TEAM CODE: R32

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

SECTIONS
IN THE GENERAL

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF LATVERIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 31 OF 2018

(Under Article 139A of the Constitution Of Latveria)

PRESS & MEDIA ………………………………………..……………..(PETITIONER)

VERSUS

REPUBLIC OF LATVERIA……...………………………………………..(RESPONDENT)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2018

(Under Section 124A Of The Latverian Penal Code Of 1860)

HELENA MALLAYA ……………………………………….………………(APPELLANT)

VERSUS

REPUBLIC OF LATVERIA…………………………………..……………(RESPONDENT)

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2018

(Under Article 139A Of Constitution Of Latveria)

INSTAPOST…………………………………………………………………(APPELLANT)

VERSUS

STATE OF VERDE……………………………...………………………….(RESPONDENT)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 89 OF 2019

(Under Article 136 Of Constitution Of Latveria)

MS. HELENA MALLAYA……………………………………………………(APPELLANT)

VERSUS

STATE OF VERDE………………..…………………..……………………(RESPONDENT)

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………...…………………..……………… I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………….………………….II

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONS…..……………………...………..………..…………..III

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………..………………………………..……....IV

QUESTIONS PRESENTED…………………………………………………..……………….V

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………1
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
TERMS MEANINGS
¶ PARAGRAPH

& &

SC SUPREME COURT

V. VERSUS

SSA SECURITY & SOLIDARITY ACT

ROL REPUBLIC OF LATVERIA

SOV STATE OF VERDE

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Govt. GOVERNMENT

IP INSTAPOST

NRL NON RESIDENTIAL LATVERIAN

Sec. SECTION

Art. ARTICLE

LPC LATVERIAN PENAL CODE

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

HC HIGH COURT

SLP SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

CJ CHIEF JUSTICE
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

UOI UNION OF INDIA

No. NUMBER

Crl. CRIMINAL
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Helena Mallaya , Press & Media , Instapost on one side & Dimitri Von Beuren, State of Verde, &
Republic of Latveria on the other side hereinafter referred to as ‘the parties’.

Ms. Mallaya filed a Special Leave Petition under article 136 of the The Constitution of Latveria in
Hon’ble Supreme Court Of Latveria against the order of Hon’ble High Court Of Judicature at Verde.
Members of Press & Media filed a Writ Petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court Of Latveria.
Instapost filed an appeal against the orders of Hon’ble High Court Of Verde in Hon’ble Supreme
Court Of Latveria. The Respondents humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

The parties shall accept any Judgment of the Court as final & binding upon them & shall execute it
in its entirety & in good faith.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

By:

Counsel for the Respondents.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background

1. Cay of Verde is one of the largest islets in Republic of Latveria. Sixty percent of its residents
are Bajoran & the rest fourty percent are from Khalas. The two sect are at a constant tussle
with each other. The Republic of Latveria is being governed by Latverian People’s United
front (LPUF).

2. On 16th March,2018 the government condemned certain media outlets that was spreading
fake news that one of its minister’s son Dimitri Von Beuren was involved in inciting
communal riots in 2016. To deal with the chaos that followed, the parliament of Latveria
passed the Security & Solidarity Act(SSA) ,2018.

3. The SSA ,2018 had provisions that dealt with the conduct of the citizens to be followed
before elections & therefore maintain peace in the Latverian archipelago.The Latverian
citizens were of the view that the provisions in the SSA,2018 curbed the freedom of speech &
expression.

4. Latverian govt. lacked the technical ability to block specific content on social media. Rather
it had to block entire internet service itself.

5. IP was a social media platform who had its headquarters located at New Wakanda but it did
not have a media operating license in Latveria. It was used by the people to share, comment
on the post that were visible to them & became very popular among Latverians, they even
called it fifth estate of Latveria. IP itself had the technical ability to pull down specific post in
specific countries. Its operating policies had a provision to remove any post from its service
“where required by law or necessary for a person’s safety” but it would “never edit or
change the content”

6. Ms. Helena Mallaya was a NRL based in Wakanda who was a regular IP blogger who was
famous among the Latverians for her biasness towards Khalas.

7. The Wakandan local newspaper The Watchdog popular with NRLs hired Mallaya to wite a
column for their daily. The newspaper also had a IP account that posted selected newspaper
columns. Ms. Mallaya’s column alleged the :

I) Prime Minister & his govt. for corruption & human rights violation & discrimination
against Khalas .
II) SSA,2018 & said that it was enacted with the sole purpose of strengthening the
LPUFs position in the coming election.
III) Govt. for the lack of action against Dimitri for his role in instigating the communal
rites of 2016

As a result anti-government Latverians declared a peaceful day of resistance on 1st

June,2018.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

8. The post was viewed by thousands of Latverians & the members of Khalas sect decided to
defend themselves by carrying knifes or other available weapons to resist oppression by law
enforcement agencies or govt. on the day of protest.

9. On 1st June 2018, Ms. Mallaya went to Latveria to be a part of this assembly. The gathering
turned out to be a violent one. The supporters of the Khalas sect started roaring harsh political
slogans & burnt down a Bajoran religious building & also beat the officers who tries to
control them. The crowd was heard reciting the phrases from the column written by Ms.
Mallaya . Following this she was arrested & labelled as the organiser of the protest.

10. Subsequently, Dimitri filed a complaint of defamation against Ms. Mallaya court in the trial
court. Ms. Mallaya demanded protection under first & ninth exception of Sec. 499 of LPC,
1860. She was convicted in the trial court under sec. 500 of LPC, 1860 & was sentenced two
years in imprisonment. Thereafter she filed an appeal in the Hon’ble HC of Judicature at
Verde but the same was dismissed . Again she filled for a SLP at the Hon’ble SC of Latveria.
This event trended globally which caused a widespread agitation against the govt.

11. Further, State of Verde charged Ms. Mallaya under sec. 124A of LPC,1860 & under sec.
3,6,7 of SSA 2018 & she was convicted under the same. Distressed Ms. Mallaya challenged
the constitutional validity of the sec. 124A LPC 1860 & sec. 3,6,7 of SSA 2018 before the
Hon’ble HC of Judicature at Verde.

12. State of Verde filed a complaint against IP in Hon’ble HC of Judicature at Verde under sec. 5
of SSA 2018 forcing it to pull the post & apologize for it. Rather, IP opposed the State of
Verde & questioned its jurisdiction.

13. In order to avoid the agitation by the citizen SSA 2018 was amended by the parliament on
19th June, 2018. Discontented by the law various members of ‘media & press’ filed a Writ
Petition before the Hon’ble SC of Latveria challenging by the validity of SSA,2018 & they
also asserted violation of their right of Freedom of press, speech & expression, Freedom of
profession.

14. Assessing the seriousness matter the CJ of Hon’ble SC of Latveria constituted a

Constitutional Bench & tagged the following cases under Writ Petition No. 31 of 2018.

I. Crl Appeal No. 477 of 2018

II. Crl M.A. No. 59 of 2018
III. SLP(Crl) No. 89 of 2018

15. Now the matters are listed for hearing before the Seven-Judge Constitutional bench of the
Hon’ble SC of Latveria.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
--I--

WHETHER AMENDMENT MADE IN THE SECURITY & SOLIDARITY ACT,2018 BY

PARLIAMENT OF LATVERIA WAS A VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF PRESS, SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION & FREEDOM OF PROFESSION OR NOT?

--II--

WHETHER RESPONDENT(STATE OF VERDE) WAS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 124A

OF LATVERIAN PENAL CODE,1860 AND SECURITY AND SOLIDARITY ACT,2018 OR
NOT?

--III---

WHETHER APPELLANT(INSTAPOST) WAS LIABLE TO FOLLOW THE TAKE DOWN

ORDERS OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT VERDE OR NOT?

--IV—

WHETHER THE APPELLANT(Ms. HELENA MALLAYA) WAS GUILTY UNDER

SECTION 499 AND SECTION 500 OF LATVERIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 OR NOT?

--V—

WHETHER THE CASE INVOLVES SUBSTANSIVE QUESTION OF LAW OR NOT ?

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
THAT THE APPELANT (INSTAPOST) WAS LIABLE TO FOLLOW THE
TAKE DOWN PORDERS OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
VERDE.

1. The present issue arises before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Latveria as ; Instapost
(hereinafter petitioner) who has opposed the jurisdiction of The State Of Verde (hereinafter
Respondent) by questioning its authority to issue take down orders. The Respondents
accordingly respond by taking the following grounds:

A. THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT VERDE HAD

JURISDICTION TO PASS TAKE DOWN ORDERS.

2. IP is a social media platform which uses online communication channel for content sharing
generated by its users, which is publically visible to anyone accessible worldwide.

3. ‘Computer resource’ as explained u/s 2(1)(K) of IT Act has a wide ambit and covers
communication device, computer system, computer database, computer network and
software.

4. ‘Computer network’ has to be understood in the light of definition of computer [Sec 2(1)(P)]
and communication device [Sec…] as it talks about interconnection of one or more
computers. It identifies both virtual and physical computer networks whether wired or
wireless.

5. The provisions of Sec 75 of IT Act shall apply any offence or contravention committed even
outside India if the act or the conduct constituting the offence involves a computer, computer
system, computer network located in India.

6. According to Sec 75 of IT Act read with Sec 4(3) of IPC takes cognizance of offences,
although committed outside India but were target at a computer resource located in India.

7. In a case with similar facts the court held that publication of a defamatory statement is a
bilateral act in which publisher makes it available and the third party has it available for his
or her “comprehension”. Therefore, article was published with respect to plaintiff’s cause of
action and not when defendant placed it on its servers but only when subscribe and plaintiff’s
area accessed it. The court held that defamation occurs where the person downloads the
material that the damage to reputation maybe down. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the
plaintiff’s course was proper and the same law will be applied.

DON JONES&CO. INC V GUTNICK (2002) HCA 56(AUST)

when the same case was appealed before the Australian HC, the judges held that publication
of an online article occurred in the jurisdiction where the article was downloaded regardless
of where it was uploaded or where the publishers server resided. The aforesaid judgement
made it clear that the person is defamed at the peace where the publication is made and in the
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT GENERAL SECTIONS

context of internet it is the downloading of information that is relevant for determining the
jurisdiction.

JOSEPH GUTNICK V DOW JONES & COMPANY IAC [(2001) V SC 305]

8. The real time nature of the communication link between the petitioner and the respondent
meant that the petitioner’s were actually occurring and had an effect on the respondent’s
computer network.
[R V GOVERNOR OF BRIXTON PRISON Ex-PARTE Levin]
[1996 4 A11 ER 350 (HL)]

9. There are instances when the court had directed intermediaries to remove defamatory posts
and that were subsequently removed by them.

[GIIS KI2 Education Pvt Ltd V Google Inc.]

[CS (OS) 1080 of 2010. Order dated September 1, 2013]

10. The other case with similar issue Google India Pvt Ltd V Vishakha Industries Ltd. Of
defamation; it was held “despite of issuing notice brining the petitioner about dissemination
of defamatory of material the petitioner did not move its little finger to block the said material
or stop dissemination there is no exemption of any criminal liability in respect of a company
which is a juristic person”.

11. Therefore, based on similar circumstance, IP being an intermediary should follow the order
and perform the task of pulling down the post.