12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION.

Team Code: NMCC-09A

12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT

COURT COMPETITION, 2021

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI

APPLICATION U/S 151 CPC

Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure

In the matter of

SEIJI & Ors.

- Applicant -

v.

REPUBLIC OF NANDA & Ors.

- Respondent -

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

I
- MEMORANDUM for PETITIONERS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

- TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS - ..................................................................................................... IV

- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES - .......................................................................................................... VI

- STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION - ................................................................................................ IX

- STATEMENT OF FACTS - ............................................................................................................. X

- ISSUES RAISED - .......................................................................................................................... XI

- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS - .................................................................................................... XII

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED -............................................................................................................ 1

1. THAT BLOCKING INDU’S ACCESS TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES ON

SEIJI IS LAWFUL. ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 RESTRICTING ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT’S OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 12 ....... 1

1.2. THE DENIAL OF INFORMATION UNDER ART. 19(1)(A) ............................................................. 2

2. THAT THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI SHOULD BE UPHELD BY THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KALBARI ............................................................................................................. 3

2.1 COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT UNDER COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 ..................................................... 3

2.2 FAIR USE POLICY VIOLATED UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAW ........................................................ 6

3. THAT RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE IT (GUIDELINES FOR INTERMEDIARIES AND DIGITAL MEDIA

ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. ................................................................... 8

3.1. PART II OF THE IT RULES, 2021 IS CONSTITUTIONAL .............................................................. 8

3.1.1 PART II OF THE IT RULES DOESN’T INFRINGE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ........................ 9

3.1.1 PART II OF THE IT RULES DOESN’T INFRINGE RIGHT TO PRIVACY ................................ 10

4. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SEIJI FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION IS
INVALID IN LAW. .......................................................................................................................... 12

4.1. NEWS AGGREGATOR UNDER IT RULES 2021.......................................................................... 12

4.2. SEIJI IS A NEWS AGGREGATOR. .............................................................................................. 13

II
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

- PRAYER - ................................................................................................................................. XIV

III
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

- TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS -

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

& AND

¶ PARAGRAPH

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr. ANOTHER

eg. EXAMPLE

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

i.e. THAT IS

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

IT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Ltd. LIMITED

Ors. OTHERS

IV
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

p. PAGE NUMBER

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

§ SECTION

v. VERSUS

W.R.T WITH REFERENCE TO

SSMI SIGNIFICANT SOCIAL MEDIA INTERMEDIARY

V
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES -

CASE LAWS

AUTHORITY REFERRED
IN PP.

1. Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, 1996 PTR 142. 5

2. SK Dutt v. Law Book Co. and Ors., AIR 570 (All. HC:1954). 5

3. Hubbard v Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84. 6

4. RG Anand v. Delux Film and Ors., AIR 1613 (1978) 7

5. M/s. Blackwood & Sons Ltd. v. A. Parasuramathe, AIR 1959 Mad. 410. 7

6. Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No. 754 of 2016. 9

STATUTES

1. The Information Technology Act, 2000. 1

2. Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. 1

3. Information Technology (The Computer Emergency Response Team and 1

Manner of Performing Functions and Duties) Rules, 2013.

4. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media 1,3,7

Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

5. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3

6. Constitution of India, 1950. 5

VI
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

7. Copyright Act, 1957. 1,2,3

BOOKS & ARTICLES

1. MEGHA KAVERI, “IS IT RIGHT FOR GOVERNMENT SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS 1

TO BLOCK USERS?”, THE NEWS MINUTE. SEPTEMBER 28, 2019.

2. Billah, Muhammad Masum & Albarashdi, Saleh, Fair or Free Use of 3

Copyrighted Materials in Education and Research and the Limit of Such
Use Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 422-448, CHICAGO-KENT JOURNAL OF

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (March 20, 2018).

3. OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Copyright and 4

Fair Use | Office of the General Counsel (harvard.edu) (Nov. 2, 2021).

4. SUSAN ŠTRBA INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW AND ACCESS TO 5

EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: EXPLORING MULTILATERAL
LEGAL AND QUASI-LEGAL SOLUTIONS, 162 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
2012).

5. YOGESH KOLEKAR, ESSENTIALS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW 6

(Notion Press 2015).

6. Gov. Announces New Social Media Rules to Curb its Misuse, THE HINDU 7
(Feb. 25, 2021).

7. CENSORSHIP - THE CENTRE FOR INETRNET AND SOCIETY, 7

HTTP://EDITORS.CIS-INDIA.ORG/ABOUT/SUBSTANTIVE-AREAS/DIGITAL-

PLURALISM/CENSORSHIP (last visited Oct. 5, 2021).

8. Legal Hole in Online Draft, TELEGRAPH (Jan. 3, 2019). 8,9

VII
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

9. Arunima Bhattacharjee, Impact of IT Rules 2021 on News — News 12,13

Aggregators and Publishers, MEDIANAMA, (June 14. 2021).

10. Joan Calzada & Richard Gil, What Do News Aggregators Do? Evidence 13
from Google News in Spain and Germany, BERKMAN CENTRE FOR

INTERNET AND SOCIETY.1

11. T.K. Arun, India Should Bring In Legislation That Mandates News Media 13
Aggregators To Share Revenue With Creators, ECONOMIC TIMES (Feb. 20,
2021).

12. Seema Jhingan, Priyam Raj Kumar, Code of Ethics under the Information 13
Technology Rules, 2021, MONDAQ, (Oct. 7, 2021).
https://www.mondaq.com/india/media-entertainment-law/1118278/code-
of-ethics-under-the-information-technology-rules-2021-stay-orders-by-
the-high-courts-of-bombay-and-madras. (last visited Nov. 1, 2021)

13. Kimberley Isbell, The rise of the News Aggregator: Legal Implications and 13
Best Practices, BERKMAN CENTRE FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY.

VIII
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

- STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION -

With reference to the circumstances that have been presented in the instant case, the Appellants
humbly submit to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari under Section 151 of Code
of Civil Procedure.

IX
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

- STATEMENT OF FACTS -

- BACKGROUND -
Republic of Nanda, a country amongst the heaviest internet bandwidth per capita users, was
scheduled to elect their Prime Minister in 2018. Samar Pratap, affiliated with the Tandav Party
was appointed for the same. His election action plan profoundly dependent on various forms of
communication available on the internet.
- SEIJI -
Seiji is an online website, wholly-owned and created in Nanda that allows its users to propagate
information anonymously and hence was the preferred social media medium in the country. It acts
as facilitator of information for different content. It also became a platform for the opposition to
assert opinions and owing to this the polarity of social media kept on surging. The consequence of
this led to the internet becoming a forum of hate and sharing schismatic opinions and therefore
Seiji allowed the option to block other users. Meanwhile the internet also surfaced as a medium to
transmit information about Government policies and activities of various ministries.
- THE INCIDENT -
A legislation introduced in 2019 to reorganize the States of Nanda on population to ensure an
equal number of residents. This was done with the aim of making governance easier.
- THE ISSUE -
Indu’s access was blocked and thus she approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kalbarri seeking
directions to the government and the Prime Minister to allow access to all official and personal
accounts of the government members and the Opposition Party. Under the new IT Rules, Seiji
was listed as a news aggregator. Seiji challenged the foreign funding notice before the Hon'ble
High Court of Kalbari and the Constitutionality of Rule 3 to 7 of the Information Technology
(Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
- THE DISPUTE -
After the aforementioned situation, the The Hon’ble High Court was faced with four distinct issues
involving Seji, the Government, the Opposition Party, and Balbir Sen. Each issue was listed before
a division bench and the Chief Justice noticing the common parties and facts decided to restructure
the issues, as follows, and form a three-judge bench to hear them together.

X
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

- ISSUES RAISED -

- ISSUE 1 -

WHETHER BLOCKING INDU’S ACCESS TO THE PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS OF PRIME
MINISTER, CABINET MINISTERS, AND THE UNP ON SEIJI IS UNLAWFUL?

- ISSUE 2 -

WHETHER THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI SHOULD BE UPHELD OR DISMISSED BY

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI

- ISSUE 3 -

WHETHER RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (GUIDELINES FOR

INTERMEDIARIES AND DIGITAL MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?

- ISSUE 4 -

WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SEIJI FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION
IS VALID IN LAW?

XI
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS -

[I]
THAT BLOCKING INDU’S ACCESS TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES
ON SEIJI IS LAWFUL.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari that the government of the
Republic of Nanda extensively uses Seiji as a medium for communicating and circulating useful
information and providing regular updates on various decisions and policies of the Government of
the Republic of Nanda. It is in consonance with the constitutional provisions and based on personal
choice for the official government accounts to block Indu’s access on the social media platform
Seiji in accordance with definition of State under Art. 12 read with Art. 19(1)(a). Therefore, the
blocking of Indu’s access to the accounts of the government authorities on Seiji is lawful.

[II]
THAT THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI SHOULD BE UPHELD BY THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KALBARI
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari that the academic research paper
authored by Balbir Sen that is the source material for the video would fall in the purview of
copyright under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Thus, Balbir Sen, is endowed with certain
exclusive rights as guaranteed under the Copyright Act, 1957. Dhriti Tiwari is liable for copyright
infringement under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and in violation of the fair use policy
under the copyright law. Therefore that the order of district of Kalbari should be upheld by the
Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari.

[III]

THAT RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE IT (GUIDELINES FOR INTERMEDIARIES AND DIGITAL MEDIA

ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari the IT Rules 2021 strive to answer
individuals' concerns without compromising on individual's privacy or personal rights, whilst still
preserving digital sovereignty and therefore cannot be deemed unconstitutional in the eyes of law
by all the required stipulations and conditions.
XII
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

Hence, it is submitted that Rules 3 to 7 of the It (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are constitutional.

[IV]
THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SEIJI FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION IS
VALID IN LAW.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari that Seiji can be conclusively
placed under the category of a news aggregator as it satisfies the requisite conditions for the same.
Thus, the notice which has been issued against it by the Government under the Foreign
Contributions Regulations Act for receiving foreign contributions is valid and legal in the eyes of
law as it falls under the purview of the aforementioned law.

XIII
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED -

1. THAT BLOCKING INDU’S ACCESS TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES ON

SEIJI IS LAWFUL.
1.1 RESTRICTING ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT’S OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 12
1. It is humbly submitted that the blocking Indu’s access to the accounts of Prime Minister,
Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP on Seiji is lawful.
2. In accordance with Article 12 of the Constitution of Republic of Nanda, which provides the
definition of ‘State’ as “the State includes the Government and Parliament of Nanda and the
Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within
the territory of Nanda or under the control of the Government of India”, the accounts of the
government authorities on Seiji fall under the purview of State under Article 12.1
3. The government of the Republic of Nanda extensively uses Seiji as a medium for
communicating and circulating useful information and providing regular updates on various
decisions and policies of the Government of the Republic of Nanda.2 All the Ministers utilized
Seiji to intimate the general masses about the activities they undertook. In addition, even the
Prime Minister, the head of the Government, was an active and regular user of the digital
platform.3
4. The usage of a platform is based on personal choice and the actions of blocking a particular
account is done in order to avoid any kind of inconvenience, and future communication with
that account. This information when read in consonance with the text of Article 12 shows that
the government provides public service and facilitation of information by using Seiji as a
medium of communication.4
5. Article 12 of the Constitution of Nanda states that the purview of State shall include the
Parliament of Nanda, the Legislature and the Governments of each of the states, including the
ministers who directly function under the control, discretion and direction of the Government
of Nanda; unless some other context is required otherwise.5

1
India Const. Art. 12.
2
Moot Proposition, ¶ 16.
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Supra note 1.
1
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

6. In pursuance of the aforementioned explanation of the definition of State, all the Ministers and
authorities that function directly under the control, discretion and direction of the Government
of Nanda are under the purview of State under Article 12.6 There is no deniability of the fact
that the government, by the way of its accounts on Seiji is part of the State as defined under
Art. 12 of the Constitution, yet the article is not actionable in the court of law and hence the
same cannot be enforced.7
1.2. THE DENIAL OF INFORMATION UNDER ART. 19(1)(A)
7. The blocking of Indu’s social media accounts by the Government is not an unreasonable and
unlawful denial of information under 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Nanda.
8. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Nanda guarantees the freedom of speech and expression
to the citizens.8 In the instant case, Seiji acts as the prime platform for the exchange of
information9 and thus blocking the access of Indu to the official government accounts
precludes Indu of the important updates and information that are made available through
Seiji.10
9. Government services in Nanda are increasingly making their presence felt on social media.11
These include government and ministerial departments giving out information and updates.
Undoubtedly, social media, that too something as popular as Seiji is a platform to converse and
exchange ideas, and blocking an individual on the same, that too from the side of the
governmental authorities, might be an action of requirement, but nowhere illegal.12
10. The Republic of Nanda's government makes considerable use of Seiji as a means of
communicating and disseminating relevant information, as well as providing frequent updates
on the government's different decisions and policies. Seiji was used by all of the Ministers to
inform the general public about their actions. Furthermore, the Prime Minister, who is the head
of the government, was a frequent and active user of the internet site.13

6
Supra note 1.
7
M P Jain
8
India Const. art. 19 cl.1 (a).
9
Moot Proposition, ¶ 16.
10
Moot Proposition, ¶ 6.
11
Id.
12
Megha Kaveri, Is it right for government social media accounts to block users, THE NEWS MINUTE. (Sept. 28
2019).
13
Id.
2
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

11. All the accounts that are created on Seiji are equal in their nature and blocking Indu’s account
from the accounts of the Prime Minister, Government, and the UNP is not an infringement of
Art. 19(1)(a) because the same has not resulted in stopping Indu from accessing her Seiji
Account, or has in any way obstructed her freedom of expression or speech.14 Since, every
account is of an equal face value and it is upon the particular account holders’ will to block, or
give access to any other account.
12. Thus, the action of Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP of blocking Indu’s Access
to their accounts is not unlawful and arbitrary in accordance with Art. 12 read with Art.
19(1)(a).15

Hence it is humbly submitted that blocking Indu’s access to the Accounts of the Government
Authorities on Seiji is lawful.

2. THAT THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT OF KALBARI SHOULD BE UPHELD BY THE

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KALBARI

13. Balbir Sen, the author of the research paper based on which the video was created had sent a
copyright infringement notice to Dhriti and Seiji. The notice stated that since his research was
used to benefit a particular party in the election and thus it constituted a violation of the fair
use policy. Dhriti Tiwari approached the District Court under this issue which further held that
the sharing of contents of Balbir Sen’s research through a video without prior authorization
constituted a violation of fair use policy.16
2.1 COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT UNDER COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
14. It is humbly submitted that the order of the District Court of Kalbari should be upheld by the
Hon’ble High Court of Kalbari.
15. Dhriti Tiwari, Minister for Technology and Communication, shared a video along with her
opinion from her personal account on Seiji which was based on a research paper authored by
Balbir Sen. The video was essentially centered on the question of failure of the leftist ideology
and the subsequent inadequacy of them to govern effectively.17

14
Supra Note 12.
15
Supra Note 12.
16
Moot Proposition, ¶ 14.
17
Id.
3
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

16. The public outcry followed it with severe criticism and questioning of the opposition parties
on the claims made following which Balbir Sen effectively sent a copyright infringement
notice to Seiji and Dhriti Tiwari as the video violated the fair use policy of the research paper.18
17. In the instant case, the academic research paper authored by Balbir Sen 19,which is the source
material for the video, would fall in consonance with works in which copyright subsists under
Section 1320 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The section essentially states that copyright 21 shall
subsist in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.22
18. According to Section 1723 of the Copyright Act, 1957, Balbir Sen is the first owner of the
copyright. The section essentially states that the author of an original literary, dramatic or
artistic work shall be the first owner of copyright and entitled to all the rights endowed by
copyright.24
19. In pursuance to this, Section 1425 of the Copyright Act, 1957 states that copyright means the
exclusive right to do or authorize the reproduction, circulation, translation, adaptation in its
very essence, in respect of a work or any substantial part of the said work.26 Thus, the paper
authored by Balbir Sen would requisitely satisfy the conditions under section 14 to avail the
exclusive rights of copyright and Balbir Sen being the first owner would have the authorized
access and endowed authority to the usage of the rights under copyright.
20. Thus, the research paper is protected and its author, Balbir Sen, is endowed with certain
exclusive rights as guaranteed under the aforementioned section in the Copyright Act, 1957.27
21. The research paper is protected from unauthorized circulation and unintended use without the
approval and authorization of the author. Essentially preventing and protecting against the
misuse of the creation by a third party.28 The provision of protection of copyright is

18
Supra note 1.
19
Id.
20
Copyright Act, 1957, § 13.
21
Vaibhavi Pandey, Fair dealing in Copyrights: Is the Indian Law Competent Enough to Meet the Current
Challenges? MONDAQ (Mar. 13. 2014).
22
Supra note 5.
23
Copyright Act, 1957, § 17.
24
Id.
25
Copyright Act, 1957, § 14.
26
Id.
27
Ishan Sambhar, Concept of Fair Use and Fair Dealing in Copyright, MONDAQ (May 13. 2020).
28
Billah, Muhammad Masum & Albarashdi, Saleh, Fair or Free Use of Copyrighted Materials in Education and
Research and the Limit of Such Use Vol. 17, No. 2, 422-448, CHICAGO-KENT JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
(March 20, 2018).
4
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

encompassed under the Copyright Act, 1957 in the event of violation, which is termed as
copyright infringement.
22. In pursuance of the research paper subsisting under copyright, the remedy of infringement as
under the Copyright Act shall be applicable. Infringement of copyright as defined under
Section 5129 of the Copyright Act, 1957 states that “any person who, without a licence granted
by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under the act, or in contravention
of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority
under the act, does anything that the owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to do under
the act”30, shall be deemed liable for infringement under the act.
23. In the landmark case, Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma31 the court established the three-factor
test for the issue of fair-dealing under the Indian copyright law. In each case, the court has to
take into consideration, firstly the quantum and value of the matter taken in relation to the
comments or criticism, secondly the purpose for which it is taken and lastly, the likelihood of
competition between the two works to determine the infringement of copyright.
24. In the case SK Dutt v. Law Book Co. and Ors.32, it was held that in order for infringement to
exist, a substantial portion of the copyright owner’s work should have been appropriated, or
reproduced. In the instant case, the very subject matter of the research paper has been shared
through the video and thus the copyright infringement is established.
25. In the instant case, Balbir Sen being the first owner of the copyright is entitled to authorize the
reproduction, circulation, translation, adaptation of the research paper. The sharing of the video
based upon the research paper essentially amounts to infringing upon the exclusive right of the
first owner33 under copyright enshrined in Section 5134 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Sharing of
the contents of Balbir Sen’s research without prior authorization to the masses through the
platform of Seiji would amount to circulation and even reproduction.

29
Copyright Act, 1957, § 51.
30
Supra note 14.
31
Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, 1996 PTR 142.
32
SK Dutt v. Law Book Co. and Ors., AIR 570 (All. HC:1954).
33
Supra note 8.
34
Supra note 14.
5
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

26. The facts of the case35 satisfy the requisites for the liability of copyright infringement under
Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.36 Thus, Dhriti Tiwari is liable for copyright
infringement under the aforementioned section.
2.2 FAIR USE POLICY VIOLATED UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAW
27. In the instant case, the video shared by Dhriti Tiwari was based on a research paper authored
by Mr. Balbir Sen favors the government and runs against the ideology of the opposition
parties. Thus, the favoring of one side over the other is not in accordance with the fair use
policy.37
28. The fair use or fair dealing policy under the intellectual property & copyright laws of Nanda
deals with the exclusion of certain material from the scope of copyright infringement. Section
5238 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 provides for certain exceptions to infringement of copyright
and the said provision allows limited use of copyrighted works without the permission of the
copyright holder. Lord Denning in the case Hubbard v Vosper39 essentially established the
defence of fair dealing by defining the quantum and extent of its applicability.
29. The use of copyrighted works falling under the ambit of fair use depends on a multitude of
factors.40 Firstly, the main factor is the purpose of use of the copyrighted work. Secondly, it is
dependent on the nature of work.41If an essential part or essential feature of the copyrighted
work has been used, it cannot be considered fair use or fair dealing.42
30. In the instant case, the research paper’s essential intent and purpose has been exploited and
moreover misused by Dhriti Tiwari as Balbir Sen did not intend or purport the paper to benefit
one party or group rather it was meant to honor the universal fair use policy. 43

35
Moot Proposition, ¶ 17.
36
Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.
37
Supra note 36.
38
Copyright Act, 1957, § 52.
39
Hubbard v Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84.
40
Sir Hugh Laddie, Judge of the High Court of Justice, England, Copyright: Over-Strength, Over-Regulated, Over-
Rated, Stephen Stewart Lecture Before the IP Institute, (1995), 18 EUROPEAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REVIEW 253
– 60 (1996).
41
Pierre Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1105, 1107 (1990).
42
MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, FAQs on IPR and Copyright, Government of India,
2015.
43
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-
use#:~:text=Fair%20use%20is%20the%20right%20to%20use%20a,very%20creativity%20the%20law%20is%20des
igned%20to%20foster.
6
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

31. In the instant case, the sharing of the video based on the research paper violates the very
essence of fair use policy under Section 5244 of Copyright Act, 1957 which precludes a work
from infringement of copyright. The copyrighted work should not be the substantial part of the
original content or work that was created.45 It is an infringement to produce a substantial part
of a copyrighted work without due permission and authorization.
32. Hence, the copyrighted work is to be reproduced in a manner that it falls within the ambit of
fair use or fair dealing by being transformative when compared with the original work used in
the final content prepared.46
33. In the instant case, the video shared by Dhriti Tiwari goes beyond scope and ambit of fair
dealing or fair use such that the content created is not transformative when compared with the
original research paper rather it has been reproduced in a misconstrued and ambiguous
manner.47
34. The case RG Anand v. Delux Film and Ors.48 held that the copy or replica of an idea cannot be
the basis for the defence of fair dealing. There needs to be a substantiate use of the original
copyright work only to the extent that it is within the ambit of fair use and not the essential
subject matter or idea of the work. In the instant case, the video shared by Dhriti attempts to
replicate the idea or subject matter of the research paper, thus the defence of fair dealing would
not be applicable herein.
35. It was held in the landmark case of M/s. Blackwood & Sons Ltd. v. A. Parasuramathe49 court
held that ‘in order to constitute a fair dealing there must be no intention on the part of the
alleged infringer, to compete with the copyright holder of the work and to derive profits from
such competition and also, the motive of the alleged infringer in dealing with the work must
not be improper.’50 Thus, to benefit from the fair use/fair dealing exception the user must not
intend to compete with the original copyright holder and must not attempt and surpass the work
of the copyright holder as theirs and neither make improper use of the original copyrighted
work.

44
Supra note 21.
45
ALKA CHAWLA, ‘LAW OF COPYRIGHT’ (Lexis Nexis, 2020).
46
Id.
47
Supra note 24.
48
RG Anand v. Delux Film and Ors., AIR 1613 (1978).
49
M/s. Blackwood & Sons Ltd. v. A. Parasuramathe, AIR 1959 Mad. 410.
50
Id.
7
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

36. In the instant case, the sharing of the video intends to compete with the copyright holder and
contravenes and attempts to surpass the original work of the copyright holder by the prefixing
of Dhriti Tiwari’s opinion on the subject matter of the research paper.
37. Thus, in light of the aforementioned legal precedents and reasoning, Dhriti Tiwari is liable for
copyright infringement and the District Court ruling in the same context should be upheld by
the High Court.51
3. THAT RULE 3 TO 7 OF THE IT (GUIDELINES FOR INTERMEDIARIES AND DIGITAL MEDIA
ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.

38. It is humbly submitted that Rule 3 to 7 of the IT (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are constitutional.
39. The IT Act 2000 is a Parliamentary Act that was notified on October 17, 2000.52 The United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law produced a Model Law on Electronic
Commerce in 199653, which encouraged its adoption. Later, the Information Technology
(Amendment) Act, 2008 was notified.54 In February 2021, the Information Technology
(Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 were notified in
the Gazette, substituting the Intermediaries Rules, 2011.55

3.1. PART II OF THE IT RULES, 2021 IS CONSTITUTIONAL

40. Rules 3 to 7 are part of Part II of the Impugned Rules and are not contrary to fundamental
rights. The Internet, unlike the conventional methods that served as an avenue for discussions
and debates, is knowingly meant to be open to all without any structural barriers. The Republic
of Nanda is known to operate Seiji as a medium for political discussions, announcements and
played a vital role during electronic campaigning in elections.56 It is with reference to this
situation that the necessity for valid and constitutional constraints to make sure that a safe space
is maintained is necessary.

51
Supra note 18.
52
YOGESH KOLEKAR, ESSENTIALS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW (Notion Press 2015).
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Gov. Announces New Social Media Rules to Curb its Misuse, THE HINDU (Feb. 25, 2021).
56
Moot Proposition, ¶ 6.
8
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

41. The IT Rules 2021 seek to provide average users of social media platforms and OTT platforms
with a framework for redressal and speedy settlement of their grievances with the assistance
of a Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) who is a resident of India. Special attention has been
placed on protecting women and minors from sexual assault, disinformation, and other forms
of social media abuse.57
42. The laws arrive at a time when the government is working hard to safeguard the integrity and
sovereignty of cyberspace and personal information. Social media is becoming an increasingly
significant element of an individual's life. Social Media platforms like WhatsApp presently
boasts 340 million users in the nation, making it the nation's biggest subscriber base.58
43. With such a large population reliant on social media platforms, society cannot afford to
overlook existing and growing obstacles such as the continual dissemination of fake news,
prevalent abuse of the platforms to share morphed pictures of girls, counterfeits, and other
content that jeopardise women's dignity and cause substantial risk.
44. Offensive language, defamatory information, and hateful speeches have become all too
frequent on social sites.59 These platforms' algorithm for optimizing views and adverts
frequently fail to discern between relevant or beneficial material and abusive content and false
news, magnifying them in no or very little time.
45. In light of these emerging threats, the Supreme Court ordered the governing party in the
Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India to limit and prevent the propagation of
offensive messages and videos on numerous social media sites which have the potential to
incite violent protests and lynching of any kind.60

3.1.1 PART II OF THE IT RULES DOESN’T INFRINGE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

46. It is humbly submitted that in light of this precedent the Government posed the idea to form a
set of guidelines to help control the dissemination of fake information. As a result, the new
guidelines are consistent with past Supreme Court rulings.
47. Failure to comply with the guidelines may result in the revocation of the organizations'
'intermediary' status (a safe harbor to escape liability for the material that its users upload) and

57
Id.
58
Mansoor Iqbal, ‘WhatsApp Revenue and Usage Statistics (May 13. 2021).
59
Id.
60
Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No. 754 of 2016.
9
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

may bring reprimand or even punishment under the law.61 The government claims that the
restrictions are not arbitrary nor unexpected62, citing the fact that the draught rules were made
available for public comment, to which various people, industry groups, and organisations
reacted. Before implementing them, the comments were thoroughly examined, and an inter-
ministerial meeting was conducted.63
48. Freedom of expression and speech is a fundamental element of every democracy. 64 No
freedom, however, is total or entirely unconstrained. Since the promulgation of the
Constitution, the requirement of striking the correct balance between basic rights and
determining the proportionality of a limitation has been a continuing struggle.65

3.1.1 PART II OF THE IT RULES DOESN’T INFRINGE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

49. It is humbly submitted that in 2017, the Apex Court stated that the government should develop
standards to delete child pornography, rape and gang rape images, videos, and sites from
content hosting providers as well as other applications. According to the guidelines,
intermediaries are required to delete or deactivate information that is harmful to people's safety
and dignity within 24 hours of receiving complaints.
50. Such complaints might be submitted by the individual or by someone acting on his or her
behalf.66 Knowing the "first originator of information" (also known as "traceability") of
messages that lead to violence, civil unrest, terrorism, sexual assault, or a national security risk,
according to the government, falls under reasonable exclusions to the Right to Privacy - which,
once more, is not absolute under the Constitution.67
51. Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules talks about tracking of information in accordance with Section 69 of
the IT Act.68 Government has claimed that traceability will be enforced only in cases of

61
Supra note 55.
62
Rules Protect Rights of Users, Were Framed Because Social Media Giants Failed to Do So: IT And Law Minister
Ravi Shankar Prasad, TOI (June 1. 2021).
63
Id.
64
VIJAY PAL, Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021,
MONDAQ, www.mondaq.com.
65
Id.
66
WhatsApp moves Delhi High Court against IT Intermediary Rules 2021 mandating it to trace first originator of
information, (May 26, 2021), BAR AND BENCH, www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/whatsapp-moves-delhi-high-
court-against-it-intermediary-rules-2021-trace-originator-information.
67
Id.
68
it rules
10
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

"extremely grave offences" that endanger India's sovereignty.69 Furthermore, it would be

accomplished without jeopardising end-to-end encryption. The responsibility, however, will
be on the tech firms to devise a technical remedy.
52. In addition to this, keeping in mind the privacy of the users, Rule 4(7) uses the clause
“voluntary” in terms of verification and also adds that this information will not be used for any
other incentive unless the individual consents to it expressly.70
53. Further, Rule 6 of the IT Rules, 2021 expressly states that the State, with reasons recorded in
written, can also bring about any intermediary other than SSMI’s to comply with the rules only
if the dissemination of information takes place that risks the integrity of India.71 The rules,
vividly, are created to make online dissemination of information fact proofed and the
environment safe for any and every user.
54. The Rules were notified in the Gazette of India on February 25, 2021 and the intermediaries
were provided with a fair stipulated time period of three months to comply with it. Post which,
if not complied, under Rule 7 of the IT Rules, 2021, the intermediary shall be liable under apt
provisions of IPC.72 Hence, the rule in no way reeks of arbitrariness as the intermediaries are
provided with a comfortable time period to comply, appoint officers for grievances and nodal
individuals.
55. In the case of Facebook v. Union of India73, the Apex Court stated that it really is critical that
there be a properly structured mechanism in place to identify the individuals, institutions, and
organisations which are the initiators of such information, and that such sensitive data may
need to be obtained through intermediaries. The Supremem Court has time and again discussed
and defined the very core of privacy in many precedents. The IT Rules, 2021 were framed and
follow the statutory powers provided within the IT Act, 2000.74 Hence, they are proportionate.

69
Debopama Bhattacharya, the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, MANOHAR PARRIKAR INSTITUTE FOR
DEFENCE STUDIES (June 4. 2021).
70
It rules
71
it rules
72
it rules
73
Facebook v. Union of India,
74
It act 2000
11
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

56. The IT Rules 2021 strive to answer individuals' concerns without compromising on
individual's privacy or personal rights, whilst still preserving digital sovereignty and therefore
cannot be deemed unconstitutional in the eyes of law.

Hence it is humbly submitted that Rule 3 to 7 of the IT (Guidelines for Intermediaries and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are constitutional.

4. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SEIJI FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION IS
INVALID IN LAW.

57. Seiji is one of the most used platform for exchange of thoughts and ideas in the Republic of
Nanda. Prior to the introduction of the Information technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Seiji was considered an intermediary in the country.
But subsequent to the introduction of the said rules, Seiji was scheduled as a “news
aggregator”75.

4.1. NEWS AGGREGATOR UNDER IT RULES 2021.

58. It is humbly submitted that the notice issued by the Government to Seiji for the alleged
violation is valid in law.
59. Seiji, other than playing a crucial role in the polity of Republic of Nanda, had a magnificent
business model which made room for it for significant revenue from advertisement and
planned and strategic use of user data. This allowed several foreign investors to show keen
interest in investing in Seiji. In the month of August 2021, Seiji struck a huge deal of a heavy
investment with Axel Inc., which is an investment firm based in the United States of
America.76
60. However, within a few days of receiving the said investment, Seiji was served a notice for the
violation of the Section 3(1)(g) of the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act, 2010.77 The
government stated that Seiji was a news aggregator and that it also played a prominent role in
shaping and structuring the political affairs of the Republic of Nanda. Therefore, it could not

75
Joan Calzada and Richard Gil, ‘What do news aggregators do? Evidence from Google News in Spain and
Germany’’ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=283755.
76
Moot Proposition, ¶ 16.
77
Foreign Contributions Regulations Act, 2010, Section 3(1)(g).
12
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

accept foreign funding. Seiji has challenged the notice before the Hon'ble High Court of
Kalbari.78
61. Seiji is an app and an online website, created and wholly-owned in Nanda, and is the preferred
social media in the country. It allowed users to share posts, comment, and also disseminate
information anonymously.79 Similar to Twitter, Seiji also required users to post in not more
than 150 words. However, Seiji did not create or manufacture any content of its own, but
rather facilitated posting various types of content.80
62. According to Rule 2(o)81 of the Information technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, “News Aggregator” means any entity which, performs a
significant and crucial role in determining the news and the content of current affairs which
is being made available; makes available to users a computer resource that enable such users
to access the news and current affairs content which is aggregated, curated and presented by
such entity.82

4.2. SEIJI IS A NEWS AGGREGATOR.

63. The most relevant section of the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act, 2010, the act under
which Seiji is been sent a notice by the government of Nanda, is Section 3(1)(g)83 which states
that “no foreign contribution shall be accepted by any association or company engaged in the
production or broadcast of audio news or audio visual news or current affairs programmes
through any electronic mode, or any other electronic form as defined in clause (r) of sub-
section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act , 200084 or any other mode of mass
communication”.85
64. When section 3(1)(g) of the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act, 2010, and Rule 2(o) of
the Information technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,

78
Moot Proposition, ¶ 16.
79
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.
80
Ibid.
81
Information technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, Rule 2(o).
82
Ibid.
83
Foreign Contributions Regulations Act, 2010, Section 3(1)(g).
84
Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 2.
85
Ibid.
13
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

2021 are read together, it is conclusive that news aggregators in India are not allowed to
receive any contribution from foreign resources.86
65. Seiji, plays a massive role in shaping the stricture of the polity of Nanda. 87 And a testimony
to that fact is the over-the-top use of the platform by various ministers, the Prime Minister
and other people who dissent in the discourse in the Republic of Nanda.88 The facilitation of
news and the spread of a particular post is highly based on algorithm and almost everyone in
the government use the platform as a mean to convey their latest policies as well as ideas and
opinions.89
66. Seiji’s mechanism of combating copyright infringement and policing the content posted on
the platform is a testament to the fact that it plays a crucial role in determining the news and
the content of current affairs which is being made available to the users of the application.90
In addition, the algorithm of Seiji which makes the content that tags the people in the
government more visible, makes available to users a computer resource that enable such users
to access the news and current affairs content which is aggregated, curated and presented by
Seiji.91
67. Another significant impact of the platform on the political dynamic of Nanda can be seen in
the results of the elections recently held, in which the party already in power (Samar’s Party)
won elections in 6 of the newly formed states. These 6 states were mostly right wing or red
states.92 Seiji, on its own, does create, or assist in determining the news by policing over the
content so posted and current affairs content being made available; makes available to users
a computer resource and the platform that facilitates and enables such users to access the news
and current affairs content which is aggregated, curated and presented by such entity.
68. It is humbly submitted that Seiji is used as a platform by the general masses of the Republic
of India, to voice their opinions. The same is done by people of all walks of life including the

86
Arunima Bhattacharjee, Impact of IT Rules 2021 On News — News Aggregators And Publishers, MEDIANAMA,
(June 14, 2021.)
87
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.
88
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
89
Supra Note 12.
90
TK Arun, India Should Bring In Legislation That Mandates News Media Aggregators To Share Revenue With
Creators, ECONOMIC TIMES. (February 20, 2021).
91
Moot Proposition, ¶ 11.
92
Clarifications, ¶ 12.
14
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

Prime Minister.93 There is no doubt to the fact that the platform is used extensively and there
is a mechanism to eliminate copyright infringement which is again a testament to the fact that
Seiji polices the content which is posted on its platform.94
69. News aggregators more often than not straddle both of these categories of organizations95,
that is, one of intermediaries and one for digital media organizations, a) because they
definitely perform the functions of intermediaries, in that they take content that they do not
vet and make it available for users; and b) because under the rules, certain obligations
applicable to them imply a certain amount of editorial control over that content or otherwise.96
70. Seiji is also an application which functions and relies on its set algorithm and the same is
totally based on the way one tweets or shares their opinion by tagging the people in the
government.97
71. There are, hence, several parameters in which Seiji can be conclusively placed under the
category of a news aggregator.98 And this is reason why the notice issues against it by the
Government under the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act for receiving foreign
contributions is valid and legal in the eyes of law.99
72. Therefore, according to Rule 2(o) of the Information technology (Intermediary Guidelines
and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Seiji is a news aggregator. 100 Seiji, being an
international model, as mentioned, closed a heavy investment deal with one Alex Inc. and as
per section 3(1)(g) of the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act, 2010, it is not permitted by
law to do so.101 Hence, the notice for this investment was served on Seiji and the same is not
illegal, and valid in law.

93
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
94
Supra Note 16.
95
Supra note 86.
96
Ibid.
97
Moot Proposition, ¶ 11.
98
Seema Jhingan, Priyam Raj Kumar, Code Of Ethics Under The Information Technology Rules, 2021, MONDAQ,
(Oct. 07, 2021.)
99
Ibid.
100
Supra Note 7.
101
Kimberley Isbell, The rise of the News Aggregator: Legal Implications and Best Practices, BERKMAN CENTRE
FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY WORKING.
15
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

Hence, it is humbly submitted that the notice issued by the Government to Seiji for the
alleged violation is invalid in law.

15
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -
 12TH SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION.

- PRAYER -

WHEREFORE, in the light of the questions presented, arguments advances and authorities cited,
the Respondents requests this Hon’ble Court to find, adjudge and declare that:

I. Blocking Indu’s access to the personal and official accounts of Prime Minister,
Cabinet Ministers, and the UNP on Seji is lawful;
II. The order of District Court of Kalbari should be dismissed;
III. Rules 3 to 7 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 are constitutional;
IV. The notice issued by the Government to Seiji for the alleged violation is valid in law.

In the alternative, pass any other relief which the Court may deem fit and proper.

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

(Respectfully Submitted)
________________________________________

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

1
- MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENTS -