1st MNLU Nagpur National moot , Respondent Memorial, Assignments of Constitutional Law

Download 1st MNLU Nagpur National moot , Respondent Memorial and more Assignments Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity! MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS 1ST MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022. 1 TEAM CODE: TCR3 1st MNLU NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022. BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUREME COURT OF INDICA IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Writ Petition (civil). _/2020 THE ASSOCIATION OF FILM PRODUCERS…………………………………………………...PETITIONER Versus UNION OF INDICA………………………………………………………………………………………...RESPONDENT Writ Petition (civil). _/2020 INFLIX AND INZON……………………………………………………………………………………...PETITIONERS Versus UNION OF INDICA………………………………………………………………………………………. RESPONDENT ~Memorandum on behalf of Respondents~ MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS 1ST MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022. 2 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ISSUE - Whether the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 are constitutionally valid, and whether the Ministry of Information Technology has the jurisdiction to promulgate the Rules to regulate OTT platforms? It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 by the government of Indica are constitutionally valid and the Ministry of information technology has the jurisdiction to promulgate the rules to regulate OTT platforms. I. The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 are constitutionally valid. It is humbly submitted that the introduced Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 not violate the law of the land because These rules have been introduced to regulate the intermediaries and data on social media platforms for the welfare of people of Indica and to secure the sovereignty and security of nation. These rules are promulgated to ensure the online safety and dignity of users by removal of unlawful information and mandatory grievances redressal mechanism. The rues are constitutionally valid because, firstly, that there is necessity of such rules and regulations. Secondly that there in no intent on the part of the government to infringe right to privacy and freedom of speech and expression Thirdly, that the censorship s a restrictive measure for the benefit of society and lastly these rules give the user a notice and an opportunity for a hearing on removal of content. 1. NECESSITY OF SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS. (i) It is submitted that the restrictions come at a time when the country is always seeking to safeguard the safety and sovereignty of the online and of personal data. Social media is gradually becoming a crucial component of an individual’s life. MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS 1ST MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022. 5 (iii) It is a necessary duty of the state to ensure that those words, signs or any form of expression if exposed to those who are open to influences of this sort would corrupt such minds, are censored. (iv) Pre censorship by itself shall not be struck down on grounds of unreasonableness this was also reiterated in the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Renjith D Udeshi v State of Maharashtra.7 4. GIVES THE USER A NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING ON REMOVAL OF CONTENT (i) In order for SSMIs to comply with Rule 4(8), they must ensure that users are held accountable before removing their content, either through Rule 3(1)(b) or on their own accord. For the above reasons, the SSMI is required by Rule 4(8)(a) and (b) to notify a user before removing their content and to give the user an "adequate and reasonable" opportunity to contest and request that their content be reinstated before any action is taken. (ii) Rule 4(8) further mandates that the SSMI's Resident Grievance Officer keep an eye on any complaints from the user. These principles are in sync with the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability, which were adopted in 2018 and endorsed by more than seventy human rights groups, support both the notice and appeal requirements. The IT Rules are laudable for making this requirement a part of the law and making it official. Thus, the counsels on behalf of the respondent pleads that the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2022 are Constitutional for the aforementioned reasons. ‘ 7 Renjith D Udeshi v State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 88 MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS 1ST MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022. 6 II. The Ministry of information and technology has the jurisdiction to promulgate the rules to regulate OTT platforms. It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the ministry of information technology has the jurisdiction to promulgate the rules to regulate OTT platforms because Firstly that the IT act 2000 itself gives power to the ministry of information and technology to promulgate rules regarding OTT platforms. 1. The IT act 2000 itself gives power to the ministry of information and technology to promulgate rules regarding OTT platforms. (i) It is submitted that the sub-section (1), clauses (z) and (zg) of sub-section (2) of section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), and in supersession of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, the ministry of information and technology has power to promulgate rules for OTT platforms as the new rules are part of the Information technology (IT) act, which is regulated by this ministry. (ii) The preamble of the IT act read as An Act to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as ―electronic commerce.8 It provides about the electronic communication and transactions which will also include OTT communications and thus OTT will fall under the jurisdiction of the IT act and ministry of information and technology. (iii) It is submitted that it can be concluded from the preamble of the act the intent behind its drafting. As decided by supreme court in Ramkrishna Dalmia v. S.R Tendolkar9. The framers wanted the such communication to be regulated by the information technology act and thus by the ministry of information and technology. (iv) One of the functions of the ministry of information and technology is promotion of internet and internet, IT and IT based services. OTT platforms are IT based services runs through 8 Information technology act 2000, preamble. 9 1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279 MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS 1ST MNLU, NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022. 7 internet and hence this ministry has jurisdiction to promulgate rules to regulate OTT platforms. Thus, the counsels on behalf of the respondent pleads that Ministry of information technology have the jurisdiction to promulgate the rules to regulate OTT platforms.