Index of Authorities _ Memorandum for the Petitioner

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF

BHARATHAM , AT TELHI

KAITANYA & OTHERS ..........................................................................................(PETITIONERS)

V.

UNION OF BHARATHAM & OTHERS ................................................................. (RESPONDENTS)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANIONJUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BHARATHAM TELHI

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1
 Table of contents Memorandum for the Petitioner
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..........................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................... 9

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... 10

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................................................................................ 12

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS .....................................................................................................13

PLEADINGS................................................................................................................................. 15

1. WHETHER TALKSAPP'S MODIFIED PRIVACY POLICY, WHICH PERMITS SHARING OF USER

DATA WITH THIRD-PARTY SERVICES AND ZUCKERPUNCH'S OTHER PRODUCTS,
VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY GUARANTEED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF BHARATHAM? ................................................................................................... 15

2. WHETHER THE DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF USERS IN THE EU REGION COMPARED TO

THOSE IN BHARATHAM, REGARDING PRIVACY POLICIES, CONSTITUTES
DISCRIMINATION AND INFRINGES UPON THE USERS' RIGHTS? ........................................ 18

3. THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT AND REGULATIONS AKIN TO THE EU IN

BHARATHAM RENDERS USERS VULNERABLE TO POTENTIAL PRIVACY VIOLATIONS BY
TALKSAPP AND ZUCKERPUNCH…………………………………………………………………19

PRAYER ........................................................................................................................................ 23

2
 List of Abbreviations Memorandum for the Petitioner

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS DEFINITION

¶ Para

&. And

Admn. Administration

A.I.R. All India Reporter

All. Allahabad

Art. Article

Anr. Another

Cal. Calcutta

Co. Company

Corp. Corporation

Cri.L.J. Criminal Law Journal

Ed. Edition

E.H.R.R. European Human Rights Reports

Fr. Father

Govt. Government

H.C High court

J.I.L.I. Journal of the Indian Law Institute

M.L.J. Madras Law Journal

Mad. L. J

NJ Natural Justice

Ors. Others

3
 List of abbreviations Memorandum for the Petitioner

PIL Public Interest Litigation

Regd. Registered

S.C. Supreme Court

SCALE. Supreme Court Almanac

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports

Sec. Section

Supp. Supplementary

T.N. Tamil Nadu

U.O.I Union Of India

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

v. Versus

JT. Judgment Today

4
 Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Petitioner

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

1) Gopal Das Vs. Union Of India Air 1955 Supreme Court

2) Kharak Singh v. State Of Up (1962): Air 1962 Sc 361

3) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union Of India (2017) 10 Scc 1

4) Navneet Kaur Vs. Union Of India Air 2014 Supreme Court

5) Pucl v. Union Of India (1997)

6) Ritesh Sinha Vs. Union Of India Air 2019 Supreme Court 3592

7) Sudha Sharma Vs. Union Of India Cwp No.6834 Of 1996

8) State Of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar Air 1952 Sc 594:

9) Whatsapp v. The Information Technology Act, 2000 & Ors.

5
 Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Petitioner

BOOKS REFFERED

Vakul Sharma, Cyber Laws in India: Information Technology Act, 2000 (2nd ed., 2019).

Apar Gupta & Rahul Matthan, Information Technology Law in India: Evolution and Challenges

(1st ed., 2017).

Praveen Dalal, Law of Cyber Crimes & Information Technology (2nd ed., 2018).

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's The Indian Penal Code (Justice K. Kannan & Justice G. P. Singh eds.,

LexisNexis

ARTICLES

1. "Reforms in Indian Penal Code and Its Efficacy" ,Dr. Vipin Kumar Tripathi, published in the

Journal of Indian Law Institute.

2. "IPC and Its Application in the Digital Era" , Dr. Sumita Mishra, published in the Indian Journal

of Criminology and Criminalistics.

3. "Cyber Laws and Cyber Crimes in India", Dr. S. S. Mantha, published in the Journal of Cyber

Law & Intellectual Property Rights.

4. "Challenges and Implications of Information Technology Act 2000", Dr. Subhankar Mishra,

published in the Journal of Law & Cyber Warfare.

5. "Information Technology Act 2000: A Critical Review" , Dr. Anurag Sharma, published in the

International Journal of Legal Studies and Research.

6
 Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Petitioner

ONLINE RESOURCES AND DATABASES

1. http://www.vailno1.com/
2. www.indiankanoon.com
3. www.lawyersclubindia.com
4. www.ncrb.nic.in
5. www.supremelaw.in
6. www.manupatra.com
7. www.lawyerservices.in
8. www.findlaw.com

STATUTES

1. Indian evidence act, 1872

2. Indian penal code, 1860
3. Information technology act,2000

7
 Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Petitioner

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAVE APPROACHED THE HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE

REPUBLIC OF BHARATHAM UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF BHARATHAM ,1950.

8
 Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Petitioner

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Bharatham is a democratic nation with a population of over 1billion. The
nation hasalways been a hub for education and trade and has a literacy rate of over 75%. The
number of people using the internet in Bharatham on a daily basis is close to 45% of the entire
population. With over 600million active internet users, Bharatham is the second largest online
market in the world .A majority of the population accesses the internet via their mobile phones.
One aspect wherein Bharatham shares the characteristics of other global internet users is its
passion for social media

2. TalksApp is a messaging app which revolutionised the idea of modern-day messengers by

connecting people worldwide. TalksApp was incorporated in the year 2011 and has been
incredibly successful as acompany in less than a decade since inception. From meagre 10k users
globally in its first year, it stands at 2 billion users worldwide of which 1.6 billion use it on a
weekly basis. The company had an estimatedturnover of $1 billion in 2014.

3. ZuckerPunch, a corporate giant, acquired TalksApp in 2014. The parent company is a social
networking giant and arguably the most successful company in this sector. Social networkers
create content in the form of updates, photos, links, likes and comments and ZuckerPunch sells
ads targeted to either the person or the content. Advertising brings in the bulk of social
network‟s revenue.ZuckerPunch also owns another app which is an online photo sharing and
social networking platform.The trio of these apps makes ZuckerPunch undisputedly the big fish
in the social networking market.

4. There are other similar apps in the market but the number of users as compared to the users on
platforms provided by ZuckerPunch remains considerably low.ZuckerPunch has always been
very clear about their data protection and privacy policies. One of the notable features of the
TalksApp is its advanced cryptography and due to this speciality they are gettingmore users.This
feature can be activated by users in a single step process and as recent as 2016 there was an
update which gave all personal chats an end-to-end encryption, one of the tools of
cryptography. Following the update, the official twitter handle of the company tweeted thus
“From now on when you and your contacts use the latest version of this app, every call you

9
 Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Petitioner

make, and every message, photo, video, file and voice message you send is, end-to-end
encrypted by default, including group chats”. Another blogpost which followed the tweet
said:“End- to-end encryption basically ensures that only the sender and the receiver can read
what has sent, and no one in between, not even TalksApp.End-to-end encryption basically
means your messages are secured with the key, and only the recipient and you have the special
key pair needed to unlock and read them. For added protection, every message you send has its
own unique lock and key.

5. All of this happens automatically: no need to turn on settings or set up special secret chats to
secure your messages.Like the rest of the world, TalksApp is the most used messenger app in
Bharatham.In a fine morning, on 01.01.2021, TalksApp rolled out its modified version of
privacy policy which states “third party services or other ZuckerPunch company products that
are integrated with ourServices, may receive information about what you or others share with
them”. The new user policy basically states how data is impacted when there is interaction with
a business on the platform, and provides more details on integration with ZuckerPunch.

6. The policy has reached its worldwide users as a clickwrap agreement with a specific notice
that „the services shall be terminated unless the agreement is accepted by the user on or before
15.02.2021‟The backlash faced was much graver than what TalksApp ever anticipated. Human
rights activists, tech experts, lawyers, economists and civilians from all walks of life expressed
their dismay at the new privacy policy .Things took a different turn when the citizens of
Bharatham figured out that the privacy policy for the EU region was completely different from
what it was for the subcontinent. The backlash was so harsh that #boycottTalksApp was
trending on twitter in less than an hour after this policy was rolled out.

7. To worsen things, a very famous business magnate, engineer and industrial designer endorsed
a rival app to his 45 million followers on Twitter. This resulted in a very drastic migration of
users from TalksApp Following the unanticipated turn of events, TalksApp sent out a
disclaimer which stated that “Your data is absolutely safe. Not even TalksApp can read your
private chats.” This was further clarified by stating that only business chats are used for the
purpose of data sharing.Meanwhile, in the Republic of Bharatham, courts saw a rather busy day
with petitions being filed in almost every High Court stating the various reasons as to how
TalksApp‟s new privacy policy is the epitome of privacy violation.

10
 Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Petitioner

8. While some petitioners assert the absence of any governmental oversight unlike in the EU,
some others came with an argument that the new policy would give a 360-degree view to a
person‟s online activity. Further, it was stated that the new policy infringes the user‟s right to
choose as far as his data privacy with respect to ZuckerPunch and other third-party apps are
related.On the similar lines, a PIL was filed by Advocate Kaitanya in the Telhi High Court
stating that the new policy is direct violation of Fundamental Rights and ultra vires the
Constitution. Observing that TalksApp is a 'private app' and that the users voluntarily use the
app even though they have the option to not use it, the Telhi High Court said that it will only
issue notice in the petition once it understands the concern of the petitioner against the
application and its contentious updated privacy policy

9. As a continuation of the aforesaid incidents there has been huge outcry for laying down
guidelines for data protection and privacy. The brow beating tactics of TalksApp was heavily
criticised asserting that there is a positive obligation on the State to ensure that the fundamental
rights of the citizens are not infringed. The inadequacy of Information Technology law
pertaining to breach of confidentiality and privacy was highlighted. Emphasis was laid on the
necessity to frame appropriate guidelines to ensure that TalksApp does not share any data of its
users with any third-party applications or ZuckerPunch and its companies for any purpose
whatsoever.Owing to the huge number of petitions, the Supreme Court clubbed it and has taken
it up for hearing before a division bench.

10. Note

The Constitution of Republic of Bharatham is pari materia to the Constitution of India .All the
legislations of Republic of Bharatham are pari materia to the legislations of Republic of IndiaThe
participants are free to frame their own issues and contentions keeping in mind the legal issues
highlighted in the moot problem.

11
 Memorandum for the Petitioner

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER TALKSAPP'S MODIFIED PRIVACY POLICY, WHICH PERMITS SHARING

OF USER DATA WITH THIRD-PARTY SERVICES AND ZUCKERPUNCH'S OTHER
PRODUCTS, VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY GUARANTEED
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF BHARATHAM?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF USERS IN THE EU REGION

COMPARED TO THOSE IN BHARATHAM, REGARDING PRIVACY POLICIES,
CONSTITUTES DISCRIMINATION AND INFRINGES UPON THE USERS' RIGHTS?

ISSUE 3

THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT AND REGULATIONS AKIN TO THE

EU IN BHARATHAM RENDERS USERS VULNERABLE TO POTENTIAL PRIVACY
VIOLATIONS BY TALKSAPP AND ZUCKERPUNCH

12
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER TALKSAPP'S MODIFIED PRIVACY POLICY VIOLATES THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF BHARATHAM?

It is humbly submitted before the Honorable Court that TalksApp's modified privacy policy indeed
violates the fundamental right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution of Bharatham. The right to
privacy is recognized as a fundamental right essential for the exercise of other human rights.
TalksApp's policy, allowing sharing of user data with third-party services and ZuckerPunch's other
products without explicit consent, directly infringes upon this fundamental right.The users of
TalksApp have a reasonable expectation of privacy when engaging in private conversations through
the platform.

2. WHETHER THE DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF USERS IN THE EU REGION

COMPARED TO THOSE IN BHARATHAM, REGARDING PRIVACY POLICIES,
CONSTITUTES DISCRIMINATION AND INFRINGES UPON THE USERS' RIGHTS?

It is humbly submitted before the Honorable Court that the disparate treatment of users in the EU
region and Bharatham regarding privacy policies constitutes discrimination and violates the users'
rights to equal protection under the law.The revelation that TalksApp's privacy policy varies
significantly between regions raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency. While users in
the EU region benefit from more stringent data protection regulations, users in Bharatham are
subjected to less stringent standards, exposing them to greater privacy risks.Such discriminatory
practices not only undermine the principles of equality but also reinforce existing power imbalances
between regions. Users in Bharatham should not be deprived of the same level of privacy protection
afforded to their counterparts in the EU region simply based on their geographic location.Therefore,
it is incumbent upon the Honorable Court to address this issue and ensure that all users of TalksApp,
regardless of their location, are treated equitably and afforded adequate privacy safeguards.

13
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER TALKSAPP'S MODIFIED PRIVACY POLICY VIOLATES THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF BHARATHAM?

1) The revised privacy policy of TalksApp, which permits the disclosure of user data to third-
party services and other products of ZuckerPunch, infringes upon the essential entitlement to
privacy safeguarded by the Constitution of Bharatham. The Supreme Court of Bharatham has
acknowledged this entitlement as a fundamental right in several significant legal
decisions.The altered privacy policy of TalksApp, which enables the exchange of user data
with third-party services and other products of ZuckerPunch, violates the fundamental right to
privacy that is guaranteed under the Constitution of Bharatham. 1

2) This right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of
Bharatham in numerous landmark judgments.Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of
Bharatham this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of Bharatham. The court emphasized
the importance of individual autonomy and the right to control one's personal information.Any
violation of privacy without the consent of the individual constitutes a breach of fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Constitution.2

3) The discriminatory treatment of users is exemplified by the contrasting privacy policies

observed in various regions, specifically the European Union (EU) and the subcontinent. This
disparity in policies highlights a clear violation of the principle of equality that is enshrined in
the Constitution. The existence of varying privacy policies across different regions, such as
the EU and the subcontinent, serves as evidence for the unequal treatment of users. This
discrepancy not only underscores the discriminatory nature of such practices but also goes

1
Article 21 of the Constitution of Bharatham: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 19(1)(a): Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Privacy is an essential aspect of personal autonomy and
expression)
2
Ritesh Sinha vs. Union of India AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3592

14
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner
against the fundamental principle of equality that is protected by the Constitution.3

4) The Supreme Court held that any discriminatory treatment based on geographical location
violates the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.4The enforcement
of TalksApp's revised privacy policy through a clickwrap agreement, which includes the
potential termination of services for those who do not accept it, can be seen as an act of
coercion and a breach of contract law principles.

5) By implementing a clickwrap agreement, TalksApp forces its users to accept the modified
privacy policy under the threat of service termination. This approach can be considered
coercive and contradictory to the fundamental principles of contract law.A case where the
Supreme Court held that contracts entered into under duress or coercion are voidable at the
option of the aggrieved party.5

6) The modified privacy policy is imposed upon users, leaving them with no alternative but to
accept it, or else face the consequence of having their service terminated. Consequently, this
restricts their autonomy to determine how their personal information is managed, thereby
infringing upon their fundamental entitlement to exercise freedom of choice.Users are coerced
into accepting the altered privacy policy, with the looming threat of service termination if they
refuse.

7) Consequently, this curtails their ability to make independent decisions regarding the handling
of their personal data, thereby violating their inherent right to freedom of choice.6 A case
where the Supreme Court held that any infringement on an individual's freedom of choice
violates their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.7

8) It is humbly submitted before the Honorable Court that TalksApp's modified privacy policy
indeed violates the fundamental right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution of Bharatham.

3
Article 14 Of The Constitution Of Bharatham: Right To Equality
4
Navneet Kaur Vs. Union Of India Air 2014 Supreme Court
5
Gopal Das Vs. Union Of India Air 1955 Supreme Court
6
Article 19(1)(a) Of The Constitution Of India Right To Freedom Of Speech And Expression (Which Includes The Right
To Make Choices)
7
Sudha Sharma Vs. Union Of India cwp No.6834 Of 1996

15
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner
The right to privacy is recognized as a fundamental right essential for the exercise of other
human rights. TalksApp's policy, allowing sharing of user data with third-party services and
ZuckerPunch's other products without explicit consent, directly infringes upon this
fundamental right.The users of TalksApp have a reasonable expectation of privacy when
engaging in private conversations through the platform.

9) However, the modified policy undermines this expectation by enabling extensive data sharing
without adequate safeguards. This not only breaches users' trust but also exposes them to
potential exploitation of their personal information by external entities.Furthermore, the
unilateral imposition of the modified policy with a threat of service termination for non-
compliance coerces users into relinquishing their privacy rights. Such tactics undermine the
principles of consent and autonomy, which are integral to the right to privacy.In light of these
considerations, it is imperative for the Honorable Court to intervene and uphold the
constitutional right to privacy by scrutinizing the legality and implications of TalksApp's
modified privacy policy.

16
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

2. WHETHER THE DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF USERS IN THE EU REGION

COMPARED TO THOSE IN BHARATHAM, REGARDING PRIVACY POLICIES,
CONSTITUTES DISCRIMINATION AND INFRINGES UPON THE USERS' RIGHTS?

10) The unequal treatment of users by TalksApp, based on their geographical location, is a clear
violation of the fundamental principle of equality as stated in Article 14 of the Constitution.
By implementing different privacy policies for users in the EU region and those in Bharatham,
the company is engaging in an unjustifiable form of discrimination.

11) TalksApp's actions of treating users differently depending on their geographical location
directly contradict the fundamental right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
The unjustifiable classification between users in the EU region and those in Bharatham,
particularly in terms of privacy policies, undermines the principle of equal treatment for all
individuals, regardless of their location.8

12) TalksApp's differential privacy policies have been found to violate the privacy rights
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is imperative that users in Bharatham are
afforded the same level of privacy protection as their counterparts in the EU region. Any form
of unequal treatment in this aspect is deemed unconstitutional and goes against the
fundamental principles of privacy rights.

13) Upholding the right to privacy is crucial in ensuring that individuals are protected from
unwarranted intrusion into their personal information. By maintaining consistent privacy
standards across different regions, TalksApp can demonstrate its commitment to respecting
the privacy rights of all users, regardless of their geographical location. It is essential for
companies to adhere to constitutional principles and provide equal privacy safeguards to all
users, irrespective of where they are located.9

14) TalksApp's choice to enforce varying privacy policies for users based on their geographical
location can be viewed as discriminatory. This practice raises concerns regarding fairness and

8
Violation of Right to Equality (Article 14 of the Constitution)
9
Right to Privacy (Article 21 of the Constitution)

17
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner
equality among users, as it implies that individuals in different regions are not being treated
equally in terms of privacy protection. By implementing different standards for different
regions, TalksApp may inadvertently be perpetuating inequality and violating the fundamental
principles of non-discrimination.

15) The decision to apply disparate privacy policies based on geographical location could
potentially lead to legal and ethical implications for TalksApp. Discriminating against users
based on where they are located goes against the principles of equality and fairness that are
essential in upholding user rights. It is crucial for companies like TalksApp to ensure that their
policies are consistent and do not discriminate against users based on arbitrary factors such as
geographical location. By reevaluating their approach to privacy policies, TalksApp can work
towards fostering a more inclusive and equitable user experience for all individuals, regardless
of where they are located.

16) The Supreme Court held that any classification must be based on intelligible differentia and
must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. TalksApp's differentiation
between users based on their location lacks any reasonable nexus and is thus
unconstitutional.10The Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any infringement upon this right must meet the test of
proportionality and must be justified by a legitimate state aim. TalksApp's disparate privacy
policies fail to meet this test and are therefore unconstitutional.11

17) Article 26 of the ICCPR prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including race, color,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or
other status. Discriminating between users based on their geographical location violates the
principles enshrined in the ICCPR.12 These rules impose obligations on entities handling
sensitive personal data to ensure the security and confidentiality of such information.
TalksApp's differential treatment of users may lead to disparate handling of sensitive personal
data, thereby violating these rules.13

10
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 594:
11
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
12
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
13
Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information)
Rules, 2011

18
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

18) It is humbly submitted before the Honorable Court that the disparate treatment of users in the
EU region and Bharatham regarding privacy policies constitutes discrimination and violates
the users' rights to equal protection under the law.The revelation that TalksApp's privacy
policy varies significantly between regions raises serious concerns about fairness and
transparency. While users in the EU region benefit from more stringent data protection
regulations, users in Bharatham are subjected to less stringent standards, exposing them to
greater privacy risks.

19) Such discriminatory practices not only undermine the principles of equality but also reinforce
existing power imbalances between regions. Users in Bharatham should not be deprived of the
same level of privacy protection afforded to their counterparts in the EU region simply based
on their geographic location.Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Honorable Court to address
this issue and ensure that all users of TalksApp, regardless of their location, are treated
equitably and afforded adequate privacy safeguards.

3) THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT AND REGULATIONS AKIN TO

THE EU IN BHARATHAM RENDERS USERS VULNERABLE TO POTENTIAL
PRIVACY VIOLATIONS BY TALKSAPP AND ZUCKERPUNCH

20) The absence of stringent governmental oversight and regulations akin to those observed in the
European Union leaves users vulnerable to potential privacy infringements by TalksApp and
ZuckerPunch. In the absence of proper regulations, these companies are at liberty to enforce
policies that could jeopardize user privacy without facing any consequences. This lack of
accountability raises concerns about the protection of users' personal information and their
right to privacy.14

21) The deficiency in governmental regulations also results in a failure to uphold users'
fundamental right to privacy, as outlined in Article 21 of the Constitution of Bharatham,
which closely mirrors the Constitution of India. Users have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in their interactions, and it is imperative that this expectation is upheld and protected
by the government through appropriate regulations. Drawing upon relevant case law, such as
the landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017),
14
Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy (1890).

19
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner
underscores the significance of governmental regulations in safeguarding the fundamental
right to privacy and ensuring accountability in the digital realm.

22) TalksApp and ZuckerPunch possess the capacity to exploit user data for commercial gains
without sufficient safeguards in place due to the absence of stringent regulations. The
amalgamation of user data with third-party services or other products owned by ZuckerPunch
gives rise to apprehensions regarding the exploitation of data and unauthorized access.15

23) Without stringent regulations in place, TalksApp and ZuckerPunch have the potential to
utilize user data for commercial purposes without adequate protection measures. The
integration of user data with third-party services or other products owned by ZuckerPunch
raises concerns about the exploitation of data and unauthorized access, highlighting the need
for robust safeguards.

24) The users' right to determine the sharing and utilization of their data is being violated by the
recently implemented privacy policy of TalksApp. It is imperative that users are provided with
adequate information and give their consent regarding the disclosure of their personal
information to third-party services or other products affiliated with ZuckerPunch. The
Constitution of Bharatham, specifically Article 19(1)(a), safeguards the freedom of speech
and expression, encompassing the right to select the platforms for communication and
information sharing. Any policy that curtails this freedom without obtaining informed consent
is in direct contravention of the fundamental principles enshrined in the constitution.

25) The infringement upon users' autonomy in deciding the fate of their data is a concerning
aspect of TalksApp's new privacy policy. Users should be fully aware of and have the
opportunity to provide their consent regarding the sharing of their personal information with
third-party services or other products owned by ZuckerPunch. The Constitution of Bharatham,
through Article 19(1)(a), guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, which
encompasses the right to choose the platforms for engagement and information dissemination.
Any policy that undermines this freedom without obtaining informed consent is a violation of
the constitutional principles that govern the nation. It is crucial that users' rights are respected
and protected, ensuring that their personal data is handled in a manner that aligns with their

15
Elizabeth E. Stearns, Big Data, Big Brother: A Comparative Study of Cybersecurity Laws (2017)

20
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner
preferences and respects their autonomy.16

26) The existing legal landscape in Bharatham does not contain precise provisions that deal with
safeguarding data protection and privacy in the digital realm. It is imperative to establish
thorough legislation that delineates explicit directives for entities like TalksApp and
ZuckerPunch concerning the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of user information.
Drawing parallels with regulatory frameworks in different jurisdictions, such as the General
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, can emphasize the crucial
requirement for comparable regulations in Bharatham to safeguard user privacy and avert data
exploitation.17

27) The absence of specific regulations addressing data protection and privacy in the digital
domain within Bharatham's current legal framework necessitates the formulation of
comprehensive legislation. This legislation should provide clear guidelines for companies like
TalksApp and ZuckerPunch regarding the handling of user data, including its collection,
storage, and sharing. By referencing regulatory frameworks from other jurisdictions, such as
the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, the importance of
implementing similar regulations in Bharatham to safeguard user privacy and prevent data
misuse becomes evident.

28) It is humbly submitted before the Honorable Court that the absence of governmental oversight
and regulations akin to those in the EU renders users in Bharatham vulnerable to potential
privacy violations by TalksApp and ZuckerPunch.The EU has established robust regulatory
frameworks, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), to safeguard users'
privacy rights and hold companies accountable for data protection practices. However,
Bharatham lacks similar comprehensive regulations, leaving users unprotected and susceptible
to exploitation by tech companies.18

16
A.K. Goyal, The Indian Constitution: Its Spirit and its Making (6th ed. 2020) at 278-285 (discussing the right to
privacy under Article 21).
17
Dr. D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (Latest Edition). (This book provides an overview of the
Indian Constitution, including fundamental rights like privacy)

18
Paul Ohm, Broken Promises of Privacy: Protecting Your Data in the Age of Big Brother (2015).

21
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner
29) The absence of governmental oversight exacerbates the risks associated with TalksApp's
modified privacy policy, as there are no mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with
privacy standards or to address user grievances effectively.In light of these concerns, it is
imperative for the Honorable Court to recognize the need for regulatory intervention and
advocate for the formulation of comprehensive data protection laws in Bharatham. Such laws
would not only mitigate the risks of privacy violations but also empower users to assert their
rights and hold companies accountable for their actions.

22
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

PRAYER

In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the appellant humblysubmits that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
Prayer for the Petitioner:

1. Declare that TalksApp's modified privacy policy violates the fundamental right to privacy

guaranteed under the Constitution of Bharatham.

2. Declare that the differential treatment of users in the EU region compared to those in Bharatham,

regarding privacy policies, constitutes discrimination and infringes upon the users' rights.

3. Establish governmental oversight and regulations similar to the EU to protect users from potential

privacy violations by TalksApp and ZuckerPunch.

AND

The court may pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity
andgood faith.

23
24