TEAM

Team CODE:
code: E

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF SWADESH

Original Writ Jurisdiction

W.P. (CIVIL) NO.________________ OF 2021

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SWADESH

E-TRADERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS …………………………………… PETITIONERS

v.

UNION OF SWADESH……………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SWADESH

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Table of contents Memorandum for the Respondents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 3

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

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. 9

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................................................................................... 12

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ..................................................................................................... 13

PLEADINGS ................................................................................................................................. 15

I. WHETHER THE ‘FINANCIAL AUTONOMY RULES’, 2019 FRAMED UNDER THE

SWADESH ESTABLISHMENT AND REGULATION OF HIGHER EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION ACT, 1957 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF SWADESH........................................................................................................................15
A. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution Of Swadesh..............................................15

II. WHETHR THE TOTAL BAN ON INTERNET IMPOSED BY KALINGA

ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED ARTICLE 19(1)(G) AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF SWADESH………………………………………………………….18
A. Violation of Article 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g)…………………………………………….18
B. Violation of Article 21 Of the Constitution Of Swadesh…………………………….21

III. WHETHER THE KALINGA ADMINISTRATION IS LIABLE TO PAY

COMPENSATION FOR THE ECONOMIC LOSS ACCRUED BY INTERNET-DEPEND-
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CAUSED BY THE TOTAL BAN ON THE INTERNET…….21

1
Table of contents Memorandum for the Respondents

IV. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY “E-TRADERS

ASSOCIATION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SWADESH IS
MAINTAINABLE…………………………………………………………………………..25
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………………27

2
List of Abbreviations Memorandum for the Respondents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS DEFINITION
¶ Para
&. And
Admn. Administration
A.I.R. All India Reporter
All. Allahabad
Art. Article
Anr. Another
Ed. Edition
E.H.R.R. European Human Rights Reports
Govt. Government
J.I.L.I. Journal of the Indian Law Institute
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
NUJS. National University of Judicial
Sciences
Ors. Others
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Regd. Registered
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports
Sec. Section
T.N. Tamil Nadu
U.N.O. United Nations Organization
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
v. versus
T.N. Tamil Nadu

3
 Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Respondents

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

SL NO CASES CITATION

1. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports AIR 1974 SC 1539.

2. Anuradha Bhasin vs Union Of India 2019 Writ Petition

no.1031
3. Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter 1994 S.C.C. (4) 104, JT
1994 (2) 140.
4. Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd v. S.P. Gururaja (2003) 8 S.C.C. 567

5. Dutta & Associates v. State of West Bengal A.I.R. 1982 Cal. 225.

6. Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 344.

7. G.C. College of Silchar v. Gauhati University A.I.R. 1973 S.C.

8. Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas vs State of Gujarat WRIT PETITION (PIL)

NO. 191 of 2015

9. Howrah Municipal Corpn. & Others vs Ganges Rope Co. Civil Appeal No. 8561 of
Ltd. & Others. 1997
10. Indian Express v. Union of India 1986 AIR 515, 1985 SCR
(2) 287
11. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of AIR 1954 SC 634
India.
12. Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya V. State of Uttar (2013) 2 SCC 617
Pradesh and Ors

4
Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Respondents

13. National Council for teacher Eductaion v. Shri Shyam Shikha (2011) 3 S.C.C. 238:
Prakashan Santhan A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 932

14. National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 S.C.C. 438

15. Natural Resources Allocation, In Re Special Reference No.1 (2012) 10 S.C.C. 1 (77):
of 2012 2012 A.I.R. 6194.
16. Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan 1988 AIR 1642, 1988
Sanghatana SCR Supl. (1) 486

17. Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284

18. Ranji Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 2 S.C.C. 81:

(2000) 7 S.C. 264
19. Sanjay Narayan, Editor-in-chief Hindustan v. Hon. High JT 2011(10) SC 74:
Court of Allahabad 2011(2)SLT 312

20. Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546

21. Union of India v. International Trading Company A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3983.

22. Union of India v. Paul Manickam AIR 2003 SC 4622

23. University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491

24. V. Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 13 S.C.C. 730:

(2008) 11 S.C. 294

5
Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Respondents

BOOKS REFFERED

1. B.L. HANSARIA, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION (2ND Ed. LEXIS NEXIS, 2005).
2. Dr. KAILASH RAI, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (7TH Ed.
CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS, 2001).
3. V.N.SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13TH Ed. EASTERN BOOK
COMPANY, 2006).
4. K. C. JOSHI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (3RD Ed. CENTRAL LAW
PUBLICATIONS, 2002).
5. Dr. NARENDAR KUMAR, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (7TH Ed.
ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY
6. Dr. MAMTA RAO, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (4TH Ed.
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, 2005).
7. M.V PYLEE, SELECTED CONSTITUTIONS OF THE WORLD
(3RDEd.UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLICATION, 2000).
8. R.DAYAL, LEGAL REMEDIES (2ND Ed. ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY, 2002).

9. JUSTICE B. P. BANERJEE, WRIT REMEDIES (9TH Ed. LEXIS NEXIS.2006)

10. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

(8thEd. LEXIS NEXIS, 2007).

ACTS, CONVENTIONS AND REPORTS

1. UDHR: UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.

2. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
3. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF TELECOM SERVICES (PUBLIC EMERGENCY
OR PUBLIC SAFETY) RULES, 2017
4. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ACT,1956.

6
Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Respondents

DICTIONARY

Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan Garner, ed., 7th ed. (Minn., USA: St. Paul, 1999)

ONLINE RESOURCES AND DATABASES

• www.indiankanoon.org
• www.scconline.com
• www.scconline.com
• www.legalserviceindia.com
• www.heinonline.com
• www.casemine.com
• www.academia.edu
• www.livelaw.in
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/internet-shutdowns-temporary-suspension/
• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/power-to-block-internet-content-in-
emergency-been-there-since-2009-govt-1773806-2021-02-27
• https://www.loc.gov/law/help/social-media-disinformation/india.php
• http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/F92CA75D-18C1-4A74-
9533-53C5CFF297FA.pdf
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/70-of-global-internet-shutdowns-in-
2020-were-in-india-report/articleshow/81321980.cms

7
Statement of Jurisdiction Memorandum for the Respondents

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

PETITIONER IS CONTENDING THAT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER

ARTICLE 32 ENUMERATED UNDER PART III OF CONSTITUTION OF SWADESH IS
MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE THERE ARE NO VIOLATION OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

8
 Statement of Facts Memorandum for the Respondents

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Union of Swadesh, with a quasi-federal constitution is one of the largest democracies in
the world. Though the Union of Swadesh was progressive in various fronts, it was still a
developing Nation; approximately 29% of the total population were below poverty.

2. The National University for Research in Science and Technology (NURST) was over years
being funded by the Union government of Swadesh and had become one of the leading
universities in the world. The National University for Research in Science & Technology
(NURST) was established by an Act passed by the Swadesh Parliament- “The National
University for Research in Science & Technology (NURST), Act, 1951. According to the Act,
one of the main objectives for which the University was established could be stated as follows:
“...The University shall endeavour to attain through affordable education: national integration,
economic and social justice, secularism, democratic way of life, international understanding
and scientific approach to the problems of society.”

3. Due to some severe economic slowdown, the Union government adopted disinvestment
measures in its Public Sector Undertakings, in order to reduce it's financial burden. Thus, the
Union government as part of the disinvestment measures, granted for autonomy to educational
institutions including NURST, regarding financial matters. The Ministry Of Higher Education
Research And Development (MHERD) on 31.10.2019, of the following necessary procedures
notified the financial autonomy rules, 2019 framed under section 26 of the Swadesh
Establishment and Regulation of Higher Education Institutions Act, 1957.

4. The Financial Autonomy Rules conferred upon or higher education institution the autonomy to
device their own programs to match Global standards, award degrees, matters of affiliation,
regulation of fees structure etc. Following this, NURST, with other institutions, started rolling
out modified fee structures, which constituted a hike of around 85% to 105%. This was not
appreciated by the student communities including those at NURST.

9
 Statement of Facts Memorandum for the Respondents

5. The government by denying funding for education; withdrawing grants to institutions; and
granting them financial autonomy, has shifted the burden to the shoulders of the students who
hail from families that are marginalized and economically weaker. There were also claims that
such measures would discourage students from marginalized and economically weaker
families, particularly women to pursue higher education and also would leave them with no
option but to quit their education or would rather push them into debt-traps causing them
hardships at the start of their career.

6. The NURST students Association, a registered student Union of NURST, started carrying out
series of agitation, within the University premises, hostels, and also at the entrance of the
university. On 24/12/2019, despite prohibitory orders being issued by the DM of Badra,
NURST Students' Association, other supported organizations and activists and certain political
outfits in the opposition, started a protest March towards the Kalinga Legislative Assembly
while it was in session. Later, police had to use mild force upon them, which led to sporadic
violence in the entire city.

7. Several photographs, and videos of police brutalities emerged in online platforms propagating
anti-state narrative. Following this, on 26/12/2019, the Union government immediately devised
an elaborate set of guidelines stipulating the conditions and procedures for ‘total ban on
internet’to be put in place during desperate times to maintain law and order and also prevent the
spread of fake information online and a total ban on internet which came into effect from
1/1/2020.

8. On 02.01.2020, when violence was still on in the State of Kalinga, the Kalinga administration,
issued an order directing all internet-service providers-ISPs to discontinue broadband services
on grounds of ‘public emergency’ not only in Badra but also to several other cities where
violence was rampant.

9. Until 13.03.2020, the Kalinga administration had not withdrawn the said ban and kept
justifying the ban on grounds that sporadic violence was still in place throughout the State and
lifting the ban would result in hatred and fake information spreading like wildfire across social
media platforms. This adversely affected all the students, business communities, pensioners,
hospitals etc

10
 Statement of Facts Memorandum for the Respondents

10. In a press meet on 20/03/2020, the NURST Students Association declared that they were
intending to file a Public Interest Litigation before the Honorable Supreme Court of Swadesh.
On the very same day the “E-Traders Association”-An Association of Traders and Franchisees
who use online platforms for conduct of their business activities, filed a separate writ petition
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Swadesh contesting against the order on ‘total ban on
internet’.

11. They also alleged that the Internet ban caused severe economic loss to the traders, whose
businesses were entirely dependent upon the use of Internet. They estimated the economic loss
for the period of around 80days Internet ban would amount to around $ 25 billion and
demanded that the economic loss be compensated. The petitioners submitted the following
prayers before the Court.

a) The ‘Financial Autonomy Rules’, 2019 Framed Under The Swadesh Establishment And
Regulation Of Higher Educational Institution Act, 1957, Violates Article 14 And 21 Of
The Constitution Of Swadesh.
b) The Total Ban on Internet imposed by Kalinga Administration has violated Article
19(1)(g) And 21 Of The Constitution Of Swadesh.
c) The Kalinga Administration is liable to pay compensation for the economic loss accrued by
Internet-Depend-Business Enterprise caused by the “Total Ban On The Internet”

11
 Questions Presented Memorandum for the Respondents

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. WHETHER THE ‘FINANCIAL AUTONOMY RULES’, 2019 FRAMED UNDER THE

SWADESH ESTABLISHMENT AND REGULATION OF HIGHER EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION ACT, 1957 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF SWADESH.

II. WHETHR THE TOTAL BAN ON INTERNET IMPOSED BY KALINGA

ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED ARTICLE 19(1)(G) AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF SWADESH.

III. WHETHER THE KALINGA ADMINISTRATION IS LIABLE TO PAY

COMPENSATION FOR THE ECONOMIC LOSS ACCRUED BY INTERNET-
DEPEND-BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CAUSED BY THE TOTAL BAN ON THE
INTERNET.

IV. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY “E-TRADERS

ASSOCIATION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SWADESH IS
MAINTAINABLE.

12
Summary of Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. The ‘Financial Autonomy Rules’, 2019 Framed Under The Swadesh Establishment And
Regulation Of Higher Educational Institution Act, 1957, Does not Violates Article 14
And 21 Of The Constitution Of Swadesh.

The respondents most humbly submits before the honorable Supreme Court that the Financial
Autonomy Rules, 2019 framed under section 26 of the Swadesh Establishment and Regulation
of Higher Education Institution Act, 1957,conferred upon or higher education institution the
autonomy to device their own programs to match Global standards, award degrees, matters of
affiliation, regulation of fees structure etc. does not violates the Fundamental Rights of the
petitioners.

II. The Total Ban on Internet imposed by Kalinga Administration did not violated Article
19(1)(g) And 21 Of The Constitution Of Swadesh.

On 02.01.2020, the Kalinga administration, issued an order directing all internet-service

providers-ISPs to discontinue broadband services on grounds of ‘public emergency’ not only
in Badra but also to several other cities where violence was rampant. Until 13.03.2020, the
Kalinga administration had not withdrawn the said ban and kept justifying the ban on grounds
that sporadic violence was still in place throughout the State and lifting the ban would result
in hatred and fake information spreading like wildfire across social media platforms.

III. The Kalinga Administration is not liable to pay compensation for the economic loss
accrued by Internet-Depend-Business Enterprise caused by the “Total Ban On The
Internet”.
The Kalinga Administration is not liable to compensate for the economic loss accrued by the
internet-dependent-business enterprises caused by the ‘total ban on internet’ since the ban was
issued on the ground of “public emergency”.

13
Summary of Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

IV. The Public Interest Litigation Filed By “E-Traders Association” under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Swadesh is not maintainable.

The Public Interest Litigation filed by “E-Traders Association” under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Swadesh is not maintainable as they represent the whole of the students,
business communities, pensioners, bank customers, news agencies, hospitals across the
nation who was affected by the total ban on Internet and the financial autonomy rules, and
therefore, they don’t have locus standi to file Public Interest Litigation for the
interpretation of Constitutional provision for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights
enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of Swadesh.

14
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

PLEADINGS

I. THE FINANCIAL AUTONOMY RULES, 2019 FRAMED UNDER THE

SWADESH ESTABLISHMENT AND REGULATION OF HIGHER
EDUCATION INSTITUTION ACT, 1957 DOES NOT VIOLATES
ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SWADESH.

A. THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1. The Constitution of India guarantees the Right to Equality through Article 14 to 18. Equality
is one of the magnificent corner stone of Indian democracy. Article 14 guarantees to every
person, including non-citizens and transgender, the Right to Equality before law or Equal
Protection of Law.1
2. The underlying object of Article 14 is to secure to all persons citizens or non-citizens, the
equality of status and opportunity referred to in the preamble to our constitution and it
embodies the principle of non-discrimination2
3. According to Article 14, to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from any
impugned action it should really satisfy the test of Reasonable classification /Twin test. That
is, Art.14 forbids class legislation and it does not forbid reasonable classification. Article 14
violates only when there is no reasonable classification.3
4. The ‘Financial Autonomy Rules’ conferred upon all higher education institutions in the
Union, the autonomy to devise their own programmes to match global standards; award
degrees; matters of affiliation; regulation of fees-structure (tuition fees, hostel fees, etc.-
which contribute significantly to the financial reserves of the Institution) so as to enable them
compete with universities of global standards.4

1
National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 S.C.C. 438.
2
Natural Resources Allocation, In Re Special Reference No.1 of 2012, (2012) 10 S.C.C. 1 (77): 2012 A.I.R. 6194.
3
Union of India v. International Trading Company, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3983.
4
Moot proposition ¶ 4.

15
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

5. Article 14 of the Constitution of India reads as under:

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
6. The said Article is clearly in two parts – while it commands the State not to deny to any
person ‘equality before law’, it also commands the State not to deny the ‘equal protection of
the laws’. Equality before law prohibits discrimination. It is a negative concept. The concept
of ‘equal protection of the laws’ requires the State to give special treatment to persons in
different situations in order to establish equality amongst all. It is positive in character.
7. Therefore, the necessary corollary to this would be that equals would be treated equally,
whilst un-equals would have to be treated unequally.5
8. According to Article.14, to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from any
impugned action it should really satisfy the test of Reasonable classification /Twin test. 6
9. That is, Art.14 forbids class legislation and it does not forbid reasonable classification. Article
14 violates only when there is no reasonable classification7.
10. In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.8, , this
Court had occasion to consider the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993 and the role of the State and Universities in the above regard. In this case the court held
that NCTE is constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining standard
of education hence the State and Universities cannot lay down any guideline or policy which
would be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body.
11. The ‘Financial Autonomy Rules’ conferred upon all higher education institutions in the
Union, the autonomy to devise their own programmes to match global standards; award
degrees; matters of affiliation; regulation of fees-structure (tuition fees, hostel fees, etc.-which
contribute significantly to the financial reserves of the Institution) so as to enable them
compete with universities of global standards; and other ancillary measures necessary to
achieve the above said goals.9

5
Dr. KAILASH RAI, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (7TH Ed. CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS,
2001).
6
V. Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 730: (2008) 11 S.C. 294.
7
National Council for teacher Eductaion v. Shri Shyam Shikha Prakashan Santhan, (2011) 3 S.C.C. 238: A.I.R.
2011 S.C. 932.
8
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, (2013) 2 S.C.C. 617.
9
Moot Proposition ¶ 4.

16
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

12. The spirit of our Constitution is contained in the Preamble. The principles expressed in the
Preamble must permeate every part of the Constitution without any exception. One of them is
"to secure to all its citizens .... equality of status and of opportunity." I must not be understood
to mean where the language of the statute is plain, the words must be twisted to bring the
language in accordance with the spirit of the Preamble. But in considering the Scheme of the
Constitution as a whole and the respective spheres of different parts, the Preamble can be
treated as "a key to open the minds of the makers of the Act.
13. In academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations
or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within
the domain of the experts.
14. In University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao10, has taken the view that the Court shall not
generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it
is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more
familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has
been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and
maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. For
attaining the said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which
has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of
teaching, examination and research. Candidates declared eligible for lectureship may be
considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in Universities and colleges and the
standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of
education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only
implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot
be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.”
15. The respondent most humbly submits before the honorable Supreme Court that the Financial
Autonomy Rules ,2019 framed under section 26 of the Swadesh Establishment and
Regulation of Higher Education Institution Act, 1957 dies not violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of Swadesh.

10
University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 491; Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University
(2001) 8 S.C.C. 546 ; Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 S.C.C. 284.

17
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

16. The respondent humbly submits that the facts clearly mention that in Assistant Excise
Commissioner v. Issac Peter11, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to
alter the terms of a contract of a statutory nature. 12
17. In Howrah Municipal Corporation v. Ganges Road Company Ltd, it has been held that no
right can be claimed on the basis of legitimate expectation when it is contrary to statutory
provisions which have been enforced in public interest.13

II. THE ‘TOTAL BAN ON INTERNET’ IMPOSED BY KALINGA

ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED ART 19(1)(g) AND 2I OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF SWADESH.

A. THE TOTAL INTERNET BAN IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g)
OF THE SWADESH CONSTITUTON

18. On 24.12.2020, despite the prohibitor orders being issued by the DM of Badra, “NURST
Students’ Association” supported by other student organizations, activists, and certain
political outfits in the opposition, started a protest march towards the Kalinga Legislative
Assembly, while it was still in session. Despite frantic efforts by the Police to pacify the
protesters, and failed negotiations between them, the students relentlessly proceeded with the
protest, while some even tried to cross-over the barricades put in place by the Kalinga Police,
thereby, leaving the Kalinga Police without any option but to resort to forceful measures to
disperse the protesters. The Kalinga Police had to use mild-force upon the protestors which
in-turn led to sporadic violence in the entire city of Badra and soon spread to other parts of the
Kalinga State and subsequently to other states of the Union of Swadesh.14
19. Several videos, photographs about police brutalities committed in the name curbing violence
during the protest march emerged in online platforms and was also broadcast in several news
channels. These were also disseminated through various online platforms uncensored and

11
Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter ,1994 S.C.C. (4) 104, JT 1994 (2) 140.
12
National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 S.C.C. 438.
,Natural Resources Allocation, In Re Special Reference No.1 of 2012, (2012) 10 S.C.C. 1 (77): 2012 A.I.R. 6194.
,Union of India v. International Trading Company, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3983.
13
Howrah Municipal Corpn. & Others v Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. & Others, Civil Appeal No. 8561 of 1997.
14
Moot proposition ¶ 6.

18
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

several anti-social elements took advantage of the situation to propagate a strong anti-State
narrative15
20. The Kalinga police reacted sharply against such information and in an official statement
declared that “such videos and photos were either doctored or does not pertain to the current
situation” and justified the use of ‘minimal force’, as a last resort to disperse the protesters. s.
On 26.12.2019, the Union Government issued directions to all the state governments
including the State of Kalinga to adopt measures to curb violence and maintain law and order
throughout. The Union Government also immediately devised an elaborate set of guidelines
stipulating the conditions and procedures for ‘total ban on internet’ to be put in place during
desperate times to maintain law and order and also prevent the spread of fake information
online. The said guidelines were published on 31.12.2019 and came into effect from
01.01.2020.16
21. Internet shutdown have become a very common phenomenon in our country over the past few
years. India has witnessed the highest number of internet shutdowns as compared to any
other country in the world. 17
22. According to section 5(2) of The Indian Telegraph Act ,1885” the occurrence of any public
emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State
Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a
State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India and, the security of the State.18 This section is used most
frequently to curb unlawful assemblies but has also been widely used to order internet shut
down. This is done within a specific location to control the flow of communication and to
prevent people from spreading messages that may incite violence.19
23. The rules do not provide for the grounds under which a shutdown can be ordered. It merely
states that such an order can be issued in cases of “public emergency “or “public safety” but

15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Mayura Shetty ,internet shutdown and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Service (Public Emergency or
Public Safety rules,2017) https://blog.ipleaders.in/internet-shutdowns-temporary-suspension/
18
Section 5(a) of The Telegraph Act https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1445510/
19
See supra note 4.

19
Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

no definition has been provided of what constitutes a public emergency or what is public
safety.20
24. Accordingly, under Art. 19(2), the state may make a law imposing ‘reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression ‘in the interests of’, the security
of the State, friendly relations with the foreign States, public order, decency, morality,
21
sovereignty and integrity of India,..
25. Social media, which allowed people to send messages and communicate with a number of
people at the same time , could be used as a means to incite violence. The purpose of the
limited and restricted use of internet is to ensure that the situation on the ground would not be
aggravated by targeted messages.22
26. The internet allows for the transmission of false news or fake images, which are then used to
spread violence. The dark web allows individuals to purchase weapons and illegal substances
easily. The jurisprudence on free speech relating to newspaper cannot be applied to the
internet, as both the media are different ,while newspapers only allowed oneway
communication, the internet makes two way communication by which spreading of messages
are very easy23. While referring to various photographs ,tweets and messages of NURST
Students Association leaders of Kalinga. Theses statements are highly misleading ,abrasive
and detrimental to the integrity and sovereignty of Kalinga State.
27. Duty of media to provide correct information. It is the responsibility of the media to ensure
that they are not providing the public with information that is factually wrong based on simply
unverified information. The right of freedom of speech is enshrined in article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. However, the right is restricted by article 19(2)in the interest of the sovereignty
and integrity of india ,security of the state, public order..24

20
Ibid.
21
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/493243/.
22
Anuradha Bhasin v Union Of India, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 634.
23
Ibid.
24
Sanjay Narayan, Editor-in-chief Hindustan v. Hon. High Court of Allahabad, JT 2011(10) S.C.74 :2011 (2) SLT
312

20
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

B. INTERNET BAN IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ART 21 OF THE SWADESH

CONSTITUTION

28. The first and foremost duty of the state is to ensure security and protect the citizens their lives,
limbs and property. For that purpose the government impose reasonable restrictions.
29. The orders passed under the Suspension Rules , 2017 were passed in compliance with the
procedure in the Suspension Rules, and are being reviewed strictly in terms of the same25
30. No time limit Has been laid down for such order. however, since no such time limit has been
26
provided, governments are free to order suspensions for an indefinite period of time.

III. THE KALINGA ADMINISTRATION IS NOT LIABLE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE

ECONOMIC LOSS ACCURED BY THE INTERNET-DEPENDENDENT- BUSSINESS
ENTERPRISES CAUSED BY THE TOTAL BAN ON THE INTERNET.

31. It is humbly submitted before the hon ‘ble court that there is a provision to shutdown the
internet if the national security is in threat and can be issued in cases of “public emergency”
or “public safety”. In this situation Several videos, photographs about police brutalities
committed in the name curbing violence during the protest march emerged in online platforms
and was also broadcast in several news channels. These were also disseminated through
various online platforms uncensored and several anti-social elements took advantage of the
situation to propagate a strong anti-State narrative. “Such videos and photos were either
doctored or does not pertain to the current situation” and justified the use of ‘minimal force’,
as a last resort to disperse the protesters. Government use this internet shutdown as a weapon
to stop the spread of any such information which can cause violence or which can impact the
internal security of the country27.
32. The Union of Sawdes applied the internet shutdown as per the laws and provisions the
government notified the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or
Public Safety) Rules under the Indian Telegraph Act, 2017, which lays down the procedure to
put the restrictions on internet access. Prior to the promulgation of the Temporary Suspension

25
See supra note 4.
26
Ibid.
27
Moot Proposition ¶ 7.

21
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

of Telecom Services Rules(hereinafter, the Suspension Rules), Internet shutdowns were

ordered under two legislations, i.e, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) and Indian
Telegraph Act 1885 (ITA).28
33. Internet shutdowns were ordered by district magistrates or police officials under section 144
of the CrPC, which gives district magistrate the powers to issue directions to maintain public
order in areas falling under their jurisdiction.
34. Such orders should indicate the reasons for the necessity of such shutdown specifically stating
the “unavoidable circumstance” requiring such a measure and it should be in accordance with
Article 19(2) and 19(6) of the Constitution which empowers states to impose restriction on
freedom of speech and Freedom to practice trade and profession. The kalinga administration
followed all of these before imposing internet ban.
35. In case Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India29. It held that the
imposition of restrictions on Fundamental Rights ought to be the ‘least onerous’ in nature.
The judgment further asserted that the disadvantages ensued due to such restrictions are not
disproportionate to the intended aims.
36. In this case the economical loss is least onerous’ in nature because restriction is proportionate
to the intended aim.
37. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India30 the issue of Whether freedom of speech and
expression and freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business over the Internet is a part of the fundamental rights protected by Article 19(1)(a) and
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution was arisen .
38. First, the Court reiterated that freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19 of India’s
Constitution extended to the internet. The Court recalled its extensive jurisprudence that
extended protections to new mediums for expression. In Indian Express v. Union of India,31
(1985) 1 SCC 641, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of expression protects the freedom
of print medium. In Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana,32 (1988)
3 SCC 410, it was held that the right of citizens to screen films was a part of the fundamental
right of freedom of expression. Online expression has become one of the major means of

28
Indian Telegraph Act 1885.
29
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.528 of 2018.
30
Supra note 22.
31
Indian Express v. Union of India, 1986 A.I.R. 515, 1985 SCR (2) 287.
32
Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, 1988 A.I.R. 1642, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 486.

22
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

information diffusion, and accordingly it was integral to the enjoyment of freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a), but also could also be restricted under Article
19(2) of the Constitution Accordingly, the Internet also plays a very important role in trade
and commerce, and some businesses were completely dependent on the internet. Therefore
the freedom of trade and commerce by using the internet was also constitutionally protected
under Article 19(1)(g), subject to the restrictions provided under Article 19(6).
Freedom of expression and the freedom to practice any profession online was protected by
India’s Constitution
39. In the aftermath of the Patel agitation in Gujarat in 2015, Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas33, a student
of law approached the Gujarat High Court, demanding the court to declare the act of banning
mobile internet by the state authorities during the Patidar Andolan riots, as void ab initio, ultra
vires and unconstitutional. He argued that the act of banning mobile internet was violative of
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution and thus also demanded the court to issue an
appropriate writ to permanently stop the state and officers to impose such a ban. The
petitioner argued that the state could have blocked certain websites using the powers under
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and there was no need to invoke the
powers under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to impose a blanket ban
on the use of mobile internet. The court dismissed this petition by agreeing with the defendant
that given the uncertain riot situation on the ground during the Patel agitation, the state
authorities under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had the powers to take
actions that they deemed fit to maintain public order and peace. 34
40. Freedom of expression and the freedom to practice any profession online was protected by
India’s Constitution
41. Although the Government could suspend the Internet, the government had to prove necessity
and impose a temporal limit, which it failed to do in this case. Thus, the government had to
review its suspension orders and lift those that were not necessary or did not have a temporal
limit.
42. The plea had contended that the action of the J&K government was in violation of Articles 14
(right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

33
Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas vs State of Gujarat 2015, WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 191 of 2015
34
https://www.epw.in/engage/article/internet-shutdowns-strategy-maintain-law

23
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

43. While declaring internet as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court in January had observed:
“We declare that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any
profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys
constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). The restriction upon
such fundamental rights should be in consonance with the mandate under Article 19 (2) and
(6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality.” “The sovereignty and integrity
of India, the security of the state, public order or incitement to an offence, would certainly
warrant curtailing the freedom of speech and expression, under Article 19(2),” it said.

“Likewise, the right to carry on any trade or business can be restricted in the interest of
general public under Article 19(6) of our Constitution, which, it is submitted would include
public order, public health, public security and objects mentioned in the Directive Principles
of State Policy.”35

44. Internet ban is an essential in the hour of time and the restriction is for the masses and
All of them are deprived of the same. So to compensate for the loss of accured by the
business is irrelevant and impossible. Covid restrictions are the best example to show
that we can restrict fundamental rights says in Article 19 for public safety.
45. Therefore the Kalinga Administration is not liable to compensate for the economic loss
accrued by the internet-dependent-business enterprises caused by the ‘total ban on internet’.

35
https://theprint.in/india/access-to-internet-is-not-a-fundamental-right-but-an-enabler-of-rights-jk-govt-tells-
sc/411521/

24
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

IV. THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BY “E-TRADERS

ASSOCIATION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

46. The respondents contend that there has been no violation of Fundamental Right in the present
case. Moreover, the petition has been filed prematurely. A petition can be filed under Art. 32
of the constitution only when the Fundamental Right is violated.36 Also, the alternative
remedy has not been exhausted.37 Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable.
47. Directive Principle of State Policy' as envisaged under the Constitution, 'State' has been
ascribed the same meaning as for the purposes of Part III (Article 36 of the Constitution of
India). Thus, seen 'State' as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution, has significant
role so far as rights conferred by Part III are concerned. The remedy for enforcement of Part-
III rights itself has been made a Fundamental Right under Article 32 conferring jurisdiction
on the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 could be
invoked only in respect of rights conferred by Part-III in relation to 'State' actions. To invoke
the constitutional remedy, the infringement complained must essentially be against 'State'.
Thus, the Supreme Court would decline relief and petition under Article 32 upon finding that
the infringing authority is not a 'State', in that event writ petition under Article 32 would not
be maintainable.38
48. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the instant matter is not maintainable
before the Court of Law. The petitioner lacks the essential ingredients to maintain the matter
before the apex Court.39 Though the Hon’ble Court has clubbed the matters, yet certain issues
regarding maintainability of the case must be highlighted before this Court to prevent any
miscarriage of justice.
49. No action lies in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 unless there is an infringement of a
40
Fundamental Right, as the Supreme Court has previously emphasized that “The violation
of Fundamental Right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Art. 32.41

36
Dutta & Associates v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1982 Cal. 225.
37
G.C. College of Silchar v. Gauhati University, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 761.
38
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24572090/
39
Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd v. S.P. Gururaja, (2003) 8 S.C.C. 567.
40
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1539.

25
Pleadings Memorandum for the Respondents

50. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement
of Fundamental Rights , as guaranteed by part III of the Constitution. In the present case,
there has been no violation of the fundamental rights since, the action taken by the State was
in furtherance of the principle of economic and social justice and thus cannot be termed as
arbitrary or as one which was without the application of the mind.
51. In this case there is not any violation of fundamental rights, in this case the government uses
the exceptions of Fundamental Rights or made reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Right
for the public good and public safety.42
52. Moreover, in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Art. 32 of the Constitution to approach
this Court directly, it has to be shown by the petitioner as to why the High Court has not been
approached, could not be approached or it is futile to approach the High Court. Unless
satisfactory reasons are indicated in this regard, filing of petition in such matters directly
under Art. 32 of the Constitution is to be discouraged.43 Hence, it is submitted that the
petition submitted before this Hon’ble Court is not maintainable and thus should be rejected.
53. From the above issues it is clear that there is no Fundamental Right violation in this case. So
this PIL filed by “E-Traders Association under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not
maintainable.

41
Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 344.
42
Ranji Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 2 S.C.C. 81: (2000) 7 S.C. 264.
43
Union of India v. Paul Manickam, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 4622.

26
Prayer Memorandum for the Respondents

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the court may
please adjudge and declare that:

1. The ‘Financial Autonomy Rules’, 2019 Framed Under The Swadesh

Establishment And Regulation Of Higher Educational Institution Act, 1957, does
not Violates Article 14 And 21 Of The Constitution Of Swadesh.
2. The Total Ban on Internet imposed by Kalinga Administration did not violated
Article 19(1)(g) And 21 Of The Constitution Of Swadesh.
3. The Kalinga Administration is not liable to pay compensation for the economic
loss accrued by Internet-Depend-Business Enterprise caused by the “Total Ban
On The Internet”
4. The Writ Petition Filed Under Article 32 of the Swadesh Constitution is not
maintainable.

AND

The court may pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good faith.

Counsels for the Respondent,

Arya S Sunil

Leedha A L

Pooja Unnikrishnan

27