BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TEAM CODE - L30

BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZENDIYA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZENDIYA

IN THE MATTER OF

SHARK-TOOTH INFOTECH PVT. …..……………………………….[PETITIONER]

VS

REPUBLIC OF ZENDIYA ………….…………………………….[RESPONDENT]

WRIT PETITION NO. ___/2022

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZENDIYA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................................7
ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...........................................................................................................9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .............................................................................................................11
ISSUE 1 - WHETHER THE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTUTION OF ZENDIYA
IS MAINTAINABLE?......................................................................................................................11
ISSUE 2 - WHETHER THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 306 AND 120B OF IPC ARE MADE
OUT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER COMPANY?............................................................................12
[2.1]That the Offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the Petitioner..................................12
[2.2]That the Offence under Section 120B of IPC is made out against the Petitioner................................13
ISSUE 3 - WHETHER THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER COMPANY IS LIABLE TO BE
QUASHED?..............................................................................................................................................14
ISSUE 4 - WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF A BAN ON THE GAME ‘DAREDEVIL’ IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT AND
ULTRA-VIRES THE CONSTITUTION..?...............................................................................................15
ISSUE 5 - WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONST. OF
ZENDIYA HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY THE REPUBLIC OF ZENDIYA (ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(a) &
19(1)(g) R/W ARTICLE 21)? ...................................................................................................................17
[5.1] That the Right under Article 14 of the Constitution is not violated ..................................................17
[5.2]That the Rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) are not violated ...............................................18
[5.3] That the Right under Article 21 of the Constitution is not violated...................................................20
PRAYER ........................................................................................................................................21
BIBLOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………...22

1
BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reports

App. Application

Art. Art.

Anr. Another

Co. Company

CrPC Code Of Criminal Procedure

Const. Constitution

Crl. Criminal

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable

IPC Indian Penal Code

IT Information Technology

Ltd. Limited

Ors Others

Pvt. Private

R.P Review Petition

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

2
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS

1. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union Of India And Other,(1981) 1 SCC 568 ……………10
2. Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.537 of 2000....10
3. Power Measurement Ltd. vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd, (2003) 2 AWC 1642 b..................10
4. Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, (1967) SCR 1 469...................................................................11
5. R. Pattusamy v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, Crl.R.P.No.41 of 1988 ................................12
6. Randhir Singh And Anr v. State Of Punjab, AIR (2004) SC 5097...........................................12
7. Esher Singh v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1363 of 2003 (with Criminal
Appeal Nos. 1523 and 1524 of 2003) ...........................................................................................12
8. S.C. Bahri v. State of Bihar, (1994) AIR 2420..........................................................................12
9. E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala, (1995) SCC 2 99..........................................................13
10. Noor Mohd. Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) SCR 1 119.....................14
11. Praveen Pradhan v. State Of Uttranchal & Anr, (2012) 9 SCC 734 .......................................15
Arnab Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12 ................................................................15
12. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 73.............................................................16
13. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass and Others, (1984) 2 SCC
600..................................................................................................................................................17
14. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, (1958) AIR 538...................................................17
15. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali, Sarkar, AIR (1952) SC 75.............................................18
16. Jupiter General Insurance Company, Ltd v. Rajagopalan and Others, AIR (1952) P H 9......18
17. The State Trading Corporation of India v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam,
(1964) SCR 4 89............................................................................................................................19
18. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat, AIR (2006) SC 212.......................20
19. M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors, (1995) 3 SCR 329.................................................20
20. Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) AIR 1988.....................................20
BOOKS
1. M P JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8TH EDITION LEXIS NEXIS. 2018)

CONSTITUTION

3
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

Constitution of India, 1949

Constitution of Zendiya…………………………………………………………………passim

STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Information Technology Act, 2000

LEGAL DATABASES REFERRED

1. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.

4
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zendiya under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Zendiya, that reads:

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part. –

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of

the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs

in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,

whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),

Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its

jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this Art. shall not be suspended otherwise provided for by this

Constitution.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in thecase on
behalf of the Respondent.

5
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.The Republic Of Zendiya is a south Asian democratic country and is one of the most populous
countries in the world.Shark Tooth Infotech Pvt. Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of
online game development that are predominantly made available on various Application stores
for mobile users. The company had its investors from countries like the United States of Steriya
and Republic of Chiniya who on two occasions had blocked the seat of Republic of Zendiya in
the United Nations.

2. In June 2020, the company introduced a game called ‘DareDevil’ for the mobile phone users
and the game was made available for download for free on mobile app stores. The online
activities of the youngsters increased at this time resulting in the rapid download of the game
from the app store.

[3] The game ‘DareDevil’ included difficult,unique and challenging tasks for its player, which
posed safety issues for the players. This caught the attention of the young population and it
spread like a wildfire as more and more people started downloading and playing the game on
their mobile. The players had to create an ID to start playing the game . After logging into the
game, tasks were provided to the player in different levels and they had to upload the videos of
them completing the task and the task admin confirmed their completion of the task and this
included dangerous tasks such as  street fights.

[4] With the popularity of the game and the failure of the company to regulate the eligibility
criteria of the players, school students also started playing the game.The last task was to commit
suicide by posting a logo of ‘DareDevil’ on one’s forehead and shouting out the slogan
‘DareDevil for Life’. Many incidents of youngsters and school going kids committing suicide by
the playing the game were reported. 

[5] The government took action against the increasing number of suicide and sent a notice to the
company to take down the game from app stores to which the company refused. To control the
suicide situation the government banned the app  as per the provision of Section 69A of The

6
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

Information Technology Act and initiated criminal proceedings against the company, its
directors and the game administrators under Section 306 and 120B of IPC. 

7
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PETITION UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZENDIYA

IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 306 AND 120B OF IPC ARE MADE
OUT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER COMPANY?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER COMPANY IS LIABLE TO BE

QUASHED?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF BAN ON THE GAME ‘DAREDEVIL’ IS

INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACT AND ULTRAVIRES THE CONSTITUTION?

ISSUE 5

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION OF ZENDIYA HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY THE REPUBLIC OF
ZENDIYA (ART. 14, 19(1)(A) & 19(1)(G) R/W ART. 21)?

8
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1 -Whether the Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Zendiya is maintainable?
The Counsel for the Respondent humbly submits before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
Petition under Art. 32 of the Const. of Zendiya is not maintainable as there has been no violation
of fundamental Rights of the Petitioner Companyunder Art. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) and Art. 21
of the Const.
Issue 2 - Whether the offences under Sections 306 and 120B of IPC are made out as against
the Petitioner company?
The Counsel for the Respondent humbly submits before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
offences under Sections 306 and 120B of IPC are made out as against the Petitionerbecause -
[2.1] the requirements for abetment under Section 107 of IPC is fulfilled and the Petitioner had
the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence; and [2.2] the requirements for
criminal conspiracy under Section 120A of IPC is met and there is necessary mens rea.
Issue 3 - Whether the FIR against the petitioner company is liable to be quashed?
The Counsel for the Respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the FIR
against the Petitioner Company is not to be quashed as the offences under Sections 360 and 120B
of IPC have been established against the Petitioner.
Issue 4 - Whether the imposition of a ban on the game ‘daredevil’ is consistent with the
provisions of the Information Technology act and ultra-vires the Constitution?
The Counsel for the Respondent humbly submits before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the ban
on the game ‘DareDevil’ is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Information Technology
Act under Section 69A read with Rule 9 of the Information Technology (Procedure and
Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009and does not ultra-vires
the Const. as it is within the scope of reasonable restrictions.
Issue 5 - Whether the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Zendiya
have been violated by the republic of zendiya (art. 14, 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) r/w art. 21)?
The Counsel for the Respondent humbly submits before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
Fundamental Rights - Art.s 14, 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) r/w Art. 21 guaranteed under the Const. of
Zendiya have not been violated by the Republic of Zendiya because The restrictions imposed are
reasonable and according to the procedure established by law.

9
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 - WHETHER THE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ZENDIYA IS MAINTAINABLE?

¶ 1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Petition under Art. 32 of
the Const. of Zendiya is not maintainable as there has been no violation of fundamental Rights of
the Petitioner Companyunder Art. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) and Art. 21 of the Const..

¶ 2. In the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union Of India And Others, the
maintainability of a writ under Art. 32 of the Const. was explained to be correlated to two factors
- a) the existence and violation of a fundamental right and, b) the question of locus standi to
initiate the proceeding. The locus of a person to file a proceeding depends on whether the person
possesses a legal right which is violated.

¶ 3. A company, not being a citizen, has no rights guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Const. And
hence cannot maintain a petition under Art. 32 for enforcement of these rights - was held in the
case of Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh. A company only has Fundamental
Rights enshrined under Art.s 14 and 21 of the Const. Therefore the petitioner Company has no
locus to maintain the writ for enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Art. 19 of the Const..

¶ 4. Art. 32(1) of the Const. provides that a regulation can only be challenged if it infringes any
fundamental rights, in absence of legislative competence or if it is an unreasonable law. The
Court also said that a regulation cannot be challenged apart from these contentions. It is humbly
submitted that in the present case, the petitioner cannot claim violation of Art. 14 independently
but the same is to be read with Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Const.1. The rights under Art. 19
is confined to the citizens of the country alone. In the present case, the ban was imposed by
evoking Section 69A of the IT Act, which is a constitutionally valid and reasonable statute
promulgated in the public’s interest, to prevent further incitement to suicide by the game
‘DareDevil,’ which does not invalidate any of the contentions.

¶ 5. Art. 21 of the Const. which guarantees the Right to Life and Liberty and includes the right to
livelihood is not an absolute right. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the event that the

1
Power Measurement Ltd. v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd, (2003) 2 AWC 1642 b

10
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

person’s rights are detrimental to public order. In the present case, the impact the game
‘DareDevil’ has on the public safety by instigating youngsters to commit suicide is a reasonable
reason to impose restrictions on the game and does not go against the provisions of the Const. of
Zendiya.

¶ 6. The counsel humbly submits that there have been no infringements of Fundamental Rights
of the Petitioner company guaranteed under Art. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) and Art. 21 of the
Const. of Zendiya and hence, the writ filed under Art. 32 of the Const. is not maintainable.

ISSUE 2 - WHETHER THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 306 AND 120B OF IPC
ARE MADE OUT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER COMPANY?

¶ 7. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the offences under Sections
306 and 120B ofIPC are made out as against the Petitioner Company Shark-Tooth.
[2.1] How the Offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the Petitioner
¶ 8. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the offence under Section 306 of IPC is
made out against the Petitioner Company as the requirements for abetment under Section 107 of
IPC is fulfilled and the Petitioner had the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence.
¶ 9. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC.The Apex Court in the case of Jamuna Singh
v. State of Bihar, held that - the offence of abetment is complete when the alleged abettor has
instigated another or engaged with another in a conspiracy to commit the offence. It is not
necessary for the offence of abetment that the act abetted must be committed.

¶ 10. Section 306 of the IPC defines Abetment of suicide as - “ If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶ 11. The necessities to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide is that there has been an
instance of a person committing suicide, and in the commission of so the accused has assumed
an active role by urging or deliberately supporting it with interactions. 2. The Supreme Court in
the case of Randhir Singh And Anr v. State Of Punjab substantiated on the involvementof the
mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of any thing. More active role which can

2
R. Pattusamy v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, Crl.R.P.No.41 of (1988).

11
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a parson can be said
to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.

¶ 12. The counsel humbly submits that in the present case, the Company had an active interaction
with the players of the game ‘DareDevil’ through the dangerous challenges they had to perform
and upload a video of them performing. At times they had to perform certain tasks more than
once to earn coins and advance forward, and through the process, they got engrossed in the
game. Including the last challenge of the game “commit suicide while shouting DareDevil for
life” is sufficient to establish the mens rea of the Company to instigate the player’s suicide.

[2.2] That the Offence under Section 120B IPC is made out against the Petitioner
¶ 13. Criminal conspiracy postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause
to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. It differs from other
offences in that mere agreement is made an offence even if no step is taken to carry out that
agreement3 .
¶ 14. It was held in the case of S.C. Bahri v. State of Bihar that where the conspiracy alleged is
with regard to commission of a crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120B read with
the provision of Section 120A IPC, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the
accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under
Section 120B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them as party to the
conspiracy would not be necessary.

¶ 15. It is humbly submitted that in the case of E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala, it was
held that since conspiracies are not hatched in open, by their nature, they are secretly planned,
they can be proved even by circumstantial evidence and the lack of direct evidence relating to
conspiracy has no consequence. In fact because of the difficulties in having direct evidence of
criminal conspiracy, once reasonable ground is shown for believing that two or more persons
have conspired to commit an offence then anything done by anyone of them in reference to their
common intention after the same is entertained becomes, according to the law of evidence,
relevant for proving both conspiracy and the offences committed pursuant thereto4.

3
Esher Singh vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1363 of 2003 (with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1523 and
1524 of 2003).
4
Noor Mohd. Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) SCR 1 119

12
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

¶ 16. The counsel humbly submits that in the present case, the very event of the release of the
game proves that there was an agreement between the conspirators – the Petitioner and its
investors, particularly from United States of Steriya and Republic of Chiniya - who are at odds
with Zendiya at international organizations. The objective of the conspiracy was to disrupt the
public order and safety of the citizens of Zendiya, particularly the school going-children who
were influenced by the nature of the game instigate them to commit suicide through the medium
of the internet. The intention of upholding the objectives of the conspiracy is also substantiated
as the Company did not take any steps to take down the game from App Stores or make
necessary amends to the last level - which was to commit suicide while , even after the
Government issued the notice to the Company in wake of youngsters committing suicide due to
it.
ISSUE 3 - WHETHER THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER COMPANY IS LIABLE
TO BE QUASHED?
¶ 17. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the FIR against the
Petitioner company is not to be quashed as the offences under Sections 360 and 120B of IPC
have been established against the Petitioner.
¶ 18. The Apex Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan v. State Of Uttranchal & Anr opined
with regard to Section 306 IPC that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a
particular case. No straight-jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a
particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide, as there
may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. In the
present case, the circumstances leading to suicide by the players must be viewed in nexus with
the nature of the game ‘DareDevil’. Due to its engaging nature, the players were addicted to
completing the stages of the game and the Company was actively instigating and aiding their
actions in completing the challenges, which can be established by the presence of the ‘task
admin’. So, upon reaching the last stage, the players were influenced by the game’s final
direction and committed suicide.

¶ 19. It is humbly submitted that it would be inappropriate for the Apex Court to exercise its
jurisdiction to quash the FIR exercising its power under Art. 32 of the Const. In the instant case
as Petitioner still has remedies available under the provisions of CrPC; and there is no reason to
by-pass the procedure laid under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court has observed that there

13
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

is a clear distinction between the maintainability of a petition; and whether it should be

entertained and it shall not entertain the prayer to quash the FIR in case the Petitioner has the
remedy to approach the High Court5.

ISSUE 4 - WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF A BAN ON THE GAME ‘DAREDEVIL’

IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACT AND ULTRA-VIRES THE CONSTITUTION?

¶ 20. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the ban on the game
‘DareDevil’ is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Information Technology Act and does
not ultra-vires the Const.. The ban was imposed by the government by exercising its powers
under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Rule 9 of the Information
Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules
2009.
¶ 21. The provisions of Section 69A of the IT Act, allows the Central Government to block
public access to an intermediary “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of
India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for
preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above”.
¶ 22. Section 69A of the IT Act read with Rule 9 of the Information Technology (Procedure and
Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009, makes space for an
event of ‘emergency nature, for which no delay is acceptable’ the nodal officer can submit the
ban request to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity), which in turn
can issue orders to block a site or app on the aforementioned grounds. In such a case, the
aggrieved party is not entitled to a hearing.

¶ 23. It is humbly submitted that the ban imposed on the game ‘DareDevil’ was in wake of the
alarming incidents of suicide amongst the players of the game, which is an event of emergency
nature, and was necessary to further prevent the ‘instigation of players to commit suicide’ which
is a cognizable offence under Section 306 IPC and threatens public order without further delay.
Under the aforementioned provisions of the IT Act, the Company was not entitled to a hearing,
however, the Government had earlier issued a notice to the company informing them of the

5
Arnab Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12

14
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

same. Therefore, the ban is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Information Technology
Act.
¶ 24. Art. 14 of the Const. cannot be claimed independently, in seclusion to other fundamental
rights, as the equitable protection of laws as envisaged under it has to necessarily have to take
into consideration that law in respect of which equitable protection is being claimed. Further,
Art. 21 of the Const. requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
by procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just and not
arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful.
¶ 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, upheld the
validity of the provisions of Section 69 of the IT Act, as it imposes restrictions akin to the
restrictions as contained in Art. 19(2) of the Const.. Art. 19(2) of the Const. allows the
Government to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, morality and to
prevent incitement to an offence. Hence, the ban on the game to maintain public order and
prevent the instigation of the players to commit suicide is well within the ambit of reasonable
restictions under Art. 19(2)and is a reasonable restriction on the Rights enshrined under Art. 21
of the Const.
¶ 26. Relying on the above submissions, the counsel humbly contends that the denial of hearing
to the Petitioners on the issue of the ban on the game ‘DareDevil’ is within the scope of the
reasonable restrictions under Art. 14 and 21 of the Const. and does not go against the principles
of Natural Justice. Hence, it is not ultravires to the provisions of the Const..
ISSUE 5 - WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE
CONSTITUION OF ZENDIYA HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY THE REPUBLIC OF
ZENDIYA (ART. 14, 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) R/W ART. 21)?
¶ 27. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Fundamental Rights -
Art.s 14, 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) r/w Art. 21 of Shark-Tooth guaranteed under the Const. of Zendiya
have not been violated by the Republic of Zendiya.
¶ 28. As per the Citizenship Act of 1955, only a ‘Natural Person’ can be a citizen and not a
‘Juristic’ person. The Supreme Court in Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Som
Nath Dass and Others defined a ‘Juristic person’ as an entity to be in law a person which
otherwise it is not, it is not an individual natural person but an artificially created person entitled

15
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

to rights and duties. So, a company or a corporate body is to be considered a person, but not a
citizen.
[5.1] That the Right under Art. 14 of the Const. is not violated
¶ 29. The right under Art. 14 is available to both citizens and non-citizens. It prevents the
arbitrary and unfair exercise of power and requires that all persons are treated equally before the
law. However, Art. 14 provides for reasonable classification by the State. The ‘classification test’
to determine whether conducts of the state are constitutionally valid was given in the case of
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, where it was held that the Government can take
necessary actions at its discretion, guided by a policy to conform to the condition of a matter of
public importance, will not be violative of the provisions of Art. 14.
¶ 30. The test for reasonable classification has two conditions - a) Classification must be founded
on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and,
b) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the act.
The doctrine of discrimination is found only upon existence of an enforceable right and that Art.
14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly
circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf.6

¶ 31. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner’s contention in the present case that the criminal
proceedings against the Company is unjustified just because similiar actions were not initatiated
against ‘kokemonGo’ is unfounded. Classification between the two games - ‘DareDevil’ and
‘kokemon Go’ is reasonable on the grounds that the latter was not actively involved in causing
the players’ death by instigating them to commit suicide. Most deaths in the ‘kokemon Go’ was
accidental and majorly due to the negligence of the players of their own safety and lack of
awareness of their surrounding conditions, and therefore, criminal charges were not filed against
them. However, the government maintained equality by banning the apps when they disrupted
public order, causing the death of youngsters.

¶ 32. It is humbly submitted that the ban on the game ‘DareDevil’ was aimed at preventing the
further suicides and was imposed by invoking Section 69A of the IT Act, is reasonable, non-
arbitrary and consistent with the provisions of Art. 14 of the Const.

6
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR (1952) SC 75

16
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

[5.2] That the Rights under Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) are not violated
¶ 33. Art. 19 of the Fundamental Rights (along with Art.15, Art. 16, Art. 29 and Art. 30) are
concerned only about “citizens” and not “persons” and hence, companies are not covered under
their ambit, and was also held by the Court in the case of Jupiter General Insurance Company,
Ltd v. Rajagopalan and Others. Hence, a company cannot maintain a writ petition under Art. 19
of the Const..
¶ 34. In The State Trading Corporation of India v. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Visakhapatnam the nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court clarified that the Const. deliberately
and advisedly makes a clear distinction between Fundamental Rights available to ‘any person’
and those guaranteed to ‘all citizens’. Art. 19 inter alia guarantees citizens of India (a) the
freedom of speech and expression and (g) the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Hence, the company SharkTooth Pvt. Ltd. is not entitled to the rights under Art. 19 of the Const..

¶ 35. According to the Law Commission Report Of May 1984, a company is not a citizen and
cannot claim fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(a). However, four categories of companies that
are given Freedom of Speech are - i) organisations whose primary objective is to disseminate or
publish news with a motive of profit, ii) entities connected with the publication of views, iii)
companies producing or distributing films, and iv) Non-commercial Corporations, and further
this right is subject to the power of the State to make a law imposing reasonable restrictions. The
company Shark-Tooth Infotech Pvt. Ltd is a commercial corporation, engaged in the business of
online game development and hence does not qualify in any of the exceptions mentioned and
cannot claim the Right under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Const..

¶ 36. Art. 19(2) is a ground for which reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the freedom of
speech, and the Courts have implied this limitation from Art. 19(1)(a) itself. A person cannot
claim his freedom of speech so as to interfere with the human rights and Fundamental Rights of
others.Art. 19(1)(a) when challenged on the ground of unreasonableness of the restriction
imposed by it should not be arbitrary in nature.The Rights guaranteed to a citizen by Art. 19 do
not confer any absolute or unconditional right, and each Right is subject to reasonable
restrictions which the legislature may impose in public interest.

¶ 37. Article 19(1)(g) confers a general and vast right available to all persons to do any particular
type of business of their choice. However, the Right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable

17
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

restrictions, in the interest of the general public as given under Art. 19(6) of the Const.The
expression ‘in the interest of the general public’ in Art. 19(6) is of wide import comprehending
public order, public health, public safety, morals, economic welfare of the community and the
objects mentioned in Part IV of the Const.7.[38] The counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble
Court that the ban on the game ‘DareDevil’ is not an infringement of the Right of the Petitioners
under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Const., but a reasonable restriction placed in public interest to maintain
public order and health as many youngsters had taken to violent actions like street fights and
some even committed suicide as a result of the performance of the challenges provided to the
players in the game/due to the influence of the game. Therefore, the Petitioner’s Rights under
Art. 19(1)(g) of the Const. are not violated.

[5.3] That the Right under Art. 21 of the Constitution is not violated
¶ 38. The Supreme Court in the case of M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors held that the
right to life under Art. 21 protects the right to livelihood, however, they can be deprived of the
right on the condition that it is detrimental to the public interest or has an insidious effect on
public moral or public order. The game ‘DareDevil’ caused havoc in the country as many young
users were losing their lives due to the nature of the challenges that were provided in the game
and it led to disruptions of public order and were not morally right.
¶ 39. In the case of Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee,the five-judge bench of
the Supreme Court distinguished the concept of life and liberty within Art.21 from the right to
carry on any trade or business, a fundamental right conferred by Art. 19(1)(g) and the Court held
that the right to carry on trade or business is not included in the concept of life and personal
liberty. Thus, Art. 21 is not attracted in the case of trade and business. Therefore the counsel
humbly submits that the Rights of the Petitioner enshrined under Art. 21 of the Const. of Zendiya
is not violated by the Government.

7
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat, AIR (2006) SC 212

18
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel for the RESPONDENT most humbly requests this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare
the following:-

1. That the Writ Petition is not maintainable under Art. 32 of the Const. of Zendiya.

2. That the offences under Section 306 IPC and Section 120B IPC are made out against the
Petitioner Company.

3. That the FIR against the Petitioner Company is not liable to be quashed.

4. That the imposition of ban on the game ‘DareDevil’ is consistent with the provisions of the
Information Technology Act and does not ultravires the Const..

5. That the Fundamental Rights under Art. 14, 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) r/w Art. 21 of the Petitioner
Company guaranteed under the Const. of Zendiya have not been violated by the Republic of
Zendiya.

AND/OR

Pass any other order/orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. And for
this act of kindness and justice the RESPONDENTS shall be duty bound and forever pray.
All of which is humbly and most respectfully submitted.

Sd/-

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

19
 BMCC MEMORIAL LECTURE AND 6TH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union Of India And Other,(1981) 1 SCC 568.

2. INDIA CONSTI, art. 32
3. Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.537 of
2000.
4. INDIA CONSTI, art. 32(1)
5. INDIA CONSTI, art.14
6. Section 69A, Information Technology Act, 2000.
7. INDIA CONSTI, art.21
8. Section 306, Indian Penal Code, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,1860 (INDIA).
9. Section 107, Indian Penal Code, No. 45, Acts of Parliament,1860 (INDIA).
10. Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, (1967) 1 SCR 469.
11. Randhir Singh and Anr v. State Of Punjab, AIR (2004) SC 5097.
12. S.C. Bahri v. State of Bihar, (1994) AIR 2420.
13. E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala, (1995) 2 SCC 99.
14. Praveen Pradhan v. State Of Uttranchal & Anr, (2012) 9 SCC 734.
15. Rule 9 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access
of Information by Public) Rules 2009
16. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 73.
17. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass and Others, (1984) 2
SCC 600.
18. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, (1958) AIR 538.
19. Jupiter General Insurance Company, Ltd v. Rajagopalan and Others, AIR (1952) P H 9.
20. The State Trading Corporation of India v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam,
(1964) 4 SCR 89.
21. Hundred and First Law Commission Report Of May 1984
22. M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors, (1995) 3 SCR 329
23. Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) AIR 1988

20