TC-

RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA COLLEGE MOOT

COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No._________ of 2023

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

STATE OF PUNJAB……………………………………………………………Petitioners

V.

JITESH AND OTHERS………………………………………………. Respondents

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………. III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………. V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………… XII

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………….. XIII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………. XV

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………… XVI

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………….

● RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN CAN BE SEEN AS THE ESSENTIAL ASPECT

IN MODERN DAY TECH SOCIETY AND CAN BE GRANTED THE STATUS
OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
● ARTICLE 21 OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY
● SECTION 376,292,465 AND 509 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
● FOREIGN CASES OF EUROPEAN UNION
● RECOGNITION BY HIGH COURT VIA DIFFERENT CASES
● SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS FAPBOOK AND WEBSITE
obscenevideos.com BE DIRECTED TO REMOVE ANY OBJECTIONABLE
CONTENT THAT WAS BEING POSTED INVOLVING MS. KRITI
● INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN(PROHIBITION) ACT,1986
● SECTION 66,66(C),67,67(A) OF INFORMATION ACT,2000
● SECTION 294 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
● SENSITIVE MATTERS TAKE A TOLL ON VICTIM’S HEALTH
● SOCIAL STIGMA BY SOCIETY
● TIMELINE OF THE INCIDENT
● THERE IS A NEED TO SENSITIZE THE UNPRECEDENTED ESCALATION
OF INSENSITIVE BEHAVIOR OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER WEB
PLATFORMS FROM REMOVABLE OF OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT
● INTRODUCTION TO CYBER LAWS
● WHAT IS PRIVACY

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

Page |
 ● ESSENTIALS OF PRIVACY\
● NEED TO STOP THE EXPLOITATION OF SENSITIVE CONTENT
● RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE DOMAIN AND
SCOPE OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY
● RIGHT TO PRIVACY A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
● LANDMARK CASE OF KS PUTTASWAMY
● PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………XVIII

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

Page |
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

UOI UNION OF INDIA

SEC SECTION

& AND

RTBF RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTED

PDP BILL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL

SC SUPREME COURT

ANR ANOTHER

Co. COMPANY

CONSTI. CONSTITUTION

Corp. CORPORATION

DB DIVISION BENCH

Deptt. DEPARTMENT

HC HIGH COURT

Hon’ble HONORABLE

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

Page | 3
 CRPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

IPC,1860 INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

SCC SUPREME COURT CASE

VOL. VOLUME

IT ACT,2000 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT,2000

DPDPB DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL

V VERSUS

ORS OTHERS

EU EUROPEAN UNION

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

Page | 4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED

● THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

● THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT,2000
● THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
● THE INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN (PROHIBITION) ACT,1986

BOOKS REFERRED
● RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860(35 TH EDITION)2021
● K.D KAUR, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.1860(8 TH EDITION 2023)
● NARENDRA KUMAR, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (11 TH EDITION 2022) \
● DR JN PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (58 TH EDITION 2021)
● UNIVERSAL’S THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT,2000(2020 EDITION)

WEBSITES REFERRED
● WWW.LEGALSERVICESINDIA.COM
● WWW.BLOGIPLEADERS.COM
● WWW.LASTESTLAW.COM
● WWW.FREELAW.IN
● WWW.SCCONLINE.COM
● WWW.TIMESOFINDIA.COM
● WWW.SBHAMBRIADVOCATES.COM
● WWW.INDIANKANOON.COM

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

Page | 5
 TABLE OF CASES

SNO NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

1. JUSTICE KS PUTTASWAMY V UOI AIR 2017 SC4161

2. X V UNION OF INDIA (2021) 2 HCC (DEL)16

3. SUBRANSHU ROUT@GUGUL V 2020 SCC ONLINE ORI

STATE OF ODISHA 878

4. ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN V 2019 (175) DRJ

OUINTILLION BUSINESS MEDIA
PVT LTD AND ORS

5. FRANCIS VS. UNION 1981 AIR SC 746

TERRITORY

6. JORAWAR SINGH MUNDY V UOI W.P(C)3918/2021

7. DHARAMRAJ BHANUSHAKAR 2015 SCC ONLINE 2019

DAVE V STATE OF GUJARAT

8. GOVIND V STATE OF MADHYA 1972 SCR (3) 835

PRADESH

9. KHARAK SINGH V THE STATE 1963 AIR 1295

OF UP AND ORS

10. “X” V “Y “ 2022 LIVELAW(SC) 618

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

Page |
 11. XYZ & ANR V UOI 2022 LIVE LAW (KAR)424

12. AVEEK SARKAR &ANR V STATE 2014 LATEST CASELAW

OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS 70 SC

13. CHANDRA RAJA KUMARI V 1998(1) ALD810,1998(1)

POLICE COMISSIONER, HYD ALD Cri 298,1998(1) ALT
329

14. STATE OF PUNJAB V GURMEET 1996 AIR 1393,1996 SCC

SINGH AND ORS (2) 384

15. KALANDI CHARAN LENKA V BLAPL NO.7596 2016

STATE OF ODISHA

FOREIGN CASES
1. Equus Tek Solutions Inc v Morgan Jack and others, 2014, BCSC 1063.

2. Google Spain SL & Amr. vs. Agencia Espanola de Protection de Datos

(AEPD) & Anr., C-131/12[2014] QB 1022.

3. Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal.App. 285, 297 P. 91 (1931).

4. England in the Wales High Courts in NT1 And NT2 V Google LLC2

5. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Art. 12, Acts of United

Nations, 1948

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

Page |
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED HAS INVOKED A WRIT TO HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UNDER THE ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 32 IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE ‘HEART AND SOUL’
OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION BY DR BR AMBEDKAR
“IT GIVES CITIZEN THE RIGHT TO APPROACH THE SUPREME COURT TO GET RESORTED ANY
OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF THEIR VIOLATION.

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

PAGE NO 10
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

DATE OF THE EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE

INCIDENT

25 DECEMBER 2021 JITESH WENT TO KRITI’S HOUSE AND RAPED HER AND
RECORDED THE WHOLE CRIME

25,26 AND 27 KRITI WARNED HIM THAT SHE WOULD ADOPT

DECEMBER 2021 LEGAL WAYS TO RESTORE HER DIGNITY
1 JANUARY-15 JITESH THREATEENED KRITI THAT HE WOULD LEAK
FEBRUARY 2022 HER PHOTOS AND HE MAINTAINED PHYSICAL
INTIMACY WITH HER

1 MARCH 2022 JITESH INVITED HER TO COMMON FRIEND’S HOUSE;

SHE REFUSED; MADE A FAKE ID OF HER AND
CIRCULATED HER SALACIOUS PHOTOS

2 MARCH 2022 JITESH UPLOADED THE VIDEOS AND PHOTOS ON

PORNOGRAPHIC WEBSITES

10 MARCH 2022 KRITI GOT TO KNOW ABOUT HE LEAKED PHOTOS

AND VIDEOS

15 MARCH 2022 KRITI WAS SUSPENDED FROM HER COLLEGE

‘SHANTI NIKETAN’ AND WAS ALSO SOCIALLY
KICKED OUT OF HER FAMILY

20 MARCH 2022 KRITI WITH THE HELP OF HER TWO FRIENDS

REGISTERED A FIR AGAINST JITESH

18 MARCH 2022 JITESH APPROACHED THE HC FOR THE

ANTICIPATORY BAIL WHICH WAS DENIED

20 APRIL 2022 KRITI APPROACHED THE SC WITH A PRAYER TO

REMOVE HER QUESTIONABLE AND EXPLICIT
PHOTOS FROM FAPBOOK AND PORNOGRAPHIC
WEBSITES AND TO RECOGNISE RTBF UNDER RIGHT
TO PRIVACY IN ARTICLE 21

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

Page |
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I - Whether right to be Forgotten can be seen as an essential aspect

in the modern-day tech oriented and IT driven world and be granted the
status of a Fundamental Right within the scope and boundaries of Right to
Life and Personal Liberty?

ISSUE II – Whether the Social Media platform Fapbook and the Website
obscenevideos.com be directed to remove any objectionable content posted
and available on the said platforms involving or including Ms. Kriti?

ISSUE III – Whether there is a need to sensitize the unprecedented

escalation of insensitive behavior of the social media and other web
platforms from removal of objectionable content concerning victims of
cyber-crimes?

ISSUE IV - To what extent does Right to Privacy and Right to be Forgotten

differ from each other and whether right to be forgotten could be included
within the domain and scope of Right to Privacy or not?

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

PAGE NO 10
 SUMARRY OF ISSUES

Whether right to be Forgotten can be seen as an essential aspect in the

modern-day tech oriented and IT driven world and be granted the status of
a Fundamental Right within the scope and boundaries of Right to Life and
Personal Liberty?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court of Supreme Court that RIGHT TO BE
FORGOTTEN is an essential aspect in modern day tech oriented world and can be given the
status of fundamental right under right to life and personal liberty As article 21

Whether the Social Media platform Fapbook and the Website

obscenevideos.com be directed to remove any objectionable content posted
and available on the said platforms involving or including Ms. Kriti?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the Social Media platform Fapbook and
the Website obscenevideos.com will be directed to remove all objectionable content posted
and available on the said platforms involving or including Ms. Kriti as it is necessary to
remove all objectionable content that will impact someone’s life.

Whether there is a need to sensitize the unprecedented escalation of

insensitive behavior of the social media and other web platforms from
removal of objectionable content concerning victims of cyber-crimes?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that there is a huge need to sensitize the
unprecedented escalation of insensitive behavior of the social media and other web platforms
from removal of objectionable content concerning victims of cyber-crimes so that the cyber
crimes that are increasing day by day can be stopped. A strict action should be taken for such
sensitive matters.

To what extent does Right to Privacy and Right to be Forgotten differ from
each other and whether right to be forgotten could be included within the
domain and scope of Right to Privacy or not?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Right to be forgotten is subset of right to
privacy which is basic right under article 21 of the Indian constitution . Right to be forgotten,
is now a statutory right under DPDPB

P a g e 3 | 29
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1:
Whether right to be Forgotten can be seen as an essential aspect in the modern-day tech
oriented and IT driven world and be granted the status of a Fundamental Right within the
scope and boundaries of Right to Life and Personal Liberty?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court of Supreme Court that RIGHT TO
BE FORGOTTEN is an essential aspect in modern day tech-oriented world andcan be
given the status of fundamental right under right to life and personal liberty as article
21 clearly states that
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law
The right has been held as the heart of constitution as without this fundamental a
man would crumble and will not be able to survive in the society
Article 21 states two
rightsRight to life
Right to personal liberty

1.1 RIGHT TO LIFE

The most basic meaning of right to life is “a quality of life which also means is to give
the fullest opportunity to develop one’s personality and potentially to the highest level
possible Which also means Right to live decently as a member of a civilized society
Reasonable standard of comfort and decency

1.1.1 CASE LAWS RELATED TO RIGHT TO LIFE AND ITS MEANING

If we look into following case example of KHARAK SINGH V STATE OF UP1 it

clearlyexplains and states the meaning of life that is life isn’t merely animal existence.
Its branches extend to all the facilities that is need in order to enjoy life

In another case SUNIL BATRA V DELHI ADMINISTRATION2 a bench of supreme

court judges held that right to life also includes the right to lead healthy life and also
includes right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the right to repose and health.

1 Kharak singh v state of up AIR 1963 SC 1295

2 AIR 1978 SC 167

P a g e 4 | 29
 1.1.2 DIFFERENT FACETS OF RIGHT TO LIFE

There are also some mental and emotional aspects that come under right to
life as a person’s well-being includes all three *(physical, emotional and mentalneeds)
* parts

RIGHT TO LIVE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY

In cases like BODHISATTWA GAUTAM V SUBRA CHAKRABORTY3 whereinit

was held RAPE was a crime against ‘basic human rights’ and also violates victims
“RIGHT TO LIFE”

In the interview in Delhi the scope of right to life was explained

“The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goesalong
with it, namely the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing,
shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in
diverse forms, freely moving and mixing with fellow human beings”

RIGHT TO REPUTATION

Reputation is an important part of one’s life. WHEN REPUTATION IS

HURT ‘A MAN IS HALF DEAD’.
The Supreme Court of India referring to an American decision4 in the case of
State of Maharashtra V Public Concern for Governance Trust5held that a
good reputation was an element of personal security and
was protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to ‘enjoyment oflife’,
‘life’ and ‘property’.

The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of a private reputationwas

of ancient origin and was necessary to human society.

Stating that ‘reputation is an inseparable fact of right of life’, The ApexCourt

in Om Prakash Chautala V Kanwar Bhan6

1.2 RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY

In the case of Kharak singh V the State Of UP7The petitioner, in this case, was
accused of dacoity but was released due to a lackof evidence against him. The
Uttar Pradesh Police then began surveillance over him which included
domiciliary visits at night, periodical enquiries, verification of movements and
the like. Thepetitioner filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional
validity of this State action.

The judgement in this case broadened the sense of personalliberty in much

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

PAGE | 15
 bigger sense than just physical liberty

It was held that the right to personal liberty constitutes not onlythe right to be
free from restrictions placed on one’s movements but also to be free from
encroachments on one’s private life.

Nowadays Right to be forgotten has taken the world by storm, as in our society which is very IT and
Tech driven which can result as an essential part of ‘Right toLife and Personal Liberty’

1.1 MEANING OF RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

Right to be Forgotten which refers to an individual’s right to request forthe removal of their
personal information, particularly from online
platforms, to protect their privacy and reputation.
In our modern day world with so in touch with technology and social media platforms it is
important right as the when there is a sense of anonymity which isvery common in the
platforms that some individuals tend to misuse which can harm a person's reputation and
cause serious mental trauma which is clearly visible in this case where it appears prima facie
that the defendant raped the victim and then recorded the ordeal on his mobile and
blackmailed the victim deliberately leaked obscene and private photos of the victim and also
made a fake id on Fapbook and uploaded her explicit photos and also leaked it on
pornographic websites.

3 AIR 1996 SC 922

4 D.F MARION V MINNIE DAVIS,55 AMERICA LR 171
5 AIR 2007 SC 777
6 AIR 2014 SC 1220
7 AIR 1963 SC1295

This took such a toll on the victim’s mental health and trauma that she was forced against her
will to be in a sexual relationship with the defendant so that he doesn’t leak her private
photos. But when the victim had enough one day and decided to protest against the injustice
and her dignity being snatched awayfrom her, the defendant leaked her photos. As a result of
that not only the victimwas shunned out of her family but was also kicked out of her college

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

PAGE | 15
 This is one of the many examples that highlight the need of RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN as
an essential fundamental right because it is very clear that oncethe information of any kind is
out on the platforms it spreads like a wildfire andlike the case mentioned above is a prime
example of how a revenge by anotherperson can cause a havoc in another individual’s life

Under the Indian Criminal Justice there is a strong penal action is prescribed against such
heinous crime but in respect to restore the dignity of the victim bydeleting all the comprised
photos there is no remedy available

1.2.1 CASE LAWS RELATED TO RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

KS PUTTASWAMY V THE UNION OF INDIA8

The supreme court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right and it will be
included in the Right to Life enshrined under theArticle 21 of the constitution. The
Supreme Court observed that:
The right of an individual to exercise control over hispersonal data
and to be able to control his/her life would alsoencompass his right to control
his existence on the internet

ZULFIQAR AHMAN KHAN V M/S QUINTILLION BUSINESS MEDIA PVT. LTD9

Zulfiqar Ahman Khan demanded the removal of articles written

against him in the news websites ‘The Quint’. The Delhi High Courtobserved the
Right to be forgotten and right to be left alone as anintegral part of an individual’s
existence

DHARAMRAJ BHANUSHANKAR DAVE V THE STATE OF GUJARAT10

Dharmaraj Dave was acquitted in a kidnapping and murder case anddemanded the
judgements regarding his case not to be publicly
disclosed as it would harm his reputation

JORAWAR SINGH MUNDY V UNION OF INDIA11

That acknowledged the Right to be forgotten, the court was consideringa plea made by one
Jorawar Singh Mundy, an American citizen by birth
but of Indian descent, who was charged in a narcotics case in 2009 whilevisiting India but
was cleared by both the trial and the Delhi High Court. Mundy later returned to United
States and studied law and thereby informed the Delhi High Court that every time a
potential employer ran abackground check on him using Google, it led them to his
judgement,
which he blames for his lack of employment thus far.
As a result, he requested that three websites, Google, Indian Kanoon, andvLex, remove the
judgments. vLex pulled it down while the case is in court while the Delhi High Court noted
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
PAGE | 15
 the irreparable harm that it may have done to Mundy's social life and career prospects, even
though he
was ultimately acquitted, and gave him interim protection. The judgementwas ordered to be
removed from Google's search results, and India Kanoon was ordered to block the judgement
from being accessed throughusing search engines such as Google and Yahoo.

SUBRANSHU ROUT GUGUL V STATE OF ODISHA

12
Gugul v. State of Odisha also examined the Right to be Forgotten as a remedy for victims
of sexually graphic images or films frequently sharedon social media platforms by spurn
lovers to frighten and harass women, lamenting the lack of a mechanism to permanently
wipe material from the internet in order to protect the right to be forgotten, called for a
debate on theissue and said that:
Information in the public domain is like toothpaste; once it's out of the tube, youcan't get it
back in, and once it's in the public domain, it'll never go away,. The Kerala High Court as
well recently granted the petitioner's request to have his orher personal information removed
from a Google search result

Above cases were the prime examples of how RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

is an essential part of our modern tech society and it should be granted
the status of fundamental right within the scope and boundaries of Right
to life and Personal Liberty

Issue 2:
Whether the Social Media platform Fapbook and the Website
obscenevideos.com be directed to remove any objectionable content posted and
available on the said platforms involving or including Ms. Kriti?

8 2019 1 SCC1
9 CS(OS) 642/2018
10 2015 SCC ONLINE 2019
11 W.P(C) 3918/2021

12 2020 SCC ONLINE ORI 278

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

PAGE | 15
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that thesocial platforms
Fapbook and pornographic websites like ‘obscene videos’should be directed to remove any
compromised content of Ms. Kriti

2.1 SECTION 354 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

Section 354 states that if any person uses Criminal Force upon any woman with
the intention or knowledge that the women’s modesty willbe outrage, he is
punished under the section 354 of IPC,1860
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘SHEKARA V STATE OF KARNATAKA’13has
observed that the essential ingredients to constitute offence under Se 354IPC are:

That the person assaulted must be a woman

That the accused must have used a criminal force on her
That the criminal force must have been used on the women intending tothereby outrage her
modesty

2.1.1 SECTION 376 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

The punishment for rape has been provided under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. The Section prescribes punishment for rapein the form of
imprisonment of either description which lasts up to at least 7 years, but which
may extend to 10 years or life imprisonment

Under the case of ‘DILEEP SINGH V THE STATE OF BIHAR14

The accused and the victim, in this case, were neighbors. They fell in love, and the accused
coerced the girl into having sexual relations with him. He continued to have sexual
intercourse with her after promising herthat he would marry her. When the girl’s parents
found out she was
pregnant, they filed a complaint against him. He said that the girl gaveher consent and
that he never forced her.

13 SHEKARA V THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ,2009(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 816(SC)

14 AIR 2005 SC 203
Judgement of the Court

The man was charged with rape under Section 376 of the Indian PenalCode. The consent
of the girl for sexual intercourse was obtained by
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
PAGE | 15
 deceit, according to the Supreme Court, because he promised to marryher. Consent given
by deception of the victim is not valid consent.

2.1.2 SECTION 67 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT,2000

It covers any obscene publications in electronic forms. The punishment ofthis offence is
Imprisonment up to 3 to 5 yearsFine up
to 5 to 10 lakh rupees

2.1.3 CASE LAWS RELATED TO SECTION 67 OF IT ACT,2000

State of Tamil Nadu V Suhas Katti15 is a landmark case in the history of cybercrime
management and is also considered to be the first case wherethe accused was convicted under
Sec 67 Of IT Act,2000
The accused was imprisoned for 2 years and was compelled to pay thefine of Rs 4000

Avnish Bajaj V State (N.C.T) of Delhi16 Mr. Bajaj was accused of

circulating an obscene content of a pornographic website and was
convicted under the Sec 67 Of IT Act,2000 and was arrested and later hisbail was denied but,
upon further inspection it was found that the obscenecontent was not visible on the site and
his bail was granted but he was
asked to surrender his passport and not to leave the country until theinvestigation was finished.

2.2 SECTION 67(A) OF INFORMATION ACT,2000

Publishing or transmitting in the electronic form any material whichcontains

sexually explicit content
Any person who is convicted under this act shall face imprisonment up to 5years and has to
pay a fine up to 5 lakh rupees
The second or subsequent punishment can give imprisonment up to 7years with a fine up to
10 lakh rupees

15 CC NO 4680/2004
16 2005 3 COMP, LI 364 (DEL)

2.2.1 SECTION 66 AND 66(A) OF INFORMATION ACT,2000

Section 66 states computer related offences and if any person dishonestly andfraudulently does
any action referred in Section 43 of IPC17shall face imprisonment up to 3 years and can pay
fine up to 5 lakh rupees
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
PAGE | 15
 Section 66(A) states the punishment for sending offensive messagesthrough
communication
Any information that is grossly offensive and can harm intentionsAny false
information that causes annoyance, inconvenience or
danger to another person
Any electronic mail to deceive or mislead the messageIt shall be
punishable up to 3 years with a 5 lakh fine

Above explanation of sections 354 and 376 of IPC,1860 and

Sections 66,66(A),67,67(A) prove that the defendant is liable
under all these sections

2.1 INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN(PROHIBITON)

ACT,1986

It is humbly submitted that the defendant is liable under thesection 4 of Indecent

Representation of Women
There are two essentials under section 4There
shall be circulation and publication
Such publication must contain indecent representation of women

2.1.1 FACTS PROVING SECTION 4 OF INDECENT

REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN(PROHIBITION) ACT,1986
On 25th December 2021 the defendant took the chance of findingKriti alone and
committed Rape upon her and recorded her on hisphone (instance 1)
After that when Kriti got to know she conversed to him that shewould tell her
parents and sort legal ways to restore her dignity
But Jitesh got angry and from 1 January to 15th February 2022 he harassed and
continuously gave her death threats and messages thathe would leak her photos and
videos on pornographic sites
Fearing for her life and dignity she continued to rape by Jitesh until1 March 2022
when she refused to come to his common friend’s house

17 ANY ACTION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW BY INDIAN PENAL CODE

After that all hell broke as Jitesh made fake ‘fapbook’ id of Kriti and added 1000
people and circulated her explicit pictures and photos inthe groups (instance 2)

This proves that the defendant not only committed a heinous crime suchas rape but also
circulated obscene photos of her on the internet

This resulted not only Kriti suffering both physically and mentally but alsowas harassed
mentally as she was kicked out of her college but also was socially ostracized and thrown out
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
PAGE | 15
 of her family
Because of fearing of her dignity was brutally assaulted for 3 months andcouldn’t step forward
to the police because of the social stigma
In case of State of Punjab V Baldev Singh18 Court ensured under Art 21
that women’s right to treated with decency and proper dignity is included

2.3 SECTION 6 OF INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN

ACT,1986

Section 6 of The Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986 imposes apenalty on the
offender. The terms and a fine extending to ten thousandrupees and the terms if a second or
subsequent prosecution occurs, the
penalty may not be less than six months but may extend to five years andmay also extend, at
least, to ten thousand rupees shall substitute for
words or fine which may exceed two thousand rupees. The words in caseof a second or later
conviction to a sentence of no less than six months
but which may extend up to five years and not less than fifty thousandrupees but may be
extended to five lakh rupees shall, however, be replaced by the words. Their sentence shall
not extend to five years.

Above facts are loud and clear proof of victim dignity and modesty beingoutraged to the point
where it has caused ostracization of victim from
both her college as well as her family

There are some cases such as Aveek Sarkar V State of West Bengal and ORS19 held that if
any photograph prima facie gives a sexual hint and is offensive or indecent in any sense that
it questions the dignity it falls underthe Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women
Act,1986

18 AIR 1999 SC 2378

19 2014(4) SCC 257

In other cases, like Ranjit D. Udeshi V State of Maharashtra20 the court

specified the meaning of obscenity and stated, “In our opinion, the test to
adopt in our country (regard being had to our community mores) is that
obscenity without a preponderating social purpose or profit cannot have
the constitutional protection of free speech and expression, and obscenity
is treating with sex in a manner appealing to the carnal side of human
nature, or having that tendency. Such a treating with sex is offensive to
modesty and decency but the extent of such appeal in a particular book

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

PAGE | 15
 etc. are matters for consideration in each individual case.”
In this case respondent misused the photographs and uploaded in on
pornographic websites

In regarding all the above aspects Fapbook and website

‘obscenevideos.com’ should remove all the explicit photos and videos of
Ms Kriti and to restore her dignity back as she has suffered enough
suffering as it is and to also protect her reputation from further being
tarnished and questioned in the future.

________________________________
20 AIR 1965 SC 881

3.1 NEED TO SENSITISE THE ONLINE CONTENT OF SOCIAL

MEDIA PLATFORMS

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

PAGE | 15
Issue 3:
– Whetherthere is a need to sensitize the unprecedented escalation of
insensitive behavior of the social media and other web platforms from
removal of objectionable content concerning victims of cyber-crimes?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that socialmedia be directed
to remove any obscene videos or photos that are
present to harm the dignity of victim and is further causing her mentalagony
In this present we have seen how explicit photos and videos of the victimthat have been
uploaded on social media platforms without her consent have raised a controversial yet
important question that whether social media platforms should monitor the content that have
uploaded on their platforms?
The answer to this question is YES
It is been clearly proved the fact that the defendant has not only committed the
heinous crime of rape upon the petitioner but also tofurther add
into that defendant also recorded it on his phone and also
blackmailed the victim to maintain further physical relations with him inorder to not let
her dignity be harmed further

3.1.1 FACTS PROVING THAT HOW EXPLICIT

PHOTOS WEREOBTAINED AND HOW IT
AFFECTED THE PETITIONER

This continued from December 2021 to march 2022, almost 3 months ofcontinuous torture
and agony on the victim. But when she finally got some courage and told the defendant
NO to his advances, he took it as athreat and leaked all her compromising and explicit
videos and photos
and leaked it online including a pornographic site
When the victim got to know about all this, she tried to seek the help ofher family but
was shunned out of her family. The authorities of ShishuNiketan College where she was
studying also got to know about her comprising social image and due to this she was
suspended out of the college
All of this happened in the span of One Week and the victim’s whole lifewas suddenly turned
upside down and took a turn was the worst as she thought that her family as well as her college
could help her anyway, shewas proved wrong
It is been made abundantly clear that the defendant took these salaciousand lewd
photographs of the petitioner to deliberately cause harm to herand her reputation and also to
oppress her voice he further blackmailed her for more than 3 months and continued taking
advantage of her sexually
This shows how even when it is somebody’s else crime can affect a victim’s psyche
and could almost ruin her life and get her socially outcasted from her family as well as
stop her from getting education

In order to understand why there is a need to monitor the content that isposted online we need
to understand it deeply and analyses that is an
alarming issue that our modern tech oriented is facing and how it affectsthe very citizens
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
PAGE | 15
 that are in danger that is unknown to them and how
they can protect themselves

3.1 MEANING OF INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ANDSECTION 6

If we look at this prima facie it appears that the defendant is clearly liable
under section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women(Prohibition) Act,1986 and for the
offences he has committed he is clearly liable underSection 421 and here are two essentials
which prove it:
There shall be circulaton or publication
Such publication must contain some indecent representation of women

In the Case of Chintan Upadhyay V. Hema Updhaya And Ors22 the world
‘circulation’ was given the literal meaning and was defined . In this case itwas also held that
the obscene photos were made in order to corrupt the morals of the people and to also
corrupt their minds of the people which can potentially harm the women in future

And to further elaborate on this topic the term ‘indecency’ has been
defined under the section 2c of the act which clearly states that indecentrepresentation of
women in any having the effect of being indignant or
derogative to a woman

Defendant on 1 March 2022 the defendant made a fake id of the

petitioner and added close to 1000 people and circulated23 her lewd andexplicit photos and
by 2 March 2022 he also uploaded the said video
which he recorded on 25 December 202124 and uploaded it on thepornographic site
name obscencevideos.com

Above statement raises a bigger question of what exactly is the term‘Pornography’ and how is
defined in India

21 INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ACT,1986

22 LNIND 2013 BOM 351
23 section 4 OF INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN
24 MOOT PREPOSITION PARA 1

Pornography or Obscenity is a very sensitive issue all over the world. Theterm pornography
is defined as ‘publishing and transmitting obscene material of person in electric form it is
the most heinous crime
It is also to be remembered that India is a signatory to the Convention ofElimination of All
forms of Discrimination towards Women25
In Saravanan V the Superintendent of Police26 Hon’ble High Court hasdirected the state
parties to take the appropriate steps to suppress all forms of trafficking and exploitation of
women

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

PAGE | 15
 In this case the criteria for publishing salacious, lewd and explicit photos have been proved
and it has also been proved that the ultimate intent ofthe defendant was to harm the dignity
of the petitioner. That is why thedefendant posted the video of the heinous crime
committed on 25 December 2021 and uploaded it on the prohibited website27

Following case X V, The Union of India & Ors28

The Court highlighted that X’s photographs were not obscene or offensive in themselves, but
as they had been taken from her social media accountswithout her consent, to be uploaded on
a pornographic website alongside “derogatory captions”, publication of the photographs
constituted an offence under section 67 of the IT Act as the “only purpose of posting the
petitioner’s photograph on a pornographic website could be to use it to
appeal to the prurient interests of those who are likely to see it” [para.85]. It added that
publication of these images would likely result in
“ostracization and stigmatisation” which required an “immediate andefficacious
remedy

3.2 CYBER CRIMES AND ITS AFFECTS ON THE VICTIMS

Cyber crime is growing threat in this modern day tech oriented societythat poses a
significant risks to the individuals
Some of the affects are:
Identity theft
Emotional trauma
Loss of reputation

25 9th JULY 1993

26 LNIND 2014 BOM 1385
27 OBSCENE VIDEOS (MOOT PREPOSITION)
28 W.P (CRL)1082/2020 & CRL M.A. NOS 9485/2020

Society ostracization
There is also a huge issue that is misuse of the social media and websitesIt is humbly submitted
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in the last few years we have seen so much
growth and popularity on the platforms which is great but it also comes with a set of drawbacks
whichhas also seen its fair share . There is also an observation that when we give anonymous
power to individuals they tend to misuse it for their
personal gain and pleasure.
And that is what happened in the case of petitioner and defendant andalso other cases
mentioned throughout
Not only this anonymous power creates a power imbalance between two parties but also creates
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
PAGE | 15
 a sense of hopelessness and anxiety about theirposition in the society we happened in the case
of petitioner as she wasshunned out of both her family and college

In order to stop this from further happening

Above mentioned cases are the prime examples of why there is a need to
sensitise the unprecedented escalation of insensitive behaviour of the
social media and other web platforms from removable of questionable
content concerning victims of cyber crimes

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

PAGE | 15
Issue 4:
– To what extent does Right to Privacy and Right to be Forgotten differ from each other
and whether right to be forgotten could be included within the domain and scope of
Right to Privacy or not?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble court that right to be forgotten is included within
the domain and scope of right to privacy. Privacy is a broad concept relating to the protection of
individual personals rights.

• In K.S Puttaswamy v. UOI 1

Supreme Court declared RTBF as broader party of RTP. Right to privacy is a fundamental right and
it will be include in the Right to life and Personal liberty under the Article 21 of Indian constitution.

▪ On one hand Orissa and Karnataka H.C accepted doctrine of RTBF as essential part of Right
to privacy under article 21 Right to life and Personal liberty.

Like in, Zulfiquar Ahamd Khan v. Quintillion Business Media pvt ltd2
In the above mentioned case court directed media platform to take down the article where
harassment allegation were published.

• In Karthick Theodore v. Madras HC3

The Madras High Court held in the case that an accused individual is entitled to have their name
deleted from rulings or decrees, particularly those that are visible in the public domain and
accessible through web search tools. Court noted that it is the Court’s responsibility to protect
people’s rights to privacy and reputation until the Data Protection Act is approved by the legislative
body. When the council approves the Data Protection Regime, it should include an objective
approach for dealing with requests for the suppression of names of those who have been accused of
crimes but have been found not guilty.

▪ RTBF is subset of Right to privacy which is basic right under article 21 of Indian constitution

However it was unclear whether RTBF is basic right in India. Due to B.N. Shrikrisha committee
recommendation PDP bill,2019 was established and it became statutory right on August 2023 after
Indian president Droupadi Murmu granted assent to DPDPB.

1 2019 1 SCC1
2 CS(OS)642/2018
3 W.P.(MD) No.12015 of 2021

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

Page | XVIII
18
 ▪ Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (DPDPB)

The primary purpose of the Act is to regulate the processing of digital personal data and respect
individuals' right to protect their data while recognizing the necessity of processing and using such
data for lawful purposes. The language employed in the Act is simple and straightforward, ensuring
easy comprehension for all. Moreover, the Act aims to establish a comprehensive legal framework to
govern digital personal data protection in India.

• In X v. Registrar General4

Karnataka HC recognized RTBF as important in heinous crime committed against women. The court
state: if RTBF is not recognized in matter like present any accused will outrage the modesty of
women and misuse same in cyber space unhindered.

▪ The internet has opened up the possibility for a wealth of personal and other sensitive
information to be made accessible to the world at large. At the same time, the publication of
information obtained unlawfully e.g. as a result of hacking personal computers or
unauthorized access to government files, may well be in the public interest and therefore
justified.

4WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1137 OF 2018

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
Page | XVIII
19
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly pray before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that it may
be pleased to adjudicate and declare that:
1. Right to be forgotten falls under the ambit of Right to Life Article 21 as a fundamental right
2. The Supreme Court of India may direct Fapbook and website obscene vidoes.com tp to
remove any objectionable content of Ms. Kriti from their platforms
3. The Supreme Court of India may give out necessary guidelines to social media platforms to
sensitize and make them realize the unprecedented escalation of the insensitive behavior on
various platforms

4.Right to Be Forgotten should be included in the domain and scope of Right to Privacy

AND/OR

to pass any order which the Court may deem fit in the light of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.

Sd/-

All of which is most humbly prayed (Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner)

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

Page | XVIII
20