TEAM CODE: NMCC 22

37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-

UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF INDIC

In the Matter of:

DEVELOP-NE (NGO) PETITIONER

v.

INDIC-ONE & REPUBLIC OF INDIC RESPONDENTS

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIC CONSTITUTION

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF
INDIC

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER- UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………….4

Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………………………..5

• Table of Cases………………………………………………….…………………………5
• Books………………………………………………………………………………….…..7
• Statutes………………………………………………………………………………..…..7
• Lexicons………….………………………………………………………………..…...….8
• Journals………………………………………………………………………………..….8
• Websites…………………………………………………………………………….….….8

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………...9

Statement of Facts…………………………………………………………………….………...10

Statement of Issues………………………………………………………………………..…….11

Summary of Pleadings………………………………………………………………….............12

Arguments advanced……………………………………………………………………………14

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?..............................................14

[1.1] That Indic-ONE is Not a “State” Under Article 12………………………………….14
[1.2] That the action of withdrawing services is commercial, not arbitrary…………….....17

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION OF THE CORPORATION ENTAILS THE VIOLATION OF THE
RIGHT TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?.......................................................................................18

[2.1] That there is no violation of any Fundamental Right to Access the Internet…….…..18
[2.2] That the economic sustainability of private entities is a valid justification for
withdrawal…………………………………………………………………………………19
[2.3] That there is limited scope of the writ petition in commercial contracts between private
entities and the government………………………………………………………….…….21

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION BE OBLIGATED TOWARDS THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?.......................................................................................................23

[3.1] That there is absence of a statutory or constitutional mandate on private

entities………………………………………………………………………………………23
[3.2] That there is Commercial Autonomy of private entities under Article 19(1)(g)…..…25
[3.3] That the Commercial Autonomy includes the Right to Prioritize Economic Interests over
Public Service Expectations………………………………………………………………..26

4. WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE HAS AN ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS?......................................................................................................................................28

Prayer……………………………………………………………………………………………30

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
&. And

¶ Paragraph

A.I.R. All India Reporter

Anr. Another

COI Constitution of India

Del Delhi

Ed. Edition

FRs Fundamental Rights

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. That is

MANU Manupatra

MNCs Multinational Corporations

Pvt. Private

R/W Read With

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

S.C.W Supreme Court Weekly

S.C. Supreme Court

SD/- Signed

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

Serial No. Case Title Citation Page No.

Air India Statutory Corporation v. United

1. (1997) 9 S.C.C. 377 29
Labour Union
Airline Allied Services Ltd. v. C.M. (2021) S.C.C. OnLine Del
2. 29
Jalgaonwala 44

3. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 18

4. Balco Employees Union v. Union of India (2001) 5 S.C.R. 511 17

Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal

5. (1989) 1 S.C.R. 743 16
Singh

6. Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan (2005) 6 S.C.C. 657 16

7. Chatturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 4 S.C.C. 700 21

8. D.P. Sharma v. Union of India A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 689 24

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of

9. (1996) 10 S.C.C. 104 26
India
Delhi Science Fortum & Ors v. Union of
10. A.I.R. 1996 1356 21
India
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity
11. (2017) 14 S.C.C. 80 28
Regulatory Commission

12. Excel Wear v. Union of India A.I.R. 1979 SC 25 19

13. Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas (2003) 10 S.C.C. 733 15

General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills

14. A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 4531 16
Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of
15. (1985) 1 S.C.C. 641 22
India

5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas

16. (1991) 1 S.C.C. 533 20
Service
J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra
17. A.I.R. 1993 24
Pradesh
Joshi Technologies International Inc. v.
18. (2015) 7 S.C.C. 728 21
Union of India
Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union
19. (2006) 4 S.C.C. 327 21
v. State of Kerala
Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
20. (1995) 5 S.C.C. 482 19
Consumer Education and Research Centre
M/s. C. J. P. Construction Company v. State
21. (2020) 2 S.C.C. 11 24
of West Bengal
M/s. Lalitha Housing Complex v. State of
22. (2020) 2 S.C.C. 490 20
Karnataka

23. Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1991 1525. 22

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of

24. A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 17
Maharashtra
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of
25. (2002) 5 S.C.C. 111 15
Chemical Biology

26. Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal A.I.R. 1967 1857 15

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International

27. A.I.R. 1979 1628 16
Airport Authority of India
Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance
28. (2010) 7 S.C.C. 1 27
Industries Ltd.

29. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 S.C.C. 248 27

30. S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Co-operative Society (2006) 11 S.C.C. 634 16

31. Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 44 28

6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

Shramik Utkarsh Sabha v. Raymond

32. (1995) 3 S.C.C. 78 25
Woollen Mills Ltd.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of
33. (1990) 3 S.C.C. 223 27
India
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal
34. (1989) 4 S.C.C.155 19
Committee

35. State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan (1988) Supp S.C.C. 513 24

State of Punjab v. Devans Modern

36. (2004) 11 S.C.C. 26 26
Breweries Ltd.

37. State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) 2 S.C.C. 83 18

Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N

38. (1993) 1 S.C.C. 445 26
Publications Ltd.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh
39. A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1331 14
Raghuvanshi

40. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 S.C.C. 481 25

41. Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 S.C.C. 651 17

Vinod Rathore v. Commissioner, Bilaspur

42. (2015) MANU 0275 16
Municipal Corporation
VST Industries Ltd. v. VST Industries
43. A.I.R. 2001 S.C.W. 4566 20
Workers' Union

44. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 S.C.C. 649 15

BOOKS:
1. Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 44th ed. 2007.
2. Durga Das Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India, 8th ed. 2007.
3. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 22nd ed. Reprint 2010.
4. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 1984.
5. M. V. Pylee, Constitutional Amendments in India, 3rd ed. 2010.

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

STATUTES:
1. The Constitution of Indic, 1950.

LEXICONS:
1. Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary 9th ed. 2009.
2. Hornby A.S., Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 5th ed. 1997.
3. P. Ramnatha Aiyar, Concise Law Dictionary 3rd ed. 2007.

JOURNALS:

S.NO. TITLE OF JOURNAL PP.

1. All India Reporter (AIR) PASSIM

2. Supreme Court Cases (SCC) PASSIM

WEBSITES:

1. www.scconline.in PASSIM

2. www.manupatra.com PASSIM

3. www.judic.nic.in PASSIM

4. www.findlaw.com PASSIM

8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 321 of the Constitution
of Indic. The Respondents reserve the right to contest the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

1
INDIA CONST. art. 32- Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any
of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by
the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:

❖ CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: The Republic of Indic has a comprehensive written

Constitution, establishing federalism with a separation of powers and guaranteeing Fundamental
Rights, including the right to freedom (Article 19) and the right to life (Article 21). The judiciary,
led by the Supreme Court, safeguards these rights and ensures that interpretations provided by the
Supreme Court bind all lower courts.

❖ DIGITAL EXPANSION AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Due to significant

growth in internet usage, the Republic of Indic has become the world's second-largest internet
market. The government seeks to harness digital infrastructure to bridge socio-economic gaps,
especially in the underserved North-East region. Given limited resources, the government awarded
a contract through competitive bidding in 2023 to Indic-ONE, a multinational corporation, to
establish internet services in this region.

❖ INDIC-ONE'S WITHDRAWAL: After implementing internet services across the North-East,

including in critical public sectors like healthcare and education, Indic-ONE announced in June
2024 that it would withdraw services from three North-Eastern states due to financial losses.

❖ LEGAL ACTION BY DEVELOP-NE: Develop-NE, an NGO focused on the North-East's

development, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. The petition claims that Indic-ONE's
withdrawal violates the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 14 (equality), Article 19
(freedom), and Article 21 (life). The Supreme Court has accepted the petition for a final hearing
scheduled for September 28, 2024.

10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

[1.1] That Indic-ONE is Not a “State” Under Article 12.
[1.2] That the action of withdrawing services is commercial, not arbitrary.

2.

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION OF THE CORPORATION ENTAILS THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT
TO ACCESS INTERNET?

[2.1] That there is no violation of any Fundamental Right to Access the Internet.
[2.2] That the economic sustainability of private entities is a valid justification for withdrawal.
[2.3] That there is limited scope of the writ petition in commercial contracts between private
entities and the government.

3.

WHETHER OR NOT THE MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION BE OBLIGATED TOWARDS THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

[3.1] That there is absence of a statutory or constitutional mandate on private entities.

[3.2] That there is Commercial Autonomy of private entities under Article 19(1)(g).
[3.3] That the Commercial Autonomy includes the Right to Prioritize Economic Interests over
Public Service Expectations.

4.
WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE HAS AN ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS?

11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the writ petition is not maintainable as it is a
private corporation outside the scope of "State" under Article 12. Supreme Court precedents
establish that only entities under substantial government control performing public functions
qualify as "State." Since Indic-ONE operates independently and provides internet services on a
purely commercial basis, with its withdrawal decision based on legitimate business considerations,
it cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or be bound by fundamental rights
obligations.

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION OF THE CORPORATION ENTAILS THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT
TO ACCESS INTERNET?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that withdrawing internet services does not violate
any fundamental right, as internet access is a qualified, not absolute, right under Indian law. As a
private corporation operating under commercial contracts, Indic-ONE cannot be compelled to
provide services at a loss. The decision was based on legitimate business considerations, and since
the relationship with the government is purely contractual rather than statutory, it falls outside the
scope of constitutional scrutiny unless there is a significant public law element involved.

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION BE OBLIGATED TOWARDS THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that as a private MNC, it is not bound by
fundamental rights obligations which are only enforceable against the "State" under Article 12 of
the Constitution. Indic-ONE's operations are governed by commercial agreements rather than
constitutional mandates, and its right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) includes the
freedom to make decisions based on economic considerations, including the right to discontinue
services when financially unviable. Private entities cannot be compelled to operate as public
utilities or prioritize public service over commercial viability unless specifically mandated by
statute.

12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

4. WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE HAS AN ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the State cannot be compelled to enforce
its provision specifically through a struggling private multinational corporation (MNC). This
position is strongly supported by established Indic jurisprudence, which recognizes that the
doctrine of frustration relieves parties from contractual obligations that become impossible or
economically unfeasible to perform.

13
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

[¶1.] It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the writ petition is not maintainable
as it is a private multinational corporation falling outside the scope of "State" under Article 12
of the Constitution. The definition of "State" encompasses government bodies, Parliament, state
legislatures, local authorities, and "other authorities" under government control, but not private
entities engaged in commercial activities.

[¶2.] Indic-ONE operates independently without government control, providing internet

services on a purely commercial and contractual basis. Its decision to withdraw services was
based on legitimate business considerations due to revenue losses, making it a commercial
matter governed by contract law rather than constitutional remedies.

[¶3.] Therefore, being neither a state instrumentality nor performing any sovereign function,
Indic-ONE cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 32, and fundamental rights
obligations cannot be enforced against it.

[1.1] THAT INDIC-ONE IS NOT A “STATE” UNDER ARTICLE 12.

[¶4.] The Respondent contends that Article 32 allows writ petitions against actions of the "State."2
The Respondent Corporation is a private multinational entity and does not perform functions akin
to those of a government or state institution. The writ petition is not maintainable under Article 32
as the corporation does not qualify as a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

[¶5.] Article 123 defines "State" as including:

• The Government and Parliament of India.

• The Government and Legislature of each State.

• Local authorities.
• "Other authorities" within the territory of the Republic of Indic or under the control of the
government.

2
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1331.
3
INDIA CONST. art. 12.

14
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

[¶6.] Under Article 12 of the Republic of Indic’s Constitution, the term "State" includes the
Government and Parliament, the Government and Legislatures of each State, local authorities, and
“other authorities” within the territory of the Republic of Indic. The framers intended to limit
"State" to entities under the effective control or ownership of the government and not to extend to
private bodies or corporations.4

[¶7.] The inclusion of “other authorities”5 was meant to capture government instrumentalities or
entities through which the government performs its functions—not private, commercially
autonomous bodies like MNCs.

[¶8.] The Supreme Court of Indic-ONE held that statutory corporations and other entities created
by statute for government functions could be treated as "State" if the government exercises
pervasive control over them6. Similarly, it was established that only entities performing statutory
or government-delegated functions fall within the purview of Article 12. 7 Indic-ONE, a private,
profit-oriented corporation not under the ownership or pervasive control of the government, does
not meet the criteria outlined in these cases. The Court categorically held that private entities
cannot be classified as “State” unless they perform governmental duties.8 This case established a
clear boundary that private entities, even when they serve public interests, are not “State” unless
they perform inherently governmental duties.

[¶9.] The Hon’ble Court emphasized that private entities engaged in commercial activities cannot
be considered as “State” under Article 12.9 Indic-ONE is engaged in a purely commercial venture,
providing internet services on a contractual basis. It does not discharge any sovereign function,
and therefore, it cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 32.

[¶10.] The respondent further relies on Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical
Biology10 where the Court held that only those bodies that are substantially controlled by the
government and perform public functions could be considered “State” under Article 12. Indic-

4
H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA: A CRITICAL COMMENTARY (Universal Law Publishing Pvt. Ltd.,
Delhi, 1967)
5
DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2007).
6
Supra note 2.
7
Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, A.I.R. 1967 1857.
8
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 S.C.C. 649.
9
Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 S.C.C. 733.
10
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 S.C.C. 111.

15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

ONE operates independently and is not under governmental control, which excludes it from the
definition of “State.”

[¶11.] It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Apex Court noted that an entity
must be "financially, functionally, and administratively" dominated by the government to qualify
as a "State."11 The question in each case will have to be considered based on facts available as to
whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally,
and administratively dominated, by or under the control of the Government.12 As Indic-ONE
operates with independent funding and administration, its commercial contract with the
government does not convert it into a state-controlled entity under this doctrine. It is stated that
there is no element of public duty involved in the matter and no writ will lie in respect of
commercial transaction.13

[¶12.] Furthermore, the Court held that entities engaging in commercial activities, even if partially
controlled by the government, cannot be considered "State."14 This judgment reiterates that Indic-
ONE’s commercial service contract with the government does not alter its status as a private entity,
underscoring the non-maintainability of the writ petition against it.

[¶13.] It is well settled that general regulations under an Act, like the Companies Act or the
Cooperative Societies Act, would not render the activities of a company or a society subject to
the control of the State. Such control in terms of the provisions of the Act is meant to ensure
the proper functioning of the society and the State or statutory authorities would have nothing to
do with its day-to-day functions."15

[¶14.] It is well argued that Indic-ONE cannot be held accountable for the violation of fundamental
rights, as it does not perform any sovereign or governmental function. The Supreme Court clarified
that private entities are not subject to writ jurisdiction unless they discharge functions that are
inextricably linked to governmental responsibilities.16

11
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, A.I.R. 1979 1628.
12
Vinod Rathore and Ors. v. Commissioner, Bilaspur Municipal Corporation and Ors., (2015) MANU 0275.
13
Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh, 1989 K.H.C. 270.
14
General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 4531.
15
S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Co-operative Society, (2006) 11 S.C.C. 634.
16
Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 657.

16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

[¶15.] The Court further emphasized that constitutional remedies should not interfere in purely
private actions or contractual relationships.17 Since Indic-ONE’s services arise from a contract
without statutory obligations, the principle in this case negates the maintainability of this writ
petition.

[1.2] THAT THE ACTION OF WITHDRAWING SERVICES IS COMMERCIAL, NOT ARBITRARY.

[¶16.] The respondent submits that the decision to withdraw services from the northeast region
was based on commercial considerations due to revenue losses. The withdrawal was neither
arbitrary nor discriminatory, but a legitimate business decision in accordance with the terms of the
contract. The Supreme Court held that the government’s policy decisions based on commercial
considerations cannot be interfered with by the courts unless they are mala fide or arbitrary.18
Indic-ONE’s role in providing internet services was a purely commercial contract with the
government, governed by the Indian Contract Act, of 1872. The respondent submits that the
relationship between Indic-ONE and the government is contractual, and any disputes arising out
of this relationship must be resolved under contract law and not through a writ petition.

[¶17.] In this case, Indic-ONE’s operations are strictly commercial and contractual. It was engaged
by the government in a commercial capacity without statutory obligations, and therefore should
not be subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 32. Indic-ONE asserts that as a private MNC, it
falls outside the ambit of the judiciary’s writ jurisdiction for fundamental rights, and hence, the
writ petition is not maintainable.

[¶18.] The respondent further cites that where the Court held that decisions based on business and
economic considerations, even if they result in hardship to individuals, cannot be deemed arbitrary
if they are based on legitimate business interests.19 The decision to withdraw services was made
after careful consideration of the financial viability of continuing operations in the region, and
therefore, it cannot be challenged as arbitrary under Article 14.

Hence, it is submitted that Indic-ONE is a private corporation and does not fall under the ambit of
the state, and therefore, the writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable.

17
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1.
18
Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 651.
19
Balco Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 S.C.C. 333.

17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

ISSUE 2: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION OF THE CORPORATION ENTAILS THE VIOLATION OF THE
RIGHT TO ACCESS INTERNET?

[¶19.] It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that its decision to withdraw internet
services does not infringe upon any constitutionally protected “right to access the internet.”
Additionally, in commercial relationships between private entities and the government, judicial
intervention is limited, and the primary duty to ensure public welfare services lies with the state.
The respondent contends that the withdrawal of Internet services does not violate the fundamental
right to access the Internet. The respondent asserts that the internet service provided by Indic-ONE
was a commercial service governed by a contractual agreement, and its withdrawal is a legitimate
business decision based on financial viability.

[2.1] THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO ACCESS THE INTERNET.

➢ Internet Access is a Qualified Right, not an Absolute Right.

[¶20.] The Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent’s withdrawal infringes upon the public’s right
to access the internet lacks basis, as Indian law does not recognize an absolute right to internet
access. The Supreme Court held that while internet access is essential for various functions, it does
not constitute an absolute right under Article 21. The Court affirmed that internet access is a
derivative right that must be balanced with security needs, financial viability, and public interest.20
Thus, based on business viability, the Respondent's withdrawal does not violate any fundamental
right.

[¶21.] The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that while Article 21 encompasses various rights,
it does not imply an obligation on private entities to provide such services indefinitely or at a loss.
Indic-ONE’s withdrawal can be viewed as a financial necessity rather than a violation of any
fundamental right to life.21

[¶22.] Fundamental rights are enforceable primarily against actions of the “State,” as defined in
Article 12 of the Constitution. Private corporations such as the Respondent are not included under
this definition unless they discharge functions akin to the state.

20
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637.
21
State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 83.

18
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

[¶23.] In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India,22 the Supreme Court ruled that private entities are
not subject to fundamental rights claims unless they are substantially controlled by the government
or act as a public authority. Here, the Respondent operates as an independent, private service
provider and is not discharging any statutory obligation on behalf of the state, thus rendering
fundamental rights inapplicable.

➢ No Obligation on private entities to provide continuous Internet Services.

[¶24.] In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre,23
the Court acknowledged that private entities may engage in activities beneficial to the public but
are not constitutionally obligated to provide continuous services without regard for economic
feasibility. In the present case, the Respondent is a private corporation and is under no obligation
to provide internet services continuously, especially when faced with revenue losses. The decision
to withdraw services is a legitimate exercise of economic autonomy, permissible under the law.

[¶25.] The Apex court highlighted that certain rights to trade and movement are subject to
restrictions when operating within private commercial domains. The respondent asserts that there
is no constitutional mandate requiring it to provide uninterrupted services, especially where
commercial losses are involved.24

[2.2] THAT THE ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY OF PRIVATE ENTITIES IS A VALID JUSTIFICATION

FOR WITHDRAWAL.

➢ Withdrawal of service based on economic justification is lawful.

[¶26.] Indic-ONE’s decision to withdraw due to financial losses aligns with economic autonomy
recognized in Excel Wear v. Union of India,25 where the Supreme Court upheld the principle that
the right to carry on trade also includes the right to discontinue if economically unsustainable. The
Court acknowledged that financial health is a valid consideration for private entities, and
constitutional mandates do not compel companies to operate at a loss.

22
Supra note 8.
23
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, (1995) 5 S.C.C. 482.
24
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) 4 S.C.C.155.
25
Excel Wear v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 25.

19
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

➢ Commercial Sustainability and Reasonable Decision-Making

[¶27.] The decision to withdraw services aligns with the principles of commercial viability as
emphasized in Tata Cellular v. Union of India,26 In this case, the Court observed that economic
decisions made by private entities, particularly those influenced by financial feasibility, are not
ordinarily subject to judicial scrutiny. The Respondent’s withdrawal from certain states, based on
revenue losses, represents a lawful exercise of business judgment and economic autonomy.

➢ No Obligation to Sustain Services Beyond Contractual Term

[¶28.] The Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service,27 clarified that
private entities cannot be compelled to exceed contractual obligations unless mandated by
statutory or regulatory provisions. Since the Respondent’s agreement with the government lacks
any provision obligating indefinite service, there is no requirement to maintain operations in
economically unviable regions.

[¶29.] The respondent emphasizes that the relationship between Indic-ONE and the government
is contractual, governed by the Indian Contract Act of 1872. The respondent has a right to
withdraw services if they are no longer financially viable, and this decision does not violate
fundamental rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the performance of a commercial contract
does not engage constitutional rights unless the action involves a governmental function.28

[¶30.] Indic-ONE’s contractual relationship with the government does not impose statutory
obligations for continuous internet provision. The Supreme Court held that private companies do
not carry public duties merely by engaging in large-scale public work.29 VST Industries reiterates
that purely commercial activities, such as those conducted by Indic-ONE, do not become public
duties subject to fundamental rights enforcement unless backed by statutory mandates.

26
Supra note 18.
27
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service, (1991) 1 S.C.C. 533.
28
M/s. Lalitha Housing Complex v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 2 S.C.C. 490.
29
VST Industries Ltd. v. VST Industries Workers' Union, A.I.R. 2001 S.C.W. 4566.

20
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

[2.3] THAT THERE IS LIMITED SCOPE OF WRIT PETITION IN COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS

BETWEEN PRIVATE ENTITIES AND THE GOVERNMENT.

➢ Commercial agreements are subject to contract law, not constitutional review.

[¶31.] Commercial relationships between the state and private entities, such as the contract
between the Respondent and the government for internet services, are governed by the terms of
the contract and should not be interfered with unless a significant public law element is involved.
In Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India,30 The court held that writ petitions
challenging the state's contractual obligations with private corporations are only maintainable if
there is public law involvement or statutory obligations. Here, the withdrawal was due to
commercial unsustainability, not state action, and does not warrant judicial intervention under
Article 32.

➢ Discretionary Decisions of Economic Autonomy

[¶32.] The decision to withdraw services falls within the Respondent’s discretion, as upheld in
Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala,31 In this case, the Court ruled
that economic decisions made by private enterprises, based on business needs, do not require state
approval or public law scrutiny. The respondent company exercised its right to make economically
viable decisions, demonstrating no legal violation that would justify judicial review.

[¶33.] It is humbly contended that the Supreme Court further affirmed that courts should avoid
interfering in the business decisions of private corporations, especially when the decisions are
based on economic considerations and do not violate any statutory obligations.32

[¶34.] The respondent relies on the principle of non-interference in commercial decisions. The
Supreme Court reiterated that the courts should refrain from interfering in the business decisions
of private entities unless there is clear evidence of bad faith or arbitrary action.33 The respondent
maintains that the withdrawal of services was a lawful and reasonable decision made in light of
financial constraints.

30
Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 S.C.C. 728.
31
Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala, (2006) 4 S.C.C. 327.
32
Delhi Science Fortum v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1996 1356.
33
Chatturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 4 S.C.C. 700.

21
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

[¶35.] It is most respectfully pleaded that commercial entities should be free from undue
interference in business operations, especially when operational costs threaten business
sustainability.34 Indic-ONE’s services were provided under a commercial contract, not under a
public law obligation or statutory mandate. In Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. v. State of U.P.35 the
Court held that contractual obligations between private entities are generally not subject to
constitutional scrutiny unless public law elements are involved. Here, Indic-ONE’s services, being
commercial, do not invoke constitutional mandates.

[¶36.] In conclusion, the Respondent respectfully submits that its decision to withdraw Internet
services in certain states does not infringe upon any constitutionally protected right to access the
Internet. As a private entity, the Respondent is entitled to exercise its business discretion,
particularly when financial losses are unsustainable. The judiciary’s scope for intervention is
limited.

Therefore, the Respondent’s action is legally justified, and the petition should be dismissed.

34
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 S.C.C. 641.
35
Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1991 1525.

22
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

ISSUE 3: WHETHER OR NOT THE MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION BE OBLIGATED TOWARDS

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

[¶37.] It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that its decision to withdraw internet
services does not infringe upon any constitutionally protected right to access the internet.
Furthermore, it asserts that the primary responsibility for ensuring continuity of public services
rests with the state, not private entities and that a multinational corporation is not obligated to
uphold fundamental rights in the manner required of the state.

[3.1] THAT THERE IS ABSENCE OF A STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE ON PRIVATE

ENTITIES.

[¶38.] Fundamental rights, including the rights to equality, freedom of speech, and life under
Articles 14, 19, and 21, are enforceable against the “State” as defined under Article 12 of the
Constitution. Private entities do not fall within the definition of “State” and hence are not directly
bound by fundamental rights obligations.

[¶39.] Private entities operate under commercial terms rather than constitutional obligations. In
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre,36 the
Supreme Court acknowledged that while private entities may provide services beneficial to the
public, they are not obligated to do so without economic feasibility. Thus, the Respondent's
withdrawal of services is lawful, as it is not bound by any statutory or constitutional mandate to
provide internet access indefinitely.

[¶40.] The Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, 37 clarified that private corporations are
not public authorities merely due to their contractual engagements with the government or their
provision of public services. A multinational corporation’s involvement in public service areas
does not convert it into a public authority, thereby limiting the application of fundamental rights
to its actions. The Respondent’s operations are defined by commercial agreements, not
constitutional mandates, and thus, it is not obligated to secure fundamental rights independently
of the state’s responsibilities.

36
Supra note 23.
37
Supra note 9.

23
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

[¶41.] The principle laid down in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh38 clarified that
even for entities involved in services of public interest, like educational institutions, they cannot
be bound by fundamental rights unless explicitly mandated. This case supports the argument that
merely operating in a domain impacting public welfare does not make private entities like Indic-
ONE subject to constitutional obligations. Indic-ONE’s role in internet services in the Northeast,
though publicly beneficial, does not convert it into a "State" entity under Article 12.

[¶42.] In landmark case of D.P. Sharma v. Union of India,39 the Supreme Court reaffirmed that
private entities are only accountable for duties explicitly assigned by law. The Court held that
unless the legislature specifically imposes a duty on private entities to provide services akin to
public functions, such obligations cannot be assumed. In the absence of a statutory mandate, there
is no basis to impose constitutional obligations on the Respondent.

[¶43.] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan,40 ruled that private corporations
do not have the same obligations as public authorities under Article 226, which limits the
applicability of fundamental rights and duties to the state and state actors. The Court further noted
that the state retains the responsibility to ensure essential services, such as internet connectivity,
are available to the public. The Respondent, being a private actor, is not obligated to continue such
services unconditionally, particularly when it is economically unviable.

[¶44.] When private entities discontinue services, the state bears the duty to arrange for alternative
solutions to fulfill public needs. In State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan41 the Court held that the
government is accountable for ensuring the continuity of essential services in the face of
challenges, including market decisions made by private providers.

[¶45.] The respondent argues that businesses must maintain autonomy in making operational
decisions. In M/s. C. J. P. Construction Company v. State of West Bengal42, the Supreme Court
affirmed that businesses should have the discretion to make decisions based on economic realities,
and these decisions should not be interfered with unless they are arbitrary or capricious. The

38
J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1993.
39
D.P. Sharma v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 689.
40
Supra note 16.
41
State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan, (1988) Supp S.C.C. 513.
42
M/s. C. J. P. Construction Company v. State of West Bengal, (2020) 2 S.C.C. 11.

24
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

withdrawal of internet services was a legitimate decision taken in light of unsustainable operations,
and such autonomy must be respected.

[3.2] THAT THERE IS COMMERCIAL AUTONOMY OF PRIVATE ENTITIES UNDER ARTICLE

19(1)(G).

[¶46.] The Respondent submits that its right to conduct business and determine the continuation
or withdrawal of services is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This right is
intrinsic to private entities and includes the ability to make business decisions based on economic
considerations, without being compelled to operate as public utilities, except where statutory
obligations exist. The Court has consistently upheld the principle that private entities, including
multinational corporations, retain autonomy over their business operations, even when such
decisions impact public access to services.

➢ Right to Conduct Business Includes the Right to Discontinue Services.

[¶47.] Article 19(1)(g) grants individuals and corporations the freedom to engage in any lawful
trade or business. This freedom also includes the right to suspend or terminate services when they
are not economically viable. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka43 the Court upheld
the principle that private institutions retain autonomy in managing their affairs without mandatory
impositions of public duties unless specifically legislated. Thus, the Respondent’s decision to
withdraw from an unprofitable market aligns with its commercial freedoms under Article 19(1)(g).

[¶48.] In Shramik Utkarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd.44 the Court observed that
private corporations have the freedom to assess market conditions and withdraw from business
activities if required for economic reasons. This autonomy is a core aspect of Article 19(1)(g),
protecting private corporations from being transformed into public utilities. Accordingly, the
Respondent’s decision to withdraw aligns with this right, as it exercises its autonomy in
determining the economic feasibility of its operation.

➢ Commercial Entities Cannot Be Forced to Provide Services at Financial Loss.

43
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 S.C.C. 481.
44
Shramik Utkarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., (1995) 3 S.C.C. 78.

25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

[¶49.] In Excel Wear v. Union of India45, the Supreme Court held that the right to do business
includes the right not to conduct business if it becomes unsustainable. The Respondent’s
withdrawal from the region due to revenue losses is an exercise of this right, and it cannot be
compelled to sustain services purely for public convenience. Imposing fundamental rights
obligations would infringe upon the Respondent’s business autonomy, protected under Article
19(1)(g).

[¶50.] Similarly, In case of State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.46, the Court
observed that private entities could not be compelled to assume public obligations, such as welfare
services unless mandated by specific statutory requirements. The Respondent, being a private
entity, has the right to prioritize its financial viability over the continuation of services without a
legislative directive.

[3.3] THAT THE COMMERCIAL AUTONOMY INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO PRIORITIZE ECONOMIC
INTERESTS OVER PUBLIC SERVICE EXPECTATIONS.

[¶51.] The Supreme Court in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd.47, recognized
that private entities, in the absence of statutory obligations, are under no duty to prioritize public
service over commercial viability. It affirmed that a company’s primary responsibility is to its
economic sustainability, not public convenience unless specific laws dictate otherwise. This ruling
supports the Respondent’s decision to prioritize its financial health over indefinite service
provision, underscoring that it cannot be compelled to operate at a loss.

[¶52.] Additionally, in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India,48 the Supreme Court held
that commercial corporations must retain flexibility to respond to economic pressures and
changing market conditions. The decision to withdraw from specific regions, based on loss of
revenue, is a necessary exercise of this flexibility and cannot be construed as a violation of public
interest, especially when no statutory duty binds the Respondent to continue its services.

45
Supra note 25.
46
State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 S.C.C. 26.
47
Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 S.C.C. 445.
48
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 S.C.C. 104.

26
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

[¶53.] Furthermore, in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (the Bank Nationalization
case),49 the Court held that the right to property and business autonomy under Article 19(1)(g)
includes the freedom to manage commercial affairs, including the cessation of services if they no
longer align with the company’s business interests. The Court highlighted that state interference
in business decisions, in the absence of statutory mandates, violates the autonomy safeguarded
under Article 19(1)(g).

[¶54.] The Court in Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India,50 underscored the importance
of non-interference in legitimate commercial decisions by private entities, asserting that economic
policy decisions made by companies in the pursuit of profitability fall within the scope of Article
19(1)(g). The Respondent’s withdrawal from the region, therefore, constitutes a legitimate
business decision, free from judicial intervention, as it does not breach any statutory duty or
contractual obligation with the public.

[¶55.] Additionally, in Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd.,51 the
Supreme Court emphasized that commercial freedom includes the right to take decisions based on
market conditions and profitability assessments. The Respondent's withdrawal due to financial
unsustainability aligns with this precedent, as it exercises the lawful commercial discretion
recognized by the Court.

[¶56.] The Respondent respectfully submits that as a private multinational corporation, it is not
obligated to uphold fundamental rights, which are primarily enforceable against the state under
Article 12. The Respondent's role as a commercial internet service provider, operating
independently of government control and absent any statutory duty to continue services
indefinitely, places it outside the purview of constitutional obligations.

49
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 S.C.C. 248.
50
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 S.C.C. 223.
51
Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., (2010) 7 S.C.C. 1.

27
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE STATE HAS AN ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS?

[¶57.] It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that while the State acknowledges internet
access as a significant component of the right to freedom of speech, education, and livelihood, the
State is not bound to provide these services specifically through a private multinational corporation
(MNC) when the corporation withdraws its services due to revenue constraints. Indic’s
jurisprudence has clarified that the government’s duty to uphold fundamental rights does not
extend to mandating specific private entities to fulfill public service obligations, particularly when
such mandates would entail unsustainable financial burdens for the company.

[¶59.] It is further stated that Indic’s law acknowledges that contractual obligations cannot be
enforced when performance becomes impossible. The doctrine of frustration (Section 56)52
relieves parties from performing obligations that have become impossible, impractical, or
unlawful. This principle is crucial for interpreting the government's role in enforcing access to
internet services provided under private contracts.

[¶60.] The respondent most humbly submits that the Supreme Court outlined that the doctrine of
frustration applies when an unforeseen event renders contractual obligations impossible to
perform. The Court held that the doctrine exempts parties from liabilities arising from such
impossibility.53 This principle applies here, that the government cannot compel Indic-ONE to
continue internet services if revenue losses make it unfeasible.

[¶61.] Similarly, the court upheld the doctrine of frustration in a situation where extraneous factors
made contract performance economically unviable. The Court emphasized that parties are exempt
from fulfilling obligations rendered commercially impractical.54 The government cannot override
this principle to compel the MNC to continue services, as the company faces economic challenges.
Thus, the state’s obligation is limited by the bounds of contractual impossibility.

52
Indian Contract Act, 1872, No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1872. "An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.
A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the
promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful."
53
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 44.
54
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2017) 14 S.C.C. 80.

28
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

[¶62.] It is also submitted that the Supreme Court ruled that the government’s duty to protect public
rights does not equate to an obligation to enforce private service contracts, particularly where
performance has become impractical or uneconomical.55 The Court emphasized the need to
balance public rights with the economic realities of private entities' provision of services. This
ruling affirms that the government cannot compel the MNC to provide internet services if the
contract no longer sustains such provision economically.

[¶63.] Additionally, in a recent case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the state’s regulatory power
over private service providers is limited by contractual and economic realities. The Court ruled
that while the state may enforce consumer rights within the regulatory framework, it cannot compel
private entities to perform obligations that have become economically unfeasible. It is argued that
this decision is relevant, as it emphasizes that the government’s enforcement powers cannot breach
economic constraints or contractual terms. This reinforces the position that the government cannot
compel the MNC to provide internet if it is financially unsustainable.

[¶64.] It is respectfully submitted that where a contract’s performance is rendered impossible by

unforeseen circumstances beyond control, enforcing performance would be inequitable. The Court
held that impractical economic conditions could excuse performance.56 In light of this, it is argued
that the government should recognize the MNC’s inability to continue services due to revenue
losses, as enforcing performance would contradict established legal principles of impossibility.

[¶65.] Furthermore, The Supreme Court ruled that extreme cost escalation can render a contract
impracticable, affirming that entities cannot be compelled to perform economically unfeasible
obligations. Moreover, the State holds an obligation to secure access to essential services for the
public, this duty does not extend to mandating the continued provision of such services specifically
through a private multinational corporation (MNC) facing financial losses. The principles of
Indic’s constitutional law and contract law clarify that the government’s responsibility to protect
fundamental rights, such as internet access, does not obligate it to impose undue operational
mandates on private entities, especially when fulfilling these mandates becomes
commercially unsustainable.

55
Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, (1997) 9 S.C.C. 377.
56
Airline Allied Services Ltd. v. C.M. Jalgaonwala, (2021) S.C.C. OnLine Del 44.

29
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 37TH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST NATIONAL ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2024

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the Counsels on behalf of the respondent humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court that it may be
pleased to:

1. Dismiss the present writ petition as not maintainable;

2. Declare that the respondent’s action of withdrawing internet services does not violate any
fundamental rights;
3. Hold that the Respondent, being a private corporation, is not bound by fundamental rights
under Part III of the Constitution;

AND/OR

Pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of Equity, Justice, Fairness and Good
Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the respondent, as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Sd/_____________

(Counsel for Respondents)

Date: 17th November 2024

Place:

30
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS