Team Code- TJ13

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

___________________________________________________________________________

HCL Infosystems Limited(HCL) and Naked Citizens

(Appelant)

The Union of India

(Respondent)

___________________________________________________________________________

Written submissions on behalf of the Appelant

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List of Abbreviations............................................................................3
2. Index of Authorities........................................................................................4
3. Statement of Facts...........................................................................................5
4. Issues Presented..............................................................................................6
5. Statement of Jurisdiction................................................................................7
6. Summary of Arguments.................................................................................8
7. Arguments Advanced.....................................................................................9
8. Prayer.............................................................................................................11

2|Page
 List of Abbreviations
Anr. Another
EWHC England and Wales High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
HCL HCL Infosystems Limited
NGO Non Government Organisation
Ors. Others
S.C. Supreme Court
v versus

3|Page
 Index of Authorities
CASES

1. Maneka Gandhi v Union Of India and Anr., AIR 1978 SC 597

2. Govind v State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. , (1975)2SCC148
3. Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70

STATUTES

1. Indian Contract Act , 1872

4|Page
 Statements of Facts

1. On the Independence Day of India in 2009, the Government, in order to eradicate

poverty and ensure that the benefits of welfare schemes directly reach the targeted
beneficiaries, introduced the “Super Card Scheme” which according to the PM would
provide real independence to the country by providing freedom from poverty. The
Super Card Scheme would introduce all-in-one identification cards (ID) for all
citizens of the country, linking a person’s biometric and demographic data with
his/her bank accounts, voter IDs, pan cards and all other existing forms of IDs. The
Super Card Scheme and all the data collected under it would be managed by an
authority to be created by an Act of Parliament known as the “Super Centre”.
2. In 2012 it met with widespread protests across the country over the fundamental
rights issues related with the scheme. Following this, an NGO Naked Citizens filed a
PIL before the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutionality of the Super
Card Scheme on the ground of it being in violation of the Fundamental Right to
Privacy guaranteed under the Constitution.
3. The Government during the launch of the Scheme had awarded various contracts to
private parties for carrying out different parts of the Scheme. One such contract was
awarded by the Government to HCL Infosystems Limited (hereinafter “HCL”). The
work to be done by it included collection of the required data, its synchronization with
various IDs of a citizen, preparation of the cards and finally handing over of the cards
to the citizens in exchange of a nominal fee from them.
4. Supreme Court gave an interim order directing that the cards not be made mandatory
for citizens.
5. At the time of collection of data many people refused to pay the nominal fee at the
time of receipt of the card. As a result of the above HCL sustained huge losses and
stopped performing its part of the contract.

5|Page
 Issues Presented
1. Whether the collection of personal data of the citizens violates the Right to Privacy of
the citizens?
2. Whether the contract under present circumstances had become impracticable to
perform taking into consideration the purpose of the contract?

6|Page
 Statement of Jurisdiction
Since the Supreme Court is the protector and gurantor of fundamental rights , therefore the
Supreme Court is to decide the enforceability of the Right to Privacy as under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India which decides on the enforceability of the Fundamental Rights.

7|Page
 Summary of Arguments
1. DOES ARTICLE 21 INCLUDE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr. (1978) case the SC 7 Judge Bench
said ‘personal liberty in Article 21 covers variety of rights and some have status of
fundamental rights and given additional protection u/a 19.
In Gobind v State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Subba Rao, J.
writing for the minority was of the opinion that the word 'liberty' in Article 21 was
comprehensive enough to include privacy also.

2. WHAT IF SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OCCUR WICH ARE WHOLLY

UNKNOWN TO THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF SIGNING OF CONTRACT?

In Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70 , the court stated that these special
circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking the contract, he, at the
most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury
which would arise generally.

8|Page
 Arguments Advanced

1. DOES ARTICLE 21 INCLUDE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr. (1978) case the SC 7 Judge Bench
said ‘personal liberty in Article 21 covers variety of rights and some have status of
fundamental rights and given additional protection u/a 19. The Supreme Court in this
case reiterated the proposition that the fundamental rights under the constitution of
India are not mutually exclusive but are interrelated. According to Justice K. Iyer, ‘a
fundamental right is not an island in itself’. The expression “personal liberty” in
Article 21 was interpreted broadly to engulf a variety of rights within itself. The court
further observed that the fundamental rights should be interpreted in such a manner so
as to expand its reach and ambit rather than to concentrate its meaning and content by
judicial construction. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law but that does
not mean that a mere semblance of procedure provided by law will satisfy the Article ,
the procedure should be just , fair and reasonable .
In Gobind v State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Subba Rao, J.
writing for the minority was of the opinion that the word 'liberty' in Article 21 was
comprehensive enough to include privacy also. He said that although it is true our
Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right, but
the right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.

2. WHAT IF SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OCCUR WICH ARE WHOLLY

UNKNOWN TO THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF SIGNING OF CONTRACT?

In Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70 the court stated that ,where two parties
have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other
party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may
fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual
course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be
supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the
contract, as the probable result of the breach of it. Now, if the special circumstances
under which the contract was actually made were communicated by the plaintiffs to
the defendants, and thus known to both parties, the damages resulting from the breach
of such a contract, which they would reasonably contemplate, would be the amount of
injury which would ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under these special
circumstances so known and communicated. But, on the other hand, if these special
circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking the contract, he, at the
most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury
which would arise generally, and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any
special circumstances, from such a breach of contract. For, had the special
circumstances been known, the parties might have specially provided for the breach

9|Page
 of contract by special terms as to the damages in that case, and of this advantage it
would be very unjust to deprive them. Now the above principles are those by which
we think the jury ought to be guided in estimating the damages arising out of any
breach of contract.

10 | P a g e
 Prayer
In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited , the appellant humbly submits
that the hon’ble court be pleased and to adjudge and declare that

1. The Super Card scheme violates the Right to Privacy of the citizen and the the scheme
is void.
2. The contract became impracticable to perform and there the breach of contract is
justifiable as the one of the purposes of the contract could not take place.

11 | P a g e