-FEDERAL NATURE OF JANANI
ENSHRINED UNDER THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
JANANI? 12

ISSUE 3: WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE IT ACT, 2000, THE IT (PROCEDURE AND

SAFEGUARDS FOR INTERCEPTION, MONITORING AND DECRYPTION OF
INTERCEPTION) RULES, 2009 AND THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE AFORESAID LAW VIOLATE
ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JANANI? 15

PRAYER 20

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

ANR. ANOTHER

CBI CENTRAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION

CrPC THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

HC HIGH COURT

IT ACT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT,

2000

IT RULES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RULES,

2009

LTD LIMITED

NIA ACT NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

ACT,2000

NIA NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

NGO NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANISATION

ORS OTHERS

PIL PUBLIC INFORMATION LITIGATION

PDUHR PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC UNION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS

SC SUPREME COURT

UAPA UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION

ACT

UOI UNION OF INDIA

U/S UNDER SECTION

V VERSUS

& AND

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. CASES

Budhan Choudhary and Ors v. State of Bihar, 1955 AIR 191

K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC
Mafatlal Industries ltd. and ors v. UOI and ors, (1997) 5 SCC 536
Pragyasingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 6 AIR Bom R 1171
Ramdas Athawale (5) v. Union of India, (2010) 4 SCC 1
State of Rajasthan v. UOI, 1977 AIR 1361

II. STATUTES

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019
Information Technology Act, 2000
Information Technology Rules, 2009
National Investigation Act, 2008

III. WEBSITES

SCCOnline.com
IndianKanoon.com

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Janani has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and
dispose of the present case by virtue of Article 32 of the Constitution of Janani.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

5
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Republic of Janani (“Janani”) being the 7th largest country in the world, has achieved all
round socio-economic progress since its independence. However, Janani has emerged as one
of the world’s most consistent targets of radical militants. Right from the attacks of
November 2008 to the two attacks on the military jawans of Janani in 2018, Janani’s security
establishments have been comprehensive failures. In fact, the current scheme of law allowing
only “organisations” to be designated as terrorists and requiring several authorisations from
the respective State police have also proved to be inefficient.

Consequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Janani, on 3rd June, 2019
amended the anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 vide the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019:
1) Empowered the Central Government to designate individuals as terrorists, similar to
the procedure in force for terrorist organisations, if the person commits or participates
in acts of terrorism, cyber terrorism, prepares, promotes or is otherwise involved in
terrorism;
2) Provided the National Investigation Agency the power to investigate and seize
property with the mere permission from the Director General of National
Investigation Agency.

However, the said amendment was not very well received by the State Governments of
Janani. Chief Ministers of 7 out of 30 States refused to attend the National Policy
Commission where the key agenda was the discussion of the said amendment.

Simultaneously, having sensed that cyber terrorism as a tool could be utilised to conduct
unlawful attacks against computers, networks, and information stored therein, the
Government of Janani, on 8th June, 2019, issued a notification under Section 69 of the IT
Act, 2000 that empowered investigation agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any
information which is generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer source. Since
the impugned notification raised issues on right to privacy and personal liberty, a PIL

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

6
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
challenging the impugned notification was filed by an NGO named People’s Democratic
Union for Human Rights (PDUHR) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Janani.

Having received information about smuggling of counterfeit currencies worth VNR 10 lakhs
by a passenger from Yureka named Mr. Aditya, the officials initiated action by tapping his
mobile phone and tracking it under surveillance. Mr. Aditya was arrested and taken into
custody for investigation. During the investigation, Mr. Aditya confessed of his wrong doings
and revealed that he was working on a contract basis for a person named Mr. Ayush, who is a
a close aide and member of Mr. Aparichit Bhai, most wanted criminal by Interpol involved in
funding of terror activities from Yureka and Imaginistan.

Vide notification dated 10th July, 2019, the Central Government referred the case to the NIA
for investigation. The NIA Cyber Cell team sought permission from the competent authority
to proceed in furtherance of the information provided by Mr. Aditya and upon obtaining
sufficient incriminatory evidence, the NIA initiated action against Mr. Ayush and Mr. Aditya.
The NIA registered a case against them as RC/07/2019/DNG/MR under Sections 489B, 489C
of the Jananian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 16 and 18 of the UAPA Act, 1967. The
Government of Janani issued a notification adding the names of the accused Mr. Ayush and
Mr. Aditya into the Fourth Schedule of the UAPA Act, 1967, as ‘terrorists’.

Mr. Ayush and Mr. Aditya challenged the constitutionality of the UAPA Act, 2019 and the
aforementioned notification designating them as ‘terrorist’ before the HC of Dweepa. Upon
application made by the Attorney General of Janani in the PIL filed by PDUHR, since the
same substantial questions of law were raised before the HC of Dweepa, the Hon’ble SC
transferred the case from the HC of Dweepa and clubbed the same with the PIL filed by
PDUHR. The matter has been listed before the SC for final arguments of all parties to the
petition.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

7
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: Whether the amendments to the UAPA Act, 1967 vide the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, violate Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of Janani?

ISSUE 2: Whether the excessive powers granted to National Investigation Agency,

vide the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, violate the
quasi-federal nature of Janani enshrined under the basic structure of the Constitution
of Janani?

ISSUE 3: Whether Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000, the IT (Procedure and Safeguards
for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 and the
impugned notification issued by the Central Government under the aforesaid law
violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Janani?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

8
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the amendments to the UAPA Act, 1967 vide the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, violate Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of Janani?

The Respondent humbly submits that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Amendment Act, 2019 does not violate Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
Janani. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, provides for
sufficient procedural safeguards, thus is not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive, rather
just, fair and reasonable.

II. Whether the excessive powers granted to National Investigation Agency, vide the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, violate the quasi-federal
nature of Janani enshrined under the basic structure of the Constitution of
Janani?

The Respondent submits that the powers granted to NIA, vide UAPA Act, 2019, does
not violate the quasi-federal nature of Janani as there is a need for an apex level
terrorism organisation and the powers bestowed upon the NIA fall within the ambit
of entires in the Union List.

III. Whether Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000, the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for
Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 and the
impugned notification issued by the Central Government under the aforesaid
law violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Janani?

It is humbly submitted by the Respondent that the IT Act, 2000, the IT Rules, 2009
and the impugned notification issued by the Central Government do not violate
Articles 14 and 21 of the Jananian Constitution as they provide for sufficient
procedural safeguards and also meet the test of proportionality.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

9
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS TO THE UAPA ACT, 1967 VIDE THE
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2019, VIOLATE
ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JANANI?

The Respondents humbly submits that the present petition is not maintainable as the no
fundamental right has been infringed. To buttress this contention, the respondent places
reliance on Ramdas Athawale (5) v. Union of India, (2010) 4 SCC 1 in which this Hon’ble
Court has held that Article 32 guarantees right to constitutional remedy and relates only to
enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and unless a question of
enforcement of fundamental right arises, Article 32 does not apply.

It is most respectfully submitted that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act,
2019 does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of Janani.

1.1 NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14

It is humbly submitted by the Respondent that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Amendment Act, 2019 does not violate Article 14 of the Jananian Constitution as it complies
with the Rule of Law. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 confers
upon the Central Government, discretionary power to designate individuals as terrorists if in
the opinion of the Government, the said individual is involved in acts of terrorism. It is to be
noted that such discretionary power of the government is backed by sufficient procedural
safeguards in order to curb the commission of any abuse of such discretionary power. The
existence of power needs to be restricted within the ambit which in turn could be reasonably
and legally be expected to take place and be regulated in accordance with the provision of
law.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

10
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

The Respondent submits that the possibility of abuse of a provision by the authority, the
legislation may not be held arbitrary or discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution.1 It must be remembered that merely because power may sometimes be abused,
it is no ground for denying the existence of power.2 The Supreme Court in Mafatlal
Industries Ltd. and Ors v. UOI and Ors.,(1997) 5 SCC 536 has held that the mere
possibility of abuse of a provision by those incharge of administering it cannot be a ground
for holding a provision procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

It is the humble submission of the Respondent that there are no infirmities in the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019. There are sufficient procedural safeguards
provided in the legislature to ensure that the discretionary power of the Central Government
is not abused. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 provides for a
procedure for denotification of an individual as well as constitutes a review committee for
review against rejection to remove an organisation or an individual from the Fourth Schedule

1.2 JUST, FAIR AND REASONABLE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW

It is respectfully submitted that Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 does
not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of Janani as the procedure established by the said
law is just, fair and reasonable. Although Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Amendment Act, 2019, confers upon the Central Government, discretionary power to notify
or denotify an individual as a terrorist, Section 36 and 37 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, lay down reasonable safeguards for protecting an
individual from abuse of such discretion.

Section 36 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 lays down the
procedure for denotification of a terrorist/terrorist organisation. It states that any organisation
or individual affected by inclusion in the Forth Schedule as a terrorist/ terrorist organisation
shall make an application to the Government for exercise of its power under Section 35(1)(c)
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019. If the said application gets

1
Budhan Choudhary and ors. V. State of Bihar, 1955 AIR 191
2
State of Rajasthan v. UOI, 1977 AIR 1361
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
11
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

rejected, the applicant may apply to the review committee constituted under Section 37 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, within one month from the date of
receipt of such order of refusal by the applicant.

Section 37 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 has been
reproduced hereinbelow:

“37. Review Committees.— (1) The Central Government shall constitute one or more Review
Committees for the purposes of section 36.

(2) Every such Committee shall consist of a Chairperson and such other members not
exceeding three and possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed.

(3) A Chairperson of the Committee shall be a person who is, or has been, a Judge of a High
Court, who shall be appointed by the Central Government and in the case of appointment of
a sitting Judge, the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court shall be
obtained.”

The Review Committee may allow an application for review against rejection to remove an
organisation from the Forth Schedule, if it considers that the decision to reject was flawed
when considered in the light of the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.

It is the humble submission of the Respondent that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Amendment Act, 2019, is not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive, rather just, fair and
reasonable as it provides for ample procedural safeguards and thus, not violative of Article 21
of the Jananian Constitution.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE EXCESSIVE POWERS GRANTED TO NATIONAL

INVESTIGATION AGENCY, VIDE THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
(PREVENTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2019, VIOLATE THE QUASI-FEDERAL
NATURE OF JANANI ENSHRINED UNDER THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF JANANI?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

12
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

It is the humble submission of the Respondent that the powers granted to the National
Investigation Agency vide the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, do
not violate the quasi-federal nature of Janani enshrined under the basic structure of the
Constitution of Janani.

2.1 ENTRIES IN THE UNION LIST

It is respectfully submitted that the powers granted to the NIA vide UAPA, 2019 do not
violate the federal nature of Janani. The NIA has been granted the power to investigate and
seize properties of the suspected terrorists. It is the Respondent’s contention that the powers
granted to NIA fall under Entry 1 of the List - I (Union List) read with Article 355 of the
Constitution and Entry 8 of the Union List. Entry 1 of the Union List laid down in the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution states the power of the Union in respect of defence of
the nation. The preamble of the NIA Act states as under:

“An Act to constitute an investigation agency at the national level to investigate and
prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of State,
friendly relations with foreign States and offences under Acts enacted to implement
international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations, its
agencies and other international organisations and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.”

It is humbly submitted that the preamble of the NIA Act states that the said act confers power
upon the NIA to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and
integrity of the nation which clearly comes within the ambit of Entry 1 in the Union List.
Entry 8 of the Union List states “Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation”. The
power of the NIA to investigate evidently falls under Entry 8 of the Union List. In the case of
Pragyasingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 6 AIR Bom R 1171 the Bombay High
Court, while expounding upon the legality of CBI, upheld the validity of the NIA and traced
the origin of the NIA Act to Entry 8 of the Union List.

It is the respectful submission of the Respondent that not alone Entry 1 and Entry 8 of the

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

13
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

Union List but also other entries in the Union List provide the centre, power to legislate upon
the NIA. Entry 9 of the Union List which talks about inter alia, Preventive detention for
reasons connected with defence, or the security of the nation and Entry 93 which allows the
union to legislate upon offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in the Union
List, provide sufficient legal rationale for the centre to create and legislate upon the NIA.

2.2 NEED FOR APEX LEVEL TERRORIST ORGANISATION

It the humble submission of the Respondent that there is a need for an apex level terrorism
organisation. The Respondent contends so, as it cannot be denied that State police cannot by
itself curb inter-state crimes like terrorism. Infact there have been cases where terrorism takes
place with the help of people sitting in various countries, making it impossible for the State
police alone to curb such a situation. The security of the nation is of utmost importance. Anti
terror laws shall be efficient enough to curb a heinous crime like terrorism. Allowing the
State to take control of the investigation and policing for such crimes may result in delay and
inefficiency.

2.3 DOCTRINE OF PITH AND SUBSTANCE

The doctrine of pith and substance is applied when a subject from one list impacts a subject
from another list. The doctrine of pith and substance states that while evaluating whether a
certain law applies to a specific issue, the court considers the essence of a case. The phrase
“pith and substance” signifies “true nature and character”. When a question arises of
determining whether a particular law relates to a particular subject, the Court looks for the
substance, i.e. the essential feature of the matter.

It is humbly submitted by the Respondent that in order to find out the pith and substance, it is
necessary to examine the language and purpose of the legislation. The NIA Act, which gives
power to the NIA to investigate and seize properties of the suspected terrorists, is aimed to
constitute an investigation agency at national level to investigate and prosecute offences
affecting the sovereignity, security and integrity of the nation, as is evident from the preamble

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

14
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

of the NIA Act. Thus, making it crystal clear that the pith and substance of the NIA Act is to
prevent and curb crimes affecting the national security of the country, a matter which
evidently falls within the ambit of Entry 1 of the Union List.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE IT ACT, 2000, THE IT (PROCEDURE

AND SAFEGUARDS FOR INTERCEPTION, MONITORING AND DECRYPTION
OF INTERCEPTION) RULES, 2009 AND THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION
ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE AFORESAID LAW
VIOLATE ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JANANI?

It is humbly submitted that Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000, the IT (procedure and safeguards
for interception, monitoring and decryption) Rules, 2009 and the impugned notification
issued by the Central Government under the aforesaid law does not violate Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution of Janani.

3.1 RIGHT TO PRIVACY

a) Right to privacy not an absolute right

The protection of privacy emerges from its status as a natural right inherent in every
individual as well as its position as “a constitutionally protected right”. As a
constitutional protection, privacy traces itself to the guarantee of life and liberty in
Article 21 of the Constitution as well as to other facets of freedom and dignity
recognised and guaranteed by the fundamental rights contained in Part III of the
Constitution. In the context of Article 21, an invasion of privacy must be justified on
the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. The
law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty
under Article 21. An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the threefold

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

15
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

requirement laid down in the well known case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI, (2019) 1
SCC:

1) Legality, which postulates the existence of law;

2) Need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and
3) Proportionality; which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the
means adopted to achieve them

It is respectfully submitted that Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000, the IT (procedure and
safeguards for interception, monitoring and decryption) Rules, 2009 and the
impugned notification issued by the Central Government do not violate right to
privacy as they meet the threefold requirement stated above:

1) Existence of law:

Parliament on 27 October, 2009 amended the Information Technology Act,

2000 and introduced Section 69 to the IT Act, 2000. Therefore, law on the
subject was introduced in the form of an amendment to the IT Act, 2000 and
thus, the first requirement stands satisfied.

2) Section 69 of IT Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2009 serve a legitimate state
interest:

In the present case, a bare perusal of the law i.e. Section 69 of the IT Act,
2000 makes it evident that the said law is enacted for the purpose of protection
of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence 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.3 It is humbly submitted that
the law has been enacted for the purpose of security of the country which is
a legitimate state aim.

3
Information Technology Act, 2000, Sec. 69, Acts of Parliament, 2000
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
16
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

Although Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000 limits the right to privacy with an aim
to protect the country from cyber attacks, cyber crimes and cyber terrorism, it
is constitutionally reasonable and does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness.
The IT Rules, 2009 inter alia lay down the procedure for issue of directions for
monitoring and collection of data, ensure that the intermediary keeps a check
on the handling, monitoring and collection of data, constitute a review
committee to keep a check on the directions issued for monitoring and
collection of data, ensure that there is no misuse of the data collected and
monitored.

3) Section 69 of IT Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2009 meet the test of
proportionality:

It is humbly submitted that Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000 and the IT Rules,
2009 pass the test of proportionality as the nature and quality of encroachment
on the right to privacy, which in the present case is collection and monitoring
of information/data if it is necessary and expedient to collect such data in the
interest of security of the state, being backed by sufficient safeguards for
misuse of such power is not disproportionate to the purpose of law which in
the present case is protection of sovereignty and integrity of the country,
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.

3.2 PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY

The test of proportionality, which began as an unwritten set of general principles of law,
today constitutes the dominant “best practice” judicial standard for resolving disputes that
involve either a conflict between two rights claims or between a right and a legitimate
government interest. Proportionality has been raised to the rank of a fundamental
constitutional principle, and represents a global shift from a culture of authority to a culture
of justification.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
17
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

The Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy V. UOI, (2019) 1 SCC, while
determining the validity of the Aadhar Act, 2016, relied upon the judgement in Modern
Dental College & Research Centre, wherein the four-limb test of proportionality was
established. The following are the four sub-components of proportionality which need to be
satisfied:

1) It is designated for a proper purpose (Legitimate Goal Stage)

2) The measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to

the fulfilment of that purpose (Rational Connection Stage)

3) The measures undertaken are necessary in that there are no alternative measures that
may similarly achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of limitation (Necessity
stage)

4) There needs to be a proper relation ("proportionality stricto sensu" or "balancing")

between the importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social importance of
preventing the limitation on the constitutional right (Balancing Stage)

1) Legitimate Goal Stage:

At this stage, the exercise which needs to be undertaken is to see that the State has a
legitimate goal in restricting the right. It is also to be seen that such a goal is of
sufficient importance justifying overriding a constitutional right. A plain reading of
Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000 makes it apparent that the purpose of intercepting,
monitoring or decrypting information is protection of the sovereignty and integrity of
the country and for the security of the nation. Section 69 aims at curbing cyber
attacks, cyber crimes and cyber terrorism which is a legitimate aim of the State. Thus,
it is the legitimate interest of the State to restrict the right to privacy of individuals i.e.
(in the present case) to intercept, monitor or decrypt information if it is necessary and
expedient to do so in the interest of security of the nation and its people.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

18
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

2) Rational Connection Stage:

The measures which are enumerated and have been taken as per the provisions of
Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000 and IT Rules, 2009 are rationally connected with the
fulfilment of the purpose of security of the nation.

3) Necessity Stage:

Insofar as the third component of necessity is concerned, national security as well as

protecting the people of the nation from any form of terrorism is of utmost
importance. The number of terrorist attacks that the nation has undergone and given
the history of failure of Janani’s security establishments leads the Government to
legislate such anti-terror laws. Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000 and the rules framed
thereunder satisfy the necessity stage test, particularly in the absence of any less
restrictive but equally effective alternative.

4) Balancing Stage:

Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2009, fulfil the most important
component of proportionality i.e. they balance the importance of achieving the proper
purpose and the social importance of preventing the limitation on the constitutional
right of privacy. The question that arises is whether there is a minimal intrusion into
the privacy and the law is narrowly framed to achieve the objective. It is humbly
submitted that Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000 and the rules framed thereunder ensure
reasonable tailoring. The said law evidently states that interception, monitoring and
decryption of information from any computer resource shall be conducted only if it is
necessary to do so in the interest of the security of the nation, while the IT Rules,
2009, efficiently lay down the procedure to be followed for such interception by the
government.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

19
 1st DR. D. Y. PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Janani may be pleased to:

● To declare that the Present Petition is not maintainable and be dismissed.

● To declare that the the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019,
Section 69 of the IT Act, IT Rules, 2009 and the impugned notification dated 8th
June, 2019 are constitutional and do not violate the fundamental rights of the citizens
of Janani.

And/or pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of
justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed,

IMCC04
Counsels for the Respondent

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

20