Team Code -

THE XXVIII ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF DEVANALA

IN THE MATTERS OF :

MR. RAKTASURA PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF DEVANALA----------------------------------------- RESPONDENT 1

MR. RAKTASURA PETITIONER

V.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE -------------------------------- RESPONDENT 2

WRIT PETITION(CRL.) NO ---/2024

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DEVANALA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

-COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No.
Contents Page No.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

5. ISSUES RAISED 9

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10-11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether Dvipa has violated any fundamental right of Raktasura and is it

12-15
justified to introduce a system of Ankle Bracelets to be worn by the
convicts?

2. Whether Dvipa can be held liable to compensate Raktasura for the acts 15-20
of Mr. Joshi in publishing his personal information in Media?

7.
3. Whether the State failed to take necessary steps to protect the Data as per
20-21
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023?

4. Whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to address the
21-22
issues raised by Raktasura in Writ Petition as under the Constitution of
Devanala, 1950?

8. PRAYER 23

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. No. Abbreviation Meaning

1. & And

2. Vs. or V. Versus

3. u/s Under Section

4. Anr. Another

5. Ors. Others

6. SCC Supreme Court Cases

7. Para Paragraph

8. r/w Read With

9. SC Supreme court

10. No. Number

11. i.e That is

12. S. or Sec. Section

13. Hon’ble Honourable

14. .Gov. Government

15. SCR Supreme Court Reports

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES/Rules/Regulations
1. The Constitution of Devanala ,1950 (hereinafter referred to as the constitution of India)
2. Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023
3. The Press Council Act,1978
4. Devanala Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as Indian Penal Code 1860)

BOOKS/ ESSAY

1. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed., 2009)

2. Prasad, Kiran, Media Law in India, Kluwer Law International, 2011

Sorabjee, Soli J., “Constitution, Courts and Freedom of the Press and the Media”, B.N.
3. Tirpak et al (eds.), Supreme But Not Infallible : Essays in Honour of the Supreme
Court of India, 2000

4. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th ed., Vol.1 (1991), Vol.2 (1993), Vol.3
(2019 Rep.)
S. Choudhary, M Khosla and PB Mehta, The Oxford Handbook of the Indian
5. Constitution (1st ed. , 2016)

DATABASE REFERRED

1. www.india.gov.in

2. www.scconline.com

3. www.thelawdictionary.org

4
 JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

S.No. Title of the Case Citation

1. Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P [1950 SCC 695 :
(1950) SCR 759, 763]
2. Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in State of Madras v. V.G. Row [1952) 1 SCC 410 :
(1952) SCR 597, 607]
3. Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 1 :
(2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
310 : 2011
4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 at
page 502
5. Hindustan Times v. High Court of Allahabad , (2011) 13 SCC 155 :
2011 SCC OnLine SC
1172
6. (1994) 6 SCC 632
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N
7.
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 : 2018
SCC OnLine SC 1642

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the Respondent has appeared before this Hon’ble Court in response to the
writ petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 321 of the Constitution of Devanala .

1
Article 32 in The Constitution of India 1950
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.—
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this
Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo 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 article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Devanala one of the largest country in asia has a rich history in time with a
Democratic Federal system of Government. The abundant flora and fauna, the eco-
system in the islands privy to the Union of Devanala was astounding and one of its
kind, attracting lakhs of tourists every year. One of the Islands of Devanala was
Dvipa which had been rated to be the most beautiful destination in the World having
pink sand beaches. Kutira was a luxury resort in Dvipa which attracted numerous
tourists including lone female travellers who considered the island as a safe haven.

2. The petitioner has committed offenses under section 354 and 376 of the Devanala
Penal code,1860. The petitioner was remanded to the detention center , he was
diagnosed with a multi personality disorder having shades of being violent and a
threat to others with or without provocations, more so towards women with sadism
and perversion.

3. In response to rising crime rates, particularly against tourists, the police

Commissioner of Dvipa introduced ‘ankle bracelets’ equipped with GPS tracking for
individuals with criminal antecedents and perceived to be a threat to society.
Raktasura (petitioner) now employed as a pool attendant at Kutira Luxury Resort.

4. The widespread protest on the ground of privacy and colour of law etc. pertaining to
the system of ankle bracelets, the police made Raktasura wear an ankle bracelet. Mr.
Joshi, a tourist cum journalist had spotted the Ankele bracelet on present petitioner
while he was discharging his duty in Kutira resort.

5. Mr.Joshi being a journalist used AI Chat bots and other software to hack into the Data
Records of police to find out the crime and act of Raktasura (petitioner). Mr. Joshi
was shocked by Petitioner’s identity and criminal conviction and hence published the
information on media. Raktasura terminated from his job as he was seemed to be
athreat to the guests.

6. Aggrieved by the actions , Raktasura moved the Supreme Court of Devanala by filing
Writ Petition alleging violation of his fundamental rights as guaranteed. He also
claimed for compensation jointly and severally for damage to his reputation and
regulation of AI in terms of Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and violation of
“Right to be Forgotten” by arraying the Commissioner of Police along with Union of

7
 Devanala as Respondents.

7. The Commissioner of Police and the Union of Devanala, anticipating Raktasura's

legal action, had filed a caveat to the court.Petitioner’s counsel espoused Right to
Privacy, and alleged that antecedent bad character or conviction cannot be used to vex
Raktasura and asserted the importance of individual’s right.

8. In contrast, the Commissioner of Police of Dvipa along with Union of Devanala

argued that the said Writ petition espousing interest of society is required to be
protected. In accordance to the peculiar facts of the case and the restriction of Article
19 of the Constitution ,free movement of certain persons is required to be arrested if
they are a threat to the society and also pressed into arguments of Right to life of the
citizens of Devanala.

9. The Supreme Court of Devanala recognizing the need to balance individual rights
with societal interests, issued notice to all parties involved and listed the case for final
arguments.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: Whether Dvipa has violated any fundamental right of Raktasura and
is it justified to introduce a system of Ankle Bracelets to be worn by the
convicts?

ISSUE 2: Whether Dvipa can be held liable to compensate Raktasura for the
acts of Mr. Joshi in publishing his personal information in Media?

ISSUE 3: Whether the State failed to take necessary steps to protect the Data as
per Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023?

ISSUE 4: Whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to address
the issues raised by Raktasura in Writ Petition as under the Constitution of
Devanala, 1950?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether Dvipa has violated any fundamental right of Raktasura and is it justified to
introduce a system of Ankle Bracelets to be worn by the convicts?

The counsel for the respondent humbly submitted that none of the fundamental rights have
been violated. The remedies under Article 32 can be invoked only in case where the
fundamental rights have been violated. In the present case, there is no violation of any
fundamental right but just a balancing of individual rights and societal interests by some
reasonable restrictions, It is well settled principle that Fundamental rights are not
absolute. It may come with some reasonable restrictions ,here petitioner as per moot
problem is chronic offender , so it’s obvious that to protect the interest of society, State have
to take necessary step whichsoever are benefit for society at large and introducing Ankle
Bracelets one of those step which is justifiable as it is in the interest of public at large,
especially women who have direct threat .Therefore, In instant matter there is no violation of
fundamental right and it’s justifiable to introduce new system to track the convicts activities .

ISSUE 2: Whether Dvipa can be held liable to compensate Raktasura for the acts of Mr. Joshi
in publishing his personal information in Media?

It is humbly submitted that Publishing of the personal information of a convict under section
354 and section 376 in a leading Media can’t be baseless ,it is just to aware the society from
imminent threat from people who is chronic offender, as per sec 23 of the Press Council
Act, 1978, which provides the Protection of action taken in Good faith to journalist , from
the above provision and moot proposition , there was no damages caused to the petitioner and
Therefore, Dvipa can’t be held liable to compensate Raktasura for the acts of Mr. Joshi in
publishing his personal information in Media.

ISSUE 3: Whether the State failed to take necessary steps to protect the Data as per
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023?

It is respectfully submitted that state has not failed to protect the data ,the situation arises due
to advancement of technology and complexity of threat landscape in cyber domain ,even if
Data is irradiated ,that are for the good faith only. As per Sec- 84 of Information and
technology act 2000, It is iustificatus and which says protection of action taken in good
faith-No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government,
the State Government, the Controller or any person acting on behalf of him [and adjudicating

10
 officers] for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this
Act or any rule, regulation or order made thereunder . It is therefore ,respectful submission of
the respondent that the state failed to take necessary steps to protect the Data .

ISSUE 4: Whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to address the issues raised
by Raktasura in Writ Petition as under the Constitution of Devanala, 1950?
The counsel for the respondent humbly submitted that jurisdiction of this hon’ble court to hear the
matter concerning the Writ petition is not disputed by respondent .However the subject matter in Writ
petition are per se frivolous as Right to Life of citizen guaranteed under constitution is paramount ,
also the restriction of article 19 of constitution i.e. free movement of certain persons is required to be
arrested if they are threat to the society .

11
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Whether Dvipa has violated any fundamental right of Raktasura and is it justified to
introduce a system of Ankle Bracelets to be worn by the convicts?

It is the respectful submission of the respondent that:

[A] Dvipa has not violated fundamental right
[B]introduction of new system to keep eyes on convicts is iustificatus .

[A] Dvipa has not violated fundamental right

❖ Fundamental rights are not absolute. It comes with some reasonable restrictions,

As per the article 19(1)d of the Constitution of Devanala;-

free movement of certain persons is required to be arrested if they are a threat to the society:
19(1) All citizens shall have the right- …
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
The reasonable restriction with article 19(1)(d) [a fundamental right] is imposed under article 19(5).

❖ Article 19(5) which states: -

19(5) Nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law
in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general
public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.

❖ “reasonable restrictions”
In Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. succinctly defined the expression “reasonable restrictions” -
“The phrase ‘reasonable restriction’ connotes the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the
right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the
public. The word ‘reasonable’ implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course
which reason dictates.2” .
Also a fairly exhaustive test to ascertain the reasonableness of a provision is given by Patanjali
Sastri, C.J. in State of Madras v. V.G. Row. Therein the learned Chief Justice observed - “It is
important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should
2
Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. [1950 SCC 695 : (1950) SCR 759, 763]
12
be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or general pattern, of
reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged to have been
infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought
to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time,
should all enter into the judicial verdict.3
From the abovementioned cases, it is clear that the fundamental rights are not absolute and reasonable
restrictions can be imposed whenever there is some valid reasons on the basic of the word ‘reasonable’
implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates, and it
must be in the interest of public.

[B]Introduction of New System to keep eyes on convicts is iustificatus

“Doctrine of Necessity “- This doctrine allows for the violation of certain rights or legal principles in
a circumstances where there is a compelling necessity to do so in order to avoid a greater harm. In the
present case due to rising crime rates , Particulary against tourists especially women, the police
commission has introduced ‘Ankele bracelets ‘.4 Which is need of time to protect the tourist from
imminent danger .

❖ The present case, Raktasura was diagnosed with a Multi Personality Disorder having
shades of being violent and a threat to others with or without provocations, more so
towards women with sadism and perversion. Thus, here the police commissioner has a
valid reason for curtailing the freedom granted by the constitution of Devanala by
imposing some identity through the ankle bracelet system.
❖ Article 21 of the constitution of Devanala states:
21. Protection of life and personal liberty
”No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.”
From Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 1 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 310 : 2011 SCC
Online:
“Right to privacy is an integral part of right to life. This is a cherished constitutional value, and it is
important that human beings be allowed domains of freedom that are free of public scrutiny unless
they act in an unlawful manner.5”
…and

3
Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in State of Madras v. V.G. Row [(1952) 1 SCC 410 : (1952) SCR 597, 607]
4
Moot propositition para(3)
5
Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 1 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 310 : 2011
13
“The rights of citizens, to effectively seek the protection of fundamental rights, under clause (1) of
Article 32 have to be balanced against the rights of citizens and persons under Article 21. The
latter cannot be sacrificed on the anvil of fervid desire to find instantaneous solutions to systemic
problems such as unaccounted for monies, for it would lead to dangerous circumstances, in which
vigilante investigations, inquisitions and rabble rousing, by masses of other citizens could become the
order of the day. The right of citizens to petition this Court for upholding of fundamental rights is
granted in order that citizens, inter alia, are ever vigilant about the functioning of the State in order to
protect the constitutional project. That right cannot be extended to being inquisitors of fellow citizens.
An inquisitorial order, where citizens' fundamental right to privacy is breached by fellow citizens is
destructive of social order. The notion of fundamental rights, such as a right to privacy as part of right
to life, is not merely that the State is enjoined from derogating from them. It also includes the
responsibility of the State to uphold them against the actions of others in the society, even in the
context of exercise of fundamental rights by those others."
from Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 at page 502:
” The purpose of the fundamental rights is to create an egalitarian society, to free all citizens from
coercion or restriction by society and to make liberty available for all. The purpose of the directive
principles is to fix certain social and economic goals for immediate attainment by bringing about a
non-violent social revolution. Through such a social revolution the Constitution seeks to fulfil the
basic needs of the common man and to change the structure of our society. It aims at making the
Indian masses free in the positive sense.”6

Also,

“. Part IV of the Constitution is designed to bring about the special and economic revolution that
remained to be fulfilled after independence. The aim of the Constitution is not to guarantee certain
liberties to only a few of the citizens but for all. The Constitution visualizes our society as a whole
and contemplates that every member of the society should participate in the freedoms guaranteed.”
Moreover,

“Indeed the balancing process between the individual rights and the social needs is a delicate one.
This is primarily the responsibility of the “State” and in the ultimate analysis of the courts as
interpreters of the Constitution and the laws.”

6
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 at page 502
14
The above citation clearly gives the idea of the liberty of the society and non-violent social revolution.
Raktasura is diagnosed of multi personality disorder and is a threat to the society, thus taking
necessary steps is the need of the hour of the State.

The verdicts of the above two cases is clear in stating that the liberty of the society is as important as
that of individual and there must be a balance to ensure the ultimate fair and positive environment for
every citizens. It is the responsibility of the state to make a balance between the individual rights and
the societal interest.

❖ Hence, there is no violation of any fundamental rights of Raktasura. Also, if the police
commissioner designed the system of Ankle Bracelet it is fair as it is in the interest of the
society. The Ankle Bracelet system is for the safeguard of the public and especially
women who are vulnerable due to the Raktasura’s multi personality disorder.

ISSUE 2: Whether Dvipa can be held liable to compensate Raktasura for the acts of Mr. Joshi
in publishing his personal information in Media?

It is humbly submitted that to held Dvipa liable for the acts of Mr. Joshi, it must be established that the
acts of Mr. Joshi is against the law. Publishing the personal information in Media shall be invasion of
the privacy or defamation to held liable for the wrong done.

Whether act of Mr. Joshi is against the law?

Referring to section 23 of Press Council Act, 1978: -

“23. Protection of action taken in good faith. —

15
(1) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Council or any member thereof or any person
acting under the direction of the Council in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended
to be done under this Act.
(2) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any newspaper in respect of the publication of
any matter therein under the authority of the Council.”

Moreover, according to sec 2(b) and sec 4 of the act –

“(b) “Council” means the Press Council of Devanala established under section 4;
4. Incorporation of the Council.—

(1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint, there shall be established a Council by the name of the Press Council of Devanala.
(2) The said Council shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and
shall by the said name sue and be sued.

Mr. Joshi being the National Editor for the ‘Verdict Times’ which is a prominent news channel 7, thus
Mr. Joshi is the person acting under the direction and authority of the Council, acting in good faith as
Raktasura was a threat to the society due to his criminal conviction and his multi personality disorder.
Hence, act of Mr. Joshi is not against the law.

Whether Mr. Joshi defamed Raktasura or invaded his privacy?

7
Moot proposition para no.5
16
Referring sec 499 of Devanala Penal Code, 1860: -“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to
be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.”
Exceptions:
“First Exception. — Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. — It is
not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good
that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question
of fact.”
“Fourth Exception. — Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts. — It is not defamation to
publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such
proceedings.”
Although Mr. Joshi published personal data of Raktasura but the intention behind was not to harm but
in the good faith to make public aware of the threat. Conviction of Raktasura and his diagnosis of
multi personality disorder is a threat towards society and especially to women is the truth which is
required to be published concerning the society and it is purely for the public good.
Moreover, what was published is a report of proceedings of court, and thus according to fourth
exception it not defamation.
from Hindustan Times v. High Court of Allahabad, (2011) 13 SCC 155 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC
1172
“6. The unbridled power of the media can become dangerous if checks and balances are not inherent in
it. The role of the media is to provide to the readers and the public in general with information and
views tested and found as true and correct. This power must be carefully regulated and must reconcile
with a person's fundamental right to privacy. Any wrong or biased information that is put forth can
potentially damage the otherwise clean and good reputation of the person or institution against whom
something adverse is reported. Pre-judging the issues and rushing to conclusions must be avoided.”
The data published is factually true and correct and there is no curtailment of any person’s
fundamental right to privacy.8

Referring R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632 at page 649

8
Hindustan Times v. High Court of Allahabad, (2011) 13 SCC 155 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1172

17
“26. We may now summarise the broad principles flowing from the above discussion (1) The right to
privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article
21. It is a “right to be let alone”. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family,
marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can
publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent — whether truthful or otherwise
and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person
concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a
person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid
aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including
court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the
right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and
media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2)]
an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault,
kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the
incident being publicised in press/media.
(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above — indeed, this is not an exception but an
independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the
remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to
the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and
statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the publication was made (by the
defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant
(member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is
not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of course, where the publication is
proved to be false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would have no defence
and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant to the discharge of
his duties, the public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and
(2) above. It needs no reiteration that judiciary, which is protected by the power to punish for contempt
of court and Parliament and legislatures protected as their privileges are by Articles 105 and 104
respectively of the Constitution of India, represent exceptions to this rule.

18
(4) So far as the Government, local authority and other organs and institutions exercising
governmental power are concerned, they cannot maintain a suit for damages for defaming them.
(5) Rules 3 and 4 do not, however, mean that Official Secrets Act, 1923, or any similar enactment or
provision having the force of law does not bind the press or media.
(6) There is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit, or to impose a prior restraint upon
the press/media.
Also,
29. “Applying the above principles, it must be held that the petitioners have a right to publish, what
they allege to be the life story/autobiography of Auto Shankar insofar as it appears from the public
records, even without his consent or authorisation. But if they go beyond that and publish his life story,
they may be invading his right to privacy and will be liable for the consequences in accordance with
law. Similarly, the State or its officials cannot prevent or restrain the said publication.9”
from K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC
1642
341.2. “The Puttaswamy [K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1] judgment refers to the
expert group report and identifies nine privacy principles pertaining to notice, choice and consent,
collection limitation, purpose limitation, access and correction, non-disclosure of information, security
of data, openness or proportionality as to the scale, scope and sensitivity to the data collected and
accountability. At the same time, privacy is a subset of liberty. All liberties may not be exercised in
privacy. It lies across the spectrum of protected freedoms. Further, the notion of reasonable
expectation of privacy has both subjective and objective elements. At a subjective level it means “an
individual desires to be left alone”. On an objective plain privacy is defined by those constitutional
values which shape the content of the protected zone where the individual “ought to be left alone”.
Further, the notion of reasonable expectation of privacy ensures that while on the one hand, the
individual has a protected zone of privacy, yet on the other “the exercise of individual choices is
subject to the right of others to lead orderly lives”. The extent of the zone of privacy would, therefore,
depend upon both the subjective expectation and the objective principle which defines a reasonable
expectation.”10

9
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632
10
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1642
19
From the above citations, it can be inferred that every person has a right to safeguard the privacy of his
own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters
but it carves an exception of court proceedings. The present case falls inside these two exceptions
mentioned above and hence not liable for defamation. Nor it is liable for the invasion of privacy as the
published data is a court proceeding.
Hence, from abovementioned cases and referring to sec 23 of the Press Council Act,
1978 ,It can be said that Dvipa is not liable to compensate Raktasura.

ISSUE 3: Whether the State failed to take necessary steps to protect the Data as per
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023?

It is humbly submitted that as per moot proposition para no 4 which says despite all
reasonable precautions by the Police Department data record of criminal past of Raktasura’s
revealed11 which is per se enough to justify that due to advancement in technology in a day
nothing is safe enough to be relied .

❖ The Digital Personal data Protection Act 2023 is intended to establish a framework
for data protection and privacy, but it doesnot impose strict liability on the state for all
data breaches or security incidents.

❖ The act may outlines specific obligations, standards , and procedures for the data
protection , but it may also recognize the practical limitations and challenges involved
in ensuring comprehensive data security.

❖ As per section 17(1)(c) of Digital personal data protection act 2023 which is-

personal data is processed in the interest of prevention, detection, investigation or

prosecution of any offence or contravention of any law for the time being in force in
India.

❖ As per section 17(2)(b) which is –

❖ The provisions of this Act shall not apply in respect of the processing of personal
data-

❖ (b) necessary for research, archiving or statistical purposes if the personal data is not

11
Moot proposition par no.4
20
 to be used to take any decision specific to a Data Principal and such processing is
carried on in accordance with such standards as may be prescribed.

❖ It is respectfully submitted that state has not failed to protect the data ,the situation
arises due to advancement of technology and complexity of threat landscape in cyber
domain ,even if Data is irradiated ,that are for the good faith only. As per Sec- 84 of
Information and technology act 2000, It is iustificatus and which says protection
of action taken in good faith-No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie
against the Central Government, the State Government, the Controller or any person
acting on behalf of him [and adjudicating officers] for anything which is in good faith
done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rule, regulation or order
made thereunder . It is therefore ,respectful submission of the respondent that the state
failed to take necessary steps to protect the Data.

ISSUE 4: Whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to address the issues raised
by Raktasura in Writ Petition as under the Constitution of Devanala, 1950?
❖ The counsel for the respondent humbly submitted jurisdiction of this hon’ble court to hear the
matter concerning the Writ petition is not disputed by respondent .However the subject matter
in Writ petition are per se frivolous as Right to Life of citizen guaranteed under constitution is
paramount , also the restriction of Article 19 of constitution i.e. free movement of certain
persons is required to be arrested if they are threat to the society .

❖ “Doctrine of social interest” – which originates from the broader concept of the social
contract theory, which posits that individuals agree to give up certain Freedoms and rights in
exchange for the protection and benefits provided by the state .

❖ In the present matter that none of the fundamental rights have been violated. The remedies
under Article 32 can be invoked only in case where the fundamental rights have been violated.
In the present case, there is no violation of any fundamental right but just a balancing of
individual rights and societal interests by some reasonable restrictions, It is well settled
principle that Fundamental rights are not absolute. It may come with some reasonable
restrictions ,here petitioner as per moot problem is chronic offender , so it’s obvious that to
protect the interest of society, State have to take necessary step whichsoever are benefit for

21
 society at large and introducing Ankle Bracelets one of those step which is justifiable as it is in
the interest of public at large, especially women who have direct threat.

❖ As per moot proposition Mr. Joshi a journalist has revealed the criminal past of Raktasura on
new channel by accessing the data from GPS bracelet which is done in good faith to aware the
citizen about the criminal and his nature of work and psychology

❖ LEGAL PROVISION.- Section 23 of Press Council Act, 1978: -

“23. Protection of action taken in good faith. —
(1) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Council or any member thereof
or any person acting under the direction of the Council in respect of anything which is in
good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.

(2) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any newspaper in respect of the
publication of any matter therein under the authority of the Council.”

Therefore , it is humble submission that Writ petition filed is arbitrary and frivolous
which deserve to be dismissed .

22
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may, by its wisdom, be pleased to adjudge and
declare -:

1. That Dvipa has not violated any fundamental right of Raktasura .

2. That state can implement any effective major to protect societal interest.
3. That the allegation of State failed to take step to protect personal data is frivolous.
4. Dismiss the Present Writ Petition.

And pass any other order , Direction or Relief that It may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity, and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed

Team code-
Counsels for the Respondent

23