TEAM CODE: G

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAYOORSTHAN

Original Writ Jurisdiction

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIANCONSTITUTION

COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTY ………………………………PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF MAYOORSTHAN ………………………………….RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

MAYOORSTHAN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... ......2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................................4

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

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

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

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS...................................................................................14

ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF INDIAN

CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE?
1.1 Alternative remedy is not a bar.................................................................16
1.2 The petitioner has the locus standi to file the Public Interest Litigation......16
1.3 There is a violation of fundamental rights..................................................17

2. WHETHER THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE

FALSEHOOD AND MANIPULATION ACT, 2020 IS LEGISLATIVELY
COMPETENT?.........................................................................................................18

3. WHETHER MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD

AND MANIPULATION ACT, 2020 IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF INDIAN
CONSTITUTION?.......................................................................................................19

3.1) Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020 is
arbitrary in nature.............................................................................................................21

3.2) Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act 2020 is
against natural justice.........................................................................................................22

4. WHETHER MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD

AND MANIPULATION ACT, 2020 IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF
INDIAN CONSTITUTION?.............................................................................................23

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 2

4.1) The Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act
disproportionally invades free speech.............................................................23

4.2) The Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act is not
reasonable and vague.....................................................................................23

5. WHETHER MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD

AND MANIPULATION ACT, 2020 IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF INDIAN
CONSTITUTION?

5.1) Procedure established by law is oppressive and arbitrary.........................................28

5.2) The act is politically motivated..............................................................................28
5.3) Act violates Art.20 of the constitution of India.....................................................30

PRAYER ........................................................................................................................33

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVATIONS EXPANSION

HON’BLE Honorable
A.I.R All India Reporter

S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

Anr. Another

Ors. Others

S.C.R Supreme Court Reporter

v. Versus

& And

PARA Paragraph

Cri. Criminal

AP Andhra Pradesh

UP Uttar Pradesh

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 4

Govt. Government

Art. Article

IT Information technology

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.NO CASE CITATION

1 A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295

2 A.K Roy v. Union of India A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 272

3 Anr v. Baldeo Prasad A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 970

4 Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 321

A.I.R. 1997 S.C.C.

5 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
549
Council for Environment Legal Action v.Union of
6 A.I.R. 1446
India

7 Dinesh Trivedi, M.P and Ors v.Union of India A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 223

A.I.R. 555 S.C R.(2)

8 E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
348

9 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746

10 Govt. Of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 223

11 K.A Abbas v. Union of India A.I.R 1971 S.C. 446

A.I.R. 2017 10 S.C.C.

12 K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India
1

13 Karter Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 3 S.C.

14 Kharak Singh v. State of U.P A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295

15 Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1749

Life Insurance Corporation of India v Manubhai D.

16 A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 17
Shah
A.I.R. 2007
17 M. Nagaraj v. Union of India
S.C. 212

18 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 621

A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 473

19 Mithu v State of Punjab

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 6

20 Ramjlal v. State of U.P A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 620

21 S.P Gupta v. Union of India A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149

22 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 326

Shri Rama Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R

23 1988 A.I.R. 5387
Tendolkar

24 State of U.P v Raj Narain A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 333

25 Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295

Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Anr v State of

26 1983 S.C.R. (3) 130
Bihar and Ors

27 Aluminum Industries Ltd v State of Orissa and Ors 1991 72CompCas 436

28 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India 1979 S.C.R. (3)254

29 State of Bombay and Anr v F.N Balsara 1951 S.C.R. 682

30 Hukum Singh v State of U.P and Ors A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 120

31 State of A.P and Ors v Mcdowell & Co. and Ors 1996 S.C.C. (2) 709

32 Lalji Mulji v. State of Maharashtra (1965)67 BOMLR 484

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 7

BOOKS REFERED

1. M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7TH Ed. LEXIS NEXIS.2016)

2. DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (21ST Ed.
LEXIS NEXIS .1960)
3. NARENDER KUMAR, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (8TH Ed. ALLAHABAD
LAW AGENCY.2011).
4. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, CONTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (3RD Ed. EASTERN
BOOK COMPANY.2017).
5. K.C. JOSHI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (3RD Ed. CENTRAL LAW
PUBLICATIONS.2016).
6. D.J.DE, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (3RD Ed. ASIA LAW HOUSE.2008).
7. V.N.SHUKLA.CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13TH Ed. EASTERN BOOK
COMPANY.1982).
8. DR.J.N. PANDEY.CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA (8TH Ed. ATLANTIC
PUBLISHER.2008).
9. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA (8TH Ed. LEXIS
NEXIS.2012).
10. DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2ND Ed. LEXIS
NEXIS.2007).
11. H.M.SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4TH Ed. UNIVERSAL
PUBLICATIONS. 2004). STATUTES REFERED
12. P. M BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING
Co. pvt.Ltd
13. H.M.SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4TH Ed. UNIVERSAL
PUBLICATIONS. 2004
14. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, CONTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA(3RD Ed. EASTERN
BOOK COMPANY.2017) 8

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 8

15. DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (21ST Ed.

LEXIS NEXIS .1960)
16. M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7TH Ed. LEXIS NEXIS.2016)
17. K.C. JOSHI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA(3RD Ed. CENTRAL LAW
PUBLICATIONS.2016).
18. JUSTICE B. P. BANERJEE, WRIT REMEDIES (6THEd.LEXIS NEXIS, 1998). \
19. GEORGE JOHNSON, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (2nd Ed. LAW BOOKS CENTRE,
2000).
20. B.M .GANDHI, INDIAN PENAL CODE (4TH Ed. EASTERN BOOK COMPANY,
1996).
21. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (34TH Ed. LEXIS NEXIS
PUBLICATIONS, 2016).
22. SURYA NARAYAN MISRA, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (20TH Ed. CENTRAL
LAW PUBLICATIONS, 1995).
23. R.N.SAXENA, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (19THEd.CENTRAL LAW
PUBLICATIONS, 2000).
24. The INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 as AMENDED BY THE FINANCE
ACT, 2017/ Latest Edition
25. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: ACT II OF 1974
26. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973[AMENDED up to ACT 34 OF 2019]

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 9

STATUTES REFERED

1. The Constitution Of India, 1950

2. Indian Penal Code, 1869
3. Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Information Technology Act, 2000.

WEBSITES REFERED

1. Indiankanoon.org
2. www.casemine.com
3. www.scconline.com
4. www.goforthelaw.com
5. sflc.in
6. Law finder live
7. en.wikipedia.org
8. www.mcrhrdi.gov.in
9. Legal Service India.com
10. www.manupatra.com
11. blog.ipleaders.in
12. www.thelawyerportal.com
13. www.lawoctopus.com
14. www.lawsiteblog.com
15. www.Lawordo.com
16. www.Legallyindia.com
17. www.lawyerist.com
18. www.legalcrystal.com

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 10

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE HO’BLE

COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.THE PETITIONER
HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE COURT AS THERE IS A VIOLATION OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. THEREFORE THE PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROTECTS THE
CITIZEN FROM ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WHICH IS
APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE.

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 11

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mayoorsthan is a State in the Indian Union governed by a Unicameral Legislative

Assembly under the rule of Mayoorsthan Republic Party. The main political party in
opposition is the Mayoorsthan Socialist Party. The total population of the State is
5,48,57,600 with a literacy rate of 99% out of which 60% is active in social media.

2. Several popular mainstream Medias have reported the propagation of fake messages through
social media platforms often leading to riots and patriotic fervor due to the people’s ignorance
of authenticity and validity of the facts in and around the State of Mayoorsthan. The
transmission of these fake messages has had a noticeable influence over the Indian Electoral
process leading to social unrest and violent outbreaks amongst the mob. It has also affected the
outbreak of Covid-19 and transmission of misinformation including false cures, anti-vaccination
propaganda and conspiracy theories further complicating the rescue task for the authorities.

3. Several allegations of illegalities, irregularities, corruption and nepotism were directed against
the Government, Chief Minister and certain Cabinet Ministers in light of fake and unreliable
news mainly fueled by social media messages. Investigations against the alleged persons and the
resignation of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet Ministers were demanded. 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, but turned
down the demands for resignation of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet ministers .

4. On 07/08/2020, the Government of Mayoorsthan appointed a Committee to study the social

impact of fake news and the studies suggested the implementation of preventive measures like
enactment of penal provisions at the government level to safeguard the authenticity of the news
shared through online plaforms, and based on this report, the “Mayoorsthan Protection from
Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill 2020” was piloted in the State Legislative Assembly
on 02/10/2020. The opposition Parties strongly opposed the bill and staged a walk out and the
bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 20/10/2020 without any opposition. And the
governor of the State gave assent to “Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and
Manipulation Act 2020” on 02/11/2020.

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 12

5. The act was implemented to prevent Mayoorsthan from online falsehoods and manipulation and
for the cessation of propagation of fake news through social media platforms. A broader
definition of the words bot, statement, government etc. is laid down. The act contains 12
sections that include the grounds by which a person shall be charged against the Act and the
punishment and compensation for persons, both legal and artificial.
6. Another major provision of this act deals with the issuance of Correction Direction and Stop
Communication Direction. A Communication Officer is appointed to issue the direction and the
procedures to be followed by the charged person are also included in the Act.

7. Council for Civil Liberty, a charitable society registered under the jurisdiction of Mayoorsthan
for the Protection and Promotion of human Rights files a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Indian Constitution claiming that the Act is unconstitutional on the grounds of lack of legislative
competency and violation of fundamental rights under Article 14, Article 19 (1) (a) and Article
21 of the Constitution.

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 13

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner under the Article 226 of the
Indian Constitution is maintainable before the High Court of Mayoorsthan?
2. Whether Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act
2020 is legislatively competent?
3. Whether Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act
2020 is in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
4. . Whether Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation
Act 2020 is in violation of Article 19 (1)( a) of the Indian Constitution?
5. Whether Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation
Act 2020 is in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 14

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION IS MAINATAINABLE
Under Article 226, a writ petition can be filed before any High Court within whose
jurisdiction the cause of action arises. The present case is maintainable as there is violation of
Article 14, Article 19(1)(a), Article 21Thus, in view of the above, the state legislature has no
authority to make such a law. Council for Civil Liberties is a charitable society registered in
Mayoorsthan , it is hence noted as a voluntary organisation with public interests and can file a
PIL .Hence the petitioner stands locus standi to file the writ petition.
2. MAYYORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND
MANIPULATION ACT DOES NOT HAVE A LEGISLATIVE CONPETENCY
Under Article 246(3) legislative competence may be limited by specific List entries, or b

3. THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF INDIAN

CONSTITUTION
Sec 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 8(4) and 10(4) of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and
Manipulation Act, 2020 is in violation of Article 14. The Act violates the principle of Natural
Justice and also is arbitrary in nature.
4. THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF INDIAN
CONSTITUTION
In Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020,section
1(ii),section 3(iii),3(iv),section 2(b),section2(d),section 8(4)and section 10(iv) prohibits article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The restriction imposed does not fall under the ambit of
reasonable restrictions.

5. THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF INDIAN

CONSTITUTION

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 15

In the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020, Section
8(4), 10(4) & violates freedom of liberty and Section 10(2) and 10(3) violates freedom of
privacy of individuals. Section 8(4) of the act says that A person who communicated a false
statement of fact in Mayoorsthan may be issued a Correction Direction and Section 10(4) says
about the issuing of a Stop Communication Direction

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 16

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. I . THE PUBLIC INTERESET LITIGATION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

0F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE.

The Public Interest Litigation filled by the petitioner against the “ Mayoorsthan Protection
From Online Falsehood And Manipulation Act 2020” is maintainable, as it is independent of
any alternative remedy [A] Further, there is infringement of fundamental rights [B] and
therefore the constitutionality of the act is being challenged.

1.1 The petition is independent of the existing alternative remedies.

The existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar on the petition
before the court1 as it is a process that the court chooses to opt out of convenience and
discretion. Under special circumstances the High Court may grant writ remedies to a
petitioner even with the existence of an alternative remedy. 2 Where there is well-founded
allegation that fundamental right has been infringed, alternative remedy is no bar for
entertaining writ petition and granting relief3. The mere existence of an adequate alternative
legal remedy cannot be per se be a good and sufficient ground for throwing out a petition
under Art. 226. if the existence of a fundamental right and a breach, actual or threatened, of
such right and is alleged is prima facie established on the petition 4. In spite of availability of
the alternative remedy, the court may exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least petitions where
the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights 5. Thus, the petitioner
humbly submits that writ petition is maintainable as existence of alternative remedy is not a
bar.
1.2 The petition is maintainable when there is infringement of fundamental rights.
A writ petition can be filed with respect to reassessment when there has been a
contravention of fundamental rights. It is humbly submitted by the petitioners that
‘Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020’ is infringing

1
Shivram Poddar v. ITO, A.I.R 1964 SC 1095; also see JUSTICE B L HANSARIA’s WRIT JURSIDICTION (3
ed.2005)
2
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 (11)
3
State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. A.I.R 1953 SC 252
4
K.K. Kouchunni V. State of Madras A.I.R 1959 SC 725
5
Harbansa lSahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. A.I.R 2003 SC 2120

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 17

the rights of equality, right to freedom of speech and expression and right to life and personal
liberty as enshrined by the Constitution under Articles 14, Article 21 and 19(1) 6respectively.
So submit that the ‘Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation 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. Therefor, It is
submitted that the writ filed by the petitioners is maintainable.

1.3 There is writ petition has a locus standi

In public law, the rule that only the aggrieved person is entitled to seek judicial redress has
been liberalised in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India7, to include any “public-spirited individual”
or “association”. In case a class of people have a collective grievance, even an unrecognised
association may initiate writ proceedings. In instances of public wrong or injury, if an act
oromission by the State runs contrary to the Constitution then any member of the public has
locus standi. In Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India,8 it has been observed that in
determining the question of locus standi in ‘public interest litigation’ the Court must look
into: (i) the credentials of the applicant; (ii)prima facie correctness of information; (iii)
information should show failure of public duty(iv) must not go into merits of the case

6
INDIA CONST. art. 14, 19 cl.1, 21
7
S.P Gupta v Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149
8
VishwanathChaturvediv. Union of India

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 18

II. MAYYORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT DOES NOT HAVE A LEGISLATIVE
CONPETENCY

Article 246 of the Constitution of India Deals with Distribution of Law making power: The
Constitution, in making the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the
States, follows the Government of India Act, 1935; It enumerates various items of legislation
in three lists: List I – the Union Lis9t; List II – the State List10; List III – the Concurrent
List11.23 Subject to some additions, deletions and modifications of some of the items,
Parliament has exclusive powers of legislation with respect to 97 items in List I; the State
Legislatures have exclusive powers of legislation with respect to 66 items enumerated in List
II and both Parliament and the State Legislatures may make laws in respect of 47 subjects
enumerated in List III.
The “Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020” is based
on communication of false statements through social media. List I of the Seventh Schedule of
Constitution is known as Union List. Entry 3112 of the Union List deals with “Posts
andTelegraphs; telephone, wireless, broadcasting and other forms of communication 13”.
The State of Mayoorsthan has no legislative power to make laws on the subjects mentioned in
Union List as per Article 246(3)14. Hence the Act is void.
If any legislation is enacted by a State Legislature in respect of a matter falling within List I
that will be without jurisdiction and therefore void. The question of repugnance 15 arises only
in case both the legislations fall within the same List, namely,List III. If any legislation is
enacted by a State Legislature in respect of a matter falling within List I that will be void 16

9
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals ltd and Anr v State of Bihar and Ors, 1983 S.C.R. (3) 130
10
Aluminium Industries Ltd. V State of Orissa and Ors , 1991 72CompCas 436
11
M. Karunanidhi v Union of India, 1979 S.C.R.(3)254
12
State of Bombay and Anr v F.N Balsara, 1951 S.C.R. 682
13
Hukum Singh v State of U.O and Ors, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 120
14
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors v Mcdowell & Co. And Ors, 1996 S.C.C. (2) 709
15
Lalji Mulji v The State of Maharashtra, (1965) 67 BOMLR 484
16
Kerala Electricity Board v Indian Aluminium Co & Ltd and Ors , A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1031

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 19

III. THE MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM MANIPULATION ACT IS

IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

It is humbly submitted by the petitioner that the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online
Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020 violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Every human being is born equally and therefore the makers of the Indian Constitution had
also made provision for equality of the people. Article 14 is one of the most important
Articles of the Indian constitution17 and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the
Constitution along with Article 19 and 21.In India, this right is very important because there
has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long
time. Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the
people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that
it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a
positive duty to take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people.

3.1The Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, 2020
is arbitrary in nature

Section 418 of the Act clearly specifies that the Act is for the bot19 users. That is the Act
classifies between the bot users and those who do not use it. To punish somebody because of
using a particular medium of communication is it discriminatory. Bot may not be the only
mode in which fake news is propagated. Intelligible differentia between those who use
internet and those by words spoken or written or other mediums of communication as basis to
punish somebody, because he uses a particular medium of communication is itself a
discriminatory object & would fall foul of any case. Hence the classification made here is not
valid and thus the Act is in violation of Article 14.

17
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, A.I.R 2007 S.C 1:(2006) 8 S.C.C. 212 (‘Equality is the essence of democracy
and according to basic feature of the Constitution)
18
Section 4 of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020
A person must not, whether in or outside Mayoorsthan, make or alter a bot with the intention of
(a) communicating, by means of the bot, a false statement of fact in Mayoorsthan; or
(b) enabling any other person to communicate, by means of the bot, a false statement of fact in Mayoorsthan.
19
Section 2(a) of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act,2020
“bot” means a computer program made or altered for the purpose of running automated tasks

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 20

20
Sec 5(a) and (b) and 6(2) (a) and (b) states the punishment given to an individual in case a
person contravenes Sec 321 and 4. Here, there is a differentiation of punishment for an
individual and the punishment in other cases. That is, two different punishments are given for
committing the same offence, which is a violation of equal protection of law as per Article 14.
Similarly in the case of Mithu v State of Punjab22 the Supreme Court ruled that Section 30323
violated Articles 14 and Article 2124 since an unreasonable distinction was sought to be made
between the punishments given to two classes of murderers.

Sec 7(1)25 of the act is about designating a Communication Officer. But the fact is that the
Act does not state any specific requirements or any procedure by which the Communication
Officer is selected, it is the discretion of the government. As per the Act, any person can be
selected as the Communication Officer according to the desire of the state. In the case of Shri
Rama Krishna Dalmia v Shri Justice S. R Tendolkar 26 the court held that “in cases where the
statute does not make any classification but leaves it to the discretion of the Government to
select and classify persons or things to whom its provisions are to apply, the statute must be
shown to contain the principles that guide this discretion. If the law fails in this regard, the
court will strike down both the law as well as the executive action taken under such law.”
The absence of provisions of selecting the Communication Officer clearly depicts the
arbitrariness of the State in selecting. In Avinder Singh v State of Punjab27 it was held that
arbitrariness must be excluded from the law, for if power is arbitrary, it is potential inequality,
and Article 14 is fatally allergic to inequality of law 28. Also a leading newspaper in
Mayoorsthan has reported several allegations of corruption against the State Government29.
Article 14 requires that all the rights and freedom set out in an Act must be protected and

20
Section 5(a),(b) and 6 (2)(a) and (b) of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation
Act,2020
(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding Rupees 30,000 or to rigorous imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 3 years or with both;
(b) in any other case, to a fine not exceeding Rs 500,000.
21
Section 3 of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act 2020
22
Mithu v State of Punjab A.I.R 1983 S.C 473 : 1983 Cri LJ 811
23
Section 303 of Indian Penal Code: “Punishment for murder by life-convict-whoever, being under sentence of
imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death.
24
Article 21 of Indian Constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.”
25
Section 7(1) of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act 2020
The state Government may designate any officer of the state as Communication Officer for the implementation
of the Act
26
Shri Rama Krishna Dalmia v Shri Justice S. R Tendolkar, 1958 A.I.R 5387
27
Avinder Singh v State of Punjab, A.I.R 1979 S.C. 321
28
Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Wadhwa Nagpur,( 2nd Edition 2007)
29
Moot Preposition, ¶ 3

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 21

applied without discrimination. Here the Communication Officer is given all the favourable
power than all others and this classification cannot be objectively and reasonably justified.
Also according to Article 16(1)30 there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in the
matter relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Hence it is
concluded that the selection of the Communication Officer is based on the personal whim of
the government and thus Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation
Act, 2020 is arbitrary in nature. “Any order passed independently of a rule or without
adequate determining principle would be arbitrary31.”

Section 8(4) and 10(4)32 of the act states that a person who has communicated a false
statement of fact in Mayoorsthan a Correction Direction may be issued even if the person
does not know or has no reason to believe that the statement is false. Here the State has all the
chance to give a Correction Direction and Stop Communication Direction to any person
according to his interests and favour ,maybe a person with a different political view or one
who finds that the Government is wrong, and there is no issue whether the person knows the
reason or not. The fact in this matter is that, the citizens of Mayoorsthan are not provided
equal protection of law as stated in Article 14.

3.2 Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020 is
against Natural Justice.

Section 8(4)33 of the Act states that “a person who communicated a false statement of fact in
Mayoorsthan may be issued a Correction Direction even if the person does not know or has
no reason to believe that the statement is false.” Here the Correction Direction is send without
affording the the person an opportunity to know the reason or to substantiate his part and
hence violates the principle of Audi Alteram Partum34. It embodies that no person shall be
condemned unheard and is a main factor of Natural Justice 35. Natural Justice is an integral
part of administrative process. Article14 guarantee a right of hearing to the person adversely
effected by the administrative order. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India36 SC opined that

30
State of Punjab v Shri Amar Singh, PLR 1998, 119 HC 498 (Article 16 has great importance as a principle
ensuring equality of opportunity in Public employment which is so vital to the building up of the new classless
egalitarian society envisaged in the Constitution)
31
E.P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu,A.I.R. 555, S.C.R. (2) 348
32
Section8 and Section10 of Mayoorsthan Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act,2020
33
Section 8(4) of Mayoorsthan from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act, 2020
34
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union, A.I.R 101, S.C.R Supl. (1) 142
35
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi& Ors, A.I.R 851 S.C.R (3) 272
36
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India A.I.R 597, S.C.R (2) 621

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 22

“Article 14 is an authority for the proposition that the principles of Natural Justice are an
integral of the guarantee of equality under Article 14, an order depriving a person of his civil
right passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard suffers from the vice of
violation of natural justice.”

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 23

IV MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020 VIOLATES ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF
CONSITUTION OF INDIA

4.1) Mayoorsthan Protection From Online Falsehood And Manipulation Act 2020
disproportionately invades free speech

Freedom of speech and expression is considered as the basic freedom and the back bone of
part III of constitution of India.it includes the right to express one’s opinion unhindered,
unfettered by the fear of retribution. It is one of the most basic elements for a healthy, open-
minded democracy.
Various provisions of IPC, section 66 B and 67 C of IT Acts are good enough to deal with
all the cyber crimes and it is incorrect to say that the current has given rise to new forms of
remedies.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed not only by the constitution or statutes of various states
but also by various international conventions like Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
European convention on Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights etc. These declarations expressly talk about protection of
freedom of speech and expression
Article 19(1) (a) guarantees to all citizens the freedom of speech and expression. This right
has been characterised as a ‘basic human right’. 37 This rights are subjected to reasonable
restrictions under Article 19 (2). But a restriction is unreasonable if it sweeps within its
ambit activities which constitute a legitimate exercise of freedom of speech.38

4.2 THE ACT IS VAGUE HENCE UNRESONABLE

It is the basic principle of the legal jurisprudence that an enactment is void for vagueness if
it its prohibitions are not clearly defined. 39 The Court had admitted that in certain

37
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171
38
RamjiLal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620
39
Kartar singh v.state of Punjab 1994 3scc 569 at para 130 -131

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 24

40
circumstances vagueness might make a statute void.
Elaborating the grounds for holding the provision as unconstitutional the council would
like to state terms like false statement, misleading, offences and anyother case used in the
provisions are vague as it is difficult for the law enforcement agency and the offender to
know the ingriedients.
In ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India 41 The Supreme Court observed that A penal law is
void for vagueness. When a judicially trained mind can reach on different conclusions
“while going through the same content it is not possible for law enforcement agency
and common man to make out the conclusions. Hence there can be a huge misuse of law
possible.
The section 12 of the act states that government may by notification in gazette make
rules to carry out provisions but the statement didn’t mentions about its date, time or
any other conditions, hence can be considered as vague.
The statement in section (1) (ii) and section 3 is not proper. When a person communicate a
matter through social media, it’s not limited with in the territory of Mayoorsthan so
preventing such an action is not applicable.
The wording in section 11 “reasonable excuse” does not specify how it shall be
considered as reasonable
In section 2(b) and 2(d) the language is vague. The term “false statement” has no
specification nor a clarity on what ground that is considered to be an offence. It does

notmention any statisficial analysis or procedure. A.K.Roy v. Union of India42 .The

Hon'ble Supreme Court has stressed on the need to avoid vague expressions in statutesThe
definition of the term “statement” is misleading that it includes several mode of
communication and don’t even state under what circumstance they are treated as offence
hence it make the provision ambitious and subject to misuse. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Anr. v. Baldeo Prasad43 where the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act 1946 was
declared void for uncertainty.
In the case of penal statutes what is prohibited should be clear to the public. In

40
K.A.Abbas vs The union of India and Anr, AIR 1971 SC 446
41
ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India
42
A.K.Roy v. Union of India 1982 AIR 1982 SC 272
43
Anr. v. Baldeo Prasad AIR 1961 SC 970

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 25

ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India 44: The Supreme Court observed, :A penal law is void for
vagueness if it fails to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness
The section 8(1) ,the specification mentioned is not correctly defined hence it can be
manipulatedIn section 8(3) (b) and 10 3(b) it is stated that correction notice is published
through specific newspaper or other printed publication of mayoorsthan. But it is stated in
fact of the case that 52% of the respondents receive news via whatsApp or facebook. Hence
there is possibility that the correction direction won’t reach a person who does not have a
good assement to printed publication or newspaper. Hence the issue of correction direction
is vague.it also affect the privacy of an individual under article 21 of constitution of India.
section 3 (iii) and 3 (iv) does not fall under the perview reasonable restriction imposed in
article 19(2)
In ShreyaSingal v. Union of India39, it was held that under our constitutional scheme, it is
not open to the State to curtail freedom of speech to promote the general public interest.
Equally, in S. Khushboo v. Kanniamal&Anr., 40this Court stated, that the importance of
freedom of speech and expression though not absolute was necessary as we need to tolerate
unpopular views. This right requires the free flow of opinions and ideas essential to sustain
the collective life of the citizenry. While an informed citizenry is a pre-condition for
meaningful governance, the culture of open dialogue is generally of great societal
importance. InSakal Papers (P) Ltd. &Ors. v. Union of India41, a Constitution Bench of
Supreme Court said freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount
importance under a democratic constitution which envisages changes in the composition of
legislatures and governments and must be preserved The Court also observed that right of
freedom of speech cannot be taken away with the object of placing restrictions on the
business activities of a citizen. Freedom of speech can be restricted only in interest of
security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or
in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. In Bennett Coleman
& Co. &Ors. v. Union of India &Ors42., that the freedom of speech and of the press is the
Ark of the Covenant of Democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of its
institutions.
In RomeshThappar v. State of Madras43, the Supreme Court stated that freedom of speech
lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations and without liberty of circulation, the
publication would be of little value. In the case of Rangarajanv. P. Jagjivan Ram &Ors.

44
ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 26

44analyzing the scope of ‘reasonable restrictions’ under Article 19(2) of the Constitution,
the Court held: “Our commitment of freedom of expression demands that it cannot be
suppressed unless the situation created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the
community interest is endangered. The anticipated danger should not 38Ibid 39ShreyaSingal
v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, 131 40S. Khushboo v. Kanniamal&Anr., (2010) 5 SCC
60, Para 45 41Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. &Ors. v. Union of India, [1962] 3 SCR 842 at 866
42Bennett Coleman & Co. &Ors. v. Union of India &Ors, (1973) 2 SCR 757 at 829,
43RomeshThappar v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 594 at 602 44Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan
Ram &Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 574 be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It should have
proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should be
intrinsically dangerous to the public interest.” 3.1 The impugned Act is not “reasonable” The
requirement of “reasonableness” runs like a golden thread through the entire fabric of
Fundamental Rights.
1. A restriction is unreasonable if it sweeps within its ambit activities which constitute a
legitimate exercise of freedom of speech and expression,46 or the restriction is in excess
of what was necessary to suppress or prevent the social mischief aimedat.The word
‘reasonable’ enables the Court to determine not only whether the impugned restrictive
law is, in fact, in the interests of any such ground as enumerated but also whether the
restriction sought to be imposed by the legislation is reasonable, having regard to the
objective test i.e. whether the restriction has a reasonable relation to the authorized
purpose or is an arbitrary abridgement of the freedom guaranteed by the Article under the
cloak of any of the exceptions.
In Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. 49 the Supreme Court has stated that the
following principles and guidelines should be kept in view while considering the
constitutionality of a statutory provision: The restriction must not be arbitrary or of an
excessive nature; there must be a direct and proximate nexus between the restriction
imposed and the object sought to be achieved; No abstract or fixed principle can be laid
down which may have universal application in all cases. Section 2(b) of the impugned Act
defines the terms “false statement” includes statement which is misleading whether wholly
or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears.
The language used in Section 2(b) and 2(d) is so vague that neither would an accused person
be put on notice as to what exactly is the offence which has been committed nor would the
authorities administering the Section be clear as to on which side of a clearly drawn line a
particular communication will fall. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held in a series

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 27

of judgments that where no reasonable standards are laid down to define guilt in a Section
which creates an offence, and where no clear guidance is given to either law abiding citizens
or to authorities and courts, a Section which creates an offence and which is vague must be
struck down as being arbitrary and unreasonable.
The expression 'public order' in article 19(2) connotes the sense of public peace, safety and
tranquillity. 45Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion, for that is
the only corrective of government action in a democratic set up. If democracy means
government of the people by the people, it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to
participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his
rights of making a choice, free & general discussion of public matters is absolutely
essential46. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens in
addition to protecting the rights of the citizens to know the right to receive information
regarding matters of public concern.47 Includes the right to acquire and disseminate
information48. in modern constitutional democracies, It is axiomatic that citizens have a right
to know about the affairs of the government which, having been elected by them, seek to
formulate sound policies of governance aimed at their welfare.”49
Under section 6(1), 8(4), 10, 9, 5 here article 19(1)(a) and the principle of natural justice,
audi alteram partem is violated. It is the duty of the of the authority to ensure that the
effected party may be given an opportunity of oral or personal hearing 50. The wordings in
the mentioned act is similar to the wordings in 66A of IT act which was struck down in
shreya singal vs union of India

45
Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal,AIR 1972,SC 1749
46
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,AIR 1978,SC 621
47
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain31,AIR 1975, SC 333
48
Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal,AIR 1995,SC 161
49
Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Ors v. Union of India,AIR

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 28

V. MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020 VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF CONSITUTION OF
INDIA

5.1 Procedure established by law is oppressive and arbitrary

The Article 21 of the Indian constitution ensures every person life and person liberty and it
can be curtailed if the procedure established by law is arbitrary, oppressive and fanciful. In
*K. S Puttaswamy v. Union of India 51* (2012) which had been set up on reference from the
Constitutional bench to determine whether the right to privacy was guaranteed as an
independent right following conflicting decisions from other benches and remind us of the
reasonableness of Art.21 as there must be a valid law in exsistence, it should not be politically
motivated, it should not suffer from manifest arbitrariness and should meet the requirements
from Art.21.

It lays down in *Bandhua Mukti Mrcha v. Union of India 52* that Article 21 aaures the Right
to live with Human dignity , free from exploitation.Both the Central and State government are
therefore bound to ensure observance of the various social welfare and the state is under
obligation to see that there is no violation of fundamental rights of any person. Following the
above-stated cases, the Supreme Court in *Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of
India*53 , held that non-payment of minimum wages to the workers employed in various
Asiad Projects in Delhi was a denial to them of their right to live with basic human dignity
and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.In the Mayoorsthan Protection from Online
Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2020, Section 8(4) , 10(4) & violates freedom of liberty and
Section 10(2) and 10(3) violates freedom of privacy of individuals.

Section 8(4) of the act says that A person who communicated a false statement of fact in
Mayoorsthan may be issued a Correction Direction and Section 10(4) says about the issuing
of a Stop Communication Direction . Both these are issued to a person even if the person does

51
K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

52
bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India A.I.R (1997) 10 SCC 549
Unni Krishnan v. State of AP A.I.R 1993 SC 2178
53
People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India 1982 AIR 1473

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 29

not know or has no reason to believe that the statement is false, this clearly interferes with the
freedom of expression and thereby affects the personal liberty of an individual.

Personal Liberty first came up in contemplation of the case : *A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras54 , the Supreme Court recognized and
admitted that the right to personal liberty included innumerable rights, which could not be
exhaustively enumerated and the articles 21 & 19 are inter related.

The meaning of the term ‘personal liberty’ was considered by the Supreme Court in the case
of Kharak Singh v State Of UP55 , which arose out of the challenge to Constitutional validity
of the U. P. Police Regulations that provided for surveillance by way of domiciliary visits and
secret picketing. Both the majority and minority on the bench relied on the meaning given to
the term “personal liberty” by an American judgment , in *Munn v Illinois* 56, which held the
term ‘life’ meant something more than mere animal existence. The prohibition against its
deprivation extended to all those limits and faculties by which the life was enjoyed.

The Court observed that the right to personal liberty in the Indian Constitution is the right of
an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether they are
directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.

Section 10(3) of the act prescribes that he/she should issue Correction Notice in the specified
form and manner within the prescribed time. Therefore all the corrections should be made
according to the opinion of the Communication Officer appointed as in section 7 (1). This can
lead to biased corrections which is a violation of freedom of life and liberty and also results in
violation of freedom of speech and expression. Therefore here there is a violation of both
Articles 19 & 21

**Privacy means57 “right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from unwarranted
publicity; and the right to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with
which the public is not necessarily concerned.”

The right to privacy has now been recognized to be an intrinsic part of the right to life and

personal liberty under Article 21.

54
A K Gopalan v. State of Madras A.I.R 1950 SC 27
55
Kharak Singh v State Of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295
56
Munn v Illinois (1876) 94 U.S. 113
57
Black laws Dictionary

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 30

In the Section 10(2) of the impunged act , it is conveyed that a Stop Communication Direction
is issued to any statement that is substantially similar, this clearly restricts the freedom of
thoughts, opinions of every individual who would like to express their views on different
issues happening in this society . Privacy ensures freedom of speech and expression. Absence
of these leads to suppression of dissent and censorship. This is because once we are put under
surveillance we will start to censor ourselves for fear of state action and will never be able to
enjoy the liberty which is our fundamental right.

In *K. S Puttaswamy v. Union of India 58* (2012) which had been set up on reference from the
Constitutional bench to determine whether the right to privacy was guaranteed as an
independent right following conflicting decisions from other benches. Justice Sapre in this
case said that, in addition to its existence as an independent right, the right to privacy included
an individual right to freedom of expression and movement and was essential to satisfy the
constitutional aims of liberty and fraternity which ensured dignity of the individual.

5.2) The act is politically motivated

In paragraph 15 of the act it is mentioned that several allegations, corruption and nepotism
against the Mayoorsthan government was raised at the time of enactment of the act. The
opposition political parties and the public demanded the resignation of chief minister and
other cabinet ministers. In paragraph 16, it is mentioned that opposition political parties
questioned the timing of the bill and walked out. But the Mayoorsthan government ignored
those opinions which was a clear unilateral dicision and politically motivated.

The issues related to false news arised long ago and no actions were taken at that time. The
action is taken only when critism against the government is raised.

The Supreme Court in *PUCL v. Union of India 59* held that in the absence of just and fair
procedure for regulating the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act, it is not possible
to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens under Section 19 and 21. Accordingly, the
court issued procedural safeguards to be observed before restoring to telephone tapping under
Section 5(2) of the Act. The Court further ruled that “right to privacy is a part of the right to
“life” and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in

58
K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

59
PUCL v Union of India 1997 (1) SCC 301

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 31

a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be
curtailed “except according to procedure established by law”.

In the case of *Shreya Singal v Union Of India60* ,To allow the personal liberty of the
people to be taken away by the application of that clause would be a flagrant violation of the
fairness and justness of procedure which is implicit in the provisions of Article 21

5.3 Violation Of Article 20

The Double Jeopardy principle was existed in India prior to the enforcement of the
Constitution of India. It was enacted under in section 26. Section 26 states that “provision as
to offences punishable under two or more enactments,- where an act or omission constitutes
an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted or
punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice
for the same offence.In Constitution of India, Double Jeopardy is incorporated under Article
20(2) and it is one of fundamental right of the Indian Constitution.

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution provides protection in respect of conviction for offences,
and article 20(2) contains the rule against double jeopardy which says that “no person shall be
prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once.” The protection under clause (2)
of Article 20 of Constitution of India is narrower than the American and British laws against
Double Jeopardy.

The Supreme Court in the recent case of *Monica Bedi v State of Andhra Pradesh61* has
ruled that a passport on fictitious name amounted to a double jeopardy for her as a Portuguese
court too had earlier convicted her for owning forged passport.

In the *State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte and anr 62., *The Constitution Bench of this Court while
dealing with the issue of double jeopardy under Article 20(2), held: “To operate as a bar the
second prosecution and the consequential punishment there under, must be for “the same
offence”. The crucial requirement therefore for attracting the Article is that the offences are
the same i.e. they should be identical. If, however, the two offences are distinct, then not

60
Shreya Singal v Union Of India writ petition no : 167 of 2012

61
Monica Bedi v State of A P (2011) 1 SCC 284
62
State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte AIR 1961 SC 578

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 32

withstanding that the allegations of facts in the two complaints might be substantially similar,
the benefit of the ban cannot be invoked. It is, therefore, necessary to analyze and compare
not the allegations in the two complaints but the ingredients of the two offences and see
whether their identity is made out. This is made clear by the concluding portion of the section
which refers to “shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence”. If the offences
are not the same but are distinct, the ban imposed by this provision also cannot be invoked.”

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS
 33

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited the

Court may please adjudge and declare that :

1. THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART.226 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS

MAINTAINABLE.
2. MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND
MANIPULATION ACT IS NOT LEGISLATIVELY COMPETENT.
3. MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND
MANIPULATION ACT 2020 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF CONSITUTION
OF INDIA

4. MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020 VIOLATES ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF
CONSITUTION OF INDIA

5. MAYOORSTHAN PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOOD AND

MANIPULATION ACT 2020 VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF CONSITUTION
OF INDIA

Or the court may pass any other order that may deem fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good faith.

MEMORANDUM FORPETITIONERS