2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT

COMPETITION TN-220

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2017

22nd – 24th September, 2017

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDOSTAN

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the matter of

CMUCL & Hola Pvt. Ltd………………………………………………………..Appellant

Vs

Government of Aridabad & Sober Pvt. Ltd…………………………………...Respondent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written Submissions on behalf of the Respondent

Counsel for Respondent

Page | I
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………..…………………..…..……...………………..IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………...………...………….V-VII

List of Cases……………………………………………………………………………..……V-VI

Statutes…………………………………………………………………………………………...VI

Books and Articles……………………………………………………………………………...VII

Dynamic Links………………………………………………………………………………….VII

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………...……….…..…...VIII

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………. IX-X

ISSUES RAISED……………………...……………………………………...………………..….XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………...……..……………..XII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………..……..…...……1-10

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE RULES FRAMED BY THE MORTH ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?.........................1-5

[1.1] Rules are not ultra vires………………………………………………………………………….. 1-3

[1.2]Rules are not arbitrary, unjust and unfair & do not violate the art.14.…………………..3-4

[1.3]Rules do not violate the art.19(1) (g)…………………………………………………………….4-5

Page | II
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE RULES WERE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE RIGHT TO

PRIVACY?..............................................................................................................................6-7

ISSUE III

WHETHER SOBER HAS VIOLATED CONTRACTUAL AND STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS?...............8-10

[3.1] Sober has violated contractual obligations…………………………………………………….8-9

[3.1.1] The Contract was valid…………………………………………………………………....8

[3.1.2] Consent taken is absolute………………………………………………………………...8-9

[3.1.3] There was no breach of Contract…………………………………………………………...9

[3.2] Sober has violated statutory obligations under the IT ACT…………………………………9-10

[3.2.1] Giving up of Rights…………………………………………………………………..…………..10

[3.2.2] Sober has not violated Data Protection laws…………………………………………………10

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………...……..XIII

Page | III
2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Sec Section
& And
Art. Article
Hon’ble Honourable
Govt. Government
Ltd. Limited
SC Supreme Court
Ors. Others
SLP Special Leave Petition
i.e That is
Pvt. Private
Ltd. Limited
CL Clause
SCR Supreme Court Reports
U.O.I Union of India
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India
r/w Read with
v./vs. Versus
Sober Sober India Private Limited
Hola Hola Technologies Private Limited
Model Dynamic Pricing
MORTH Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
Rules Aridabad City Taxi Rules, 2016
CMUCL Common Man Union of Civil Liberty

Page | IV
2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A
AK Gopalan v. Union of India AIR 1950 27…………………………….…..……….pg.6
B
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898………………………………….pg.5
C
Court on its own motion v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 362………………………..pg.5
D

Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101…………pg.2

E
Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, 1996 SCC (4) 104…..pg.4
Express Newspaper Ltd. V. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872…………………...pg.1&7
G
G.P Shivaprakash v. Union of India (1968) I Mys. L.J.395: 14 Law Rep 188; AIR 1968
Mys. 245…………………………………………………………………………….…pg.5
K
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) AIR 1295……………………...…..pg.5&6
Kuttisankaran Nair v. State of Karnataka AIR 1965 Ker. 61…………………………pg.5
L
LIC V. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811………...…pg.2&7
M
Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn, AIR 1993 SC 935…...pg.2
Manoj Kumar Somthalia v. Vivek Goenka & Ors, 9 Mar (1995) 2 MLJ 622……….pg.9
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 SCC (1) 248…………………………….pg.2&6
Mohammad Zahoor v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. AIR 2010 MP 22………..pg.4
M.S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujrat, AIR 2000 Guj 160………………..pg.2&7
N
Netai Bagh V. State Of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 3313…………………………..pg.2

Page | V
2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

ObbayyaPujary v. Member-Secretary, Karnataka State Pollutiopn Control

Board,Banglore, AIR 1999 Kant 157 (165)………………………………………...pg.2&4
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180………………...….pg.7
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689……………………………….……pg.2
R
Raj Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632………………………………..pg.6
S
State of Orissa v. RadheyshyamMeher, AIR 1995 SC 855 (857)…………………….pg.2
T
T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481……………………...pg.5
U
Union of India v. Gangadhar Mimraj, AIR 1962 Pat 372 at 377 (DB)………………..pg.9
W
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 362……………………………………..pg.5

STATUTES AND REGULATION REFERRED

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

3. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

Page | VI
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

BOOKS REFERRED

1. D.D.BASU, Constitution of India, Vol.2 8th Edition Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Wadhwa,
Nagpur.

2. M.P.JAIN, Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Wadhwa, Nagpur.

ARTICLES REFERRED

1. ALAN WESTIN, Privacy and Freedom (1967).

2. Kaustubh Rote, Assignment of Constitutional Law.

DYNAMIC LINKS

1. www.manupatra.com

2. www.scconline.com

3. www.heinonline.org

4. www.westlawindia.com

5. www.lexisnexis.com

6. www.ebscohost.com

7. www.lawdictionary.com

8. www.livelaw.com

Page | VII
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

CASE CONCERNING AGAINST THE RULES PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE

ULTRA VIRES, ARBITRARY, UNJUST, UNFAIR & VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY AND CONTRACT & DATA PROTECTION LAWS.

CMUCL & HOLA PVT. LTD. .... APPELLANT

V.

GOVERNMENT OF ARIDABAD & SOBER PVT. LTD. …. RESPONDENT

The appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CMUCL & Hola v.
Government of Aridabad and Sober under Article 136 of the constitution of Indostan.

“Article 136- Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in
any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India

(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces”

All of which respectfully submitted.

Page | VIII
2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The local taxi drivers are governed by self-regulated unions which give problems to local
people of Indostan.

 In 2014, Sober a multinational app-based cab service provider, made an entry in Indostan
to provide alternate transport solution.

 By the success of Sober the local taxi unions created their own app based Taxi Company
by the name of Hola.

 They both charged high prices according to their pricing model, which led to an
intervention of government.

 The government framed the “Aridabad City Taxi Rules,2016” (hereinafter “Rules”) that
Indostani App based taxi service providers could not charge more than Rs 2000 as
additional fare per ride. If it can be breached by anyone then, have to pay a penalty of Rs
3, 00,000 & cancelation of their license. Sober started charging any surged rates within
the upper cap of Rs 2000 by removing transparency from its pricing.

 Sober started cashless payments for its cab rides and thereby collected banking payment
information from its customers, but there were alleged instances of the financial
information being leaked.

 There has been increased instances of harassment, molestation and rape by the app based
cab service providers. So, the government ordered the rules that to install cameras in the
cab that would continuously video record inside the cab.

 The Rules were opposed by Hola and privacy activist of Indostan. The protest became
severe when video footage of a famous actress sitting in a revealing position inside the
cab was leaked in social media.

Page | IX
2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

 A writ filled in the High Court of Aridabad through a NGO (“CMUCL”), (later joined
by Hola) claiming that the Rules framed were-
i Ultra vires, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and violates the right to equality.
ii By the installation of CCTV cameras, it violates the right to privacy.
iii It violates the contract and data privacy/protection laws.

 High Court of Aridabad decided in favour of Sober, so aggrieved by the decision,

CMUCL has filled a SLP before the Supreme Court of Indostan.

Page | X
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

ISSUES RAISED

The following questions are presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the instant
matter:

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE RULES FRAMED BY THE MORTH ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?

ISSUE 2 - WHETHER THE RULES WERE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

ISSUE 3- WHETHER SOBER HAS VIOLATED CONTRACTUAL AND STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS?

Page | XI
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE1:- WHETHER THE RULES FRAMED BY THE MORTH ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court from the side of respondent that the above noted
Rules is Constitutional and not challenging the vires of Constitution as Rules are not ultra vires,
arbitrary, unjust, and unfair and not violate any of the fundamental rights. The Rules framed by
the MORTH are following the objective of art.14 and do not violate the article 14 of the
constitution of Indostan. Moreover there is no violation of Art. 19(1) (g) as the Rules were
drafted after taking into consideration feedback received from various stakeholders pursuant to a
consultation paper being published, which invited the public to present their views on proposed
Rules1 and taken in the interest of general public. So, the Rules were not been infringed the
art.19 (1) (g) of the constitution of Indostan.

ISSUE2: WHETHER THE RULES WERE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Rules framed by the MORTH are not
violating the right to privacy and the right is not entitled as a fundamental right in the
constitution of Indostan.

ISSUE3:- WEATHER SOBER HAS VIOLATED CONTRACTUAL AND STATUTORY

OBLIGATIONS?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Sober has not violated the contractual and
statutory obligations as it was a valid contract and fulfilled all the elements of valid contract and
not even breached statutory obligations under IT Act as there was no proof that the allegations
were true or not.

1
Para no. 7 of factsheet at 3.

Page | XII
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

1. Whether this Rules framed by the MORTH are constitutional?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court from the side of respondent that the above noted
Rules is Constitutional and not challenging the vires of Constitution as Rules are not ultra vires,
arbitrary, unjust, and unfair and not violate any of the fundamental rights.

1.1 Rules are not Ultra Vires.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Rules framed by the MORTH are not
restricting any app based taxi service provider, the Rule 6.9 of the says that they could not charge
more than the maximum cap of Rs.2000 as additional fare per ride. And in Rule 6.10 of the
Aridabad City Taxi Rules 2016, prescribed the penalty of Rs.3,00,000 for first contravention of
Rule 6.9 and mandated cancellation of the license of the service provider2 and the Rules 7.1 to
7.6 were introduced by the MORTH that required app based cab service providers to install
CCTVs in the cabs which would video record the inside of the cab. The Rules also mandated
preserving of the recorded video footage for at least one year.3

Meaning of Ultra Vires

The modern technical designation, in the law of corporations, of acts beyond the scope of the
powers of a corporation, as defined by its charter or act of incorporation.4

The object of art.14 is that “equals should be treated unlike and unlike should not be treated
alike. Likes should be treated alike. The object of Art.14 is wider and is to ensure fairness and
equality of treatment. The Rules framed by the MORTH doesn’t showed any biasness to the

2
Para no. 7 of factsheet at 2 & 3.
3
Para no. 10 of factsheet at 4.
4
Black Law Dictionary

Page | 1
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

Sober and Hola, such that the increased complaints against the higher pricing mechanisms by all
app-based cab service providers demanded government intervention.5 The Sober is based on the
free economy and Hola introduced higher night rate. The Rules framed by the MORTH are
following the objective of art.14 and do not violate the article 14 of the constitution of Indostan.
Freedom of profession, trade and business as contemplated by Clause (1)(g) of the Article 19 of
the Constitution is always subject to the limits as may be imposed by the state in the interest of
public welfare.6 A Government policy in the public interest would override the business interests
of an individual person.7 The Rules were drafted after taking into consideration feedback
received from various stakeholders pursuant to a consultation paper being published, which
invited the public to present their views on proposed Rules8 and taken in the interest of general
public. So, the Rules were not been infringed the art.19 (1) (g) of the constitution of Indostan.

There were arising instances of harassment, rape and molestation by the drivers of app based cab
service providers. Consequently, Rules like 7.1 to 7.6 were enacted for the basic purpose of
security to the passengers. To establish the violation Article 21, the act should be subjected to the
equality test of Article 14 and test of reasonableness under Article 19.9 Article 14 ensures
fairness10 and guarantees against arbitrariness.11 It provides that every action of the government
must be informed by reasons and guided by public interest. 12 Article 19 provides that a
restriction can be characterized to be reasonable if it strikes a balance between the fundamental
right and restriction imposed thereon.13 Right to Privacy is not a fundamental right in fact it is a
multi-directional right such that when there is a matter of security then right to privacy cannot be
taken into account. So, the Rules were not been infringed the art.21 of the constitution of
Indostan.

5
Para No. 7 of the factsheet atPg.2.
6
ObbayyaPujary v. Member-Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore, AIR 1999 Kant 157
(165) .
7
State of Orissa v. RadheyshyamMeher, AIR 1995 SC 855 (857).
8
Para no. 7 of factsheet at 3.
9
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
10
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101; Mahesh Chandra v. Regional
Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn, AIR 1993 SC 935.
11
Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872; Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC
3313.
12
M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 Guj 160; LIC v. Consumer Education and Research
Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811.
13
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.

Page | 2
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

Hence, the Rules laid down by the government is based on rule of necessity& reason and in the
interest of the general public therefore not ulta vires thus does not infringed any provisions of the
Constitution of Indostan.

1.2 Rules are not arbitrary, unjust and unfair & do not violate the art.14.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Rules framed by the MORTH are not
arbitrary, unjust, and unfair and do not violate the art.1414. The Rules framed did not showed any
kind of biasness to the Sober and Hola. In such manner the model of estimating price for trips by
Sober is based on free economy15 as we know that a country like Indostan is a free economic
country. The Model calculated the fare for a ride based on the demand and supply of Sober cabs
in a given area.16 And Hola introduced higher night rate that would be applicable to Hola rides
after 11 pm till 5 am.17 But the increased complaints against the higher pricing mechanisms by
all app-based cab service providers demanded government intervention.18 Thus the Government
of Aridabad enacted the certain Rules under “City Taxi Rules 2016” for establishing order
among app based cab drivers that the Rule 6.9 of the Rules that they could not charge more than
the maximum cap of Rs.2000 as additional fare per ride. And in Rule 6.10 of the Aridabad City
Taxi Rules 2016, prescribed the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 for first contravention of Rule 6.9 and
mandated cancellation of the license of the service provider19

The object of art.14 is that “equals should be treated unlike and unlike should not be treated
alike. Likes should be treated alike. The object of Art.14 is wider and is to ensure fairness and
equality of treatment. The Rules framed by the MORTH ensures that there is no biasness from
the side of government between the Sober and Hola. The Rules laid down by the government is
based on rule of necessity20 and reason and is therefore not arbitrary and thus does not violate the
provisions under Art. 14 of the Constitution of Indostan.

14
Article 14: Equality before the law and equal protection within the territory of Indostan and prohibits
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, or any of them.
15
The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in general market.
16
Para No. 5 of the fact sheet at Pg.2.
17
Para No. 6 of the fact sheet at Pg.2.
18
Para No. 7 of the factsheet atPg.2.
19
Ibid
20
Election Commission of India v. Dr.SubramaniamSwamy, 1996 SCC (4) 104

Page | 3
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

1.3 Rules do not violate the art.19 (1) (g).

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Rules framed by the MORTH are not
violating the art.19 (1) (g) of the constitution of Indostan.

It should also be noted, even if only for argument’s sake, that the right to freedom as enshrined in
Art. 19 of the Constitution, though fundamental, is not an absolute right as such; it is always
subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed in the larger interest of the society. 21
Freedom of profession, trade and business as contemplated by Clause (1)(g) of the Article 19 of
the Constitution is always subject to the limits as may be imposed by the state in the interest of
public welfare.22 A Government policy in the public interest would override the business
interests of an individual person.23 In counter to Art.19 (1) (g)24 another provision under Article
19(6),25 the state is not prevented from making a law, imposing reasonable restriction on the
exercise of the fundamental right26 in the interest of the general public.

The expression “in the interest of the general public” in clause (6) of Art.19 means nothing more
than “In public interest”. It is, thus, not necessary for any legislation to fall within the protection
of clause (6) that it must be in the interest of the whole public. The Constitution of India allows
reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right in an interest of general public, is vague and
probably advisedly. The court have pointed out that restriction are in the interest of general
public, even if they are meant for people of a particular or a state. It does not mean that the
interest must be of public of whole India. It may be even with order will naturally be in the
interest of general public, but a restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only
when the nexus between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate.27

21
Supra Note 6
22
Supra Note 5
23
Supra Note 6
24
Article 19(1) (g): Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of
India.
25
Fundamental Right guaranteed under Art.19 (1) (g) & (6).
26
Mohammad Zahoor v State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. AIR 2010 MP 22.
27
G.P Shivaprakash v. Union of India (1968) I Mys. L.J. 395: 14 Law Rep 188; AIR 1968 Mys. 245.

Page | 4
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

Public interest means a subject matter in which the rights of the public is interested 28 to the
means of concern which is advantageous to people as whole.29‘Interest of general public’ is a
comprehensive expression intended to achieve the socio-economic justice for people by the
State.30

In the present case, the Rules were drafted after taking into consideration feedback received from
various stakeholders pursuant to a consultation paper being published, which invited the public
to present their views on proposed Rules31 and taken in the interest of general public. So, the
Rules were not been infringed the art.19 (1) (g) of the constitution of Indostan.

28
Kuttisankaran Nair v. State of Karnataka AIR 1965 Ker. 61.
29
T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481.
30
Court on its own motion v. Union of India, 2012 (12) SCALE 307; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC
1295; Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 362; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.
31
Para no. 7 of factsheet at 3.

Page | 5
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

2. WHETHER THE RULES WERE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Rules framed by the MORTH are not
violate the art.21 of the constitution of Indostan. The Rules 7.1 to 7.6 were introduced by the
MORTH that required app based cab service providers to install CCTVs in the cabs which would
video record the inside of the cab. The Rules also mandated preserving of the recorded video
footage for at least one year.

There were arising instances of harassment, rape and molestation by the drivers of app based cab
service providers. Consequently, Rules like 7.1 to 7.6 were enacted for the basic purpose of
security to the passengers.

It is the responsibility of the passengers also to maintain a minimum required contempt in public
places hereby saying that cabs are also a public transport, therefore activities which subject to
objections must not be executed inside such public transport. Public transport are not meant to be
used for intimate activities.

In this case, there has been no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. To establish the
violation Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14 and test of
reasonableness under Article 19.32 Article 14 ensures fairness33 and guarantees against
arbitrariness.34 It provides that every action of the government must be informed by reasons and
guided by public interest.35 Article 19 provides that a restriction can be characterized to be
reasonable if it strikes a balance between the fundamental right and restriction imposed
thereon.36 The Supreme Court, in its earlier order, stated clearly that it is the duty of the
government to provide the people of the country with necessary conditions for leading a peaceful
life as promised by the Constitution under Art. 21.37The respondent has only followed the said
order. Hence, it is submitted that there has been no violation as such on the part of the
government.

32
Supra Note 8.
33
Supra Note 9.
34
Supra Note10.
35
Supra Note11.
36
Supra Note12.
37
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.

Page | 6
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

Right to Privacy is not an absolute right such that when there is a matter of security then right to
privacy cannot be taken into account as for eg: In a ATM counter CCTV cameras are must to be
operational as it is meant for security reasons therefore in this case if someone claims that their
right to privacy has been infringed due to recording of their activities then such claims are not
accountable.

Page | 7
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

3. Whether Sober violated the Contractual & Statutory Obligations?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Sober has not violated the contractual and
statutory obligations, as alleged by the petitioner. Sober did not violated any such obligations
further there was free consent from the passengers to the terms and conditions that Sober
included in the contract. Moreover, the petitioner only alleged that there has been a breach of
contract but the same allegation is still not proven.

3.1 Sober has not violated the Contractual obligations.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the claims made by the petitioner that Sober
has violated the contractual obligations. But it must be noted that the allegations made by the
petitioner are null and void.

[3.1.1] The Contract was valid.

It is humbly submitted that Sober established a valid contract with the passengers. As all
agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties, for a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object, and are not here by expressly declared to be void. 38Sober
as a promisor made an offer of providing app based cab services in lieu of payments by the users
of its app, this offer was accepted by the passengers by signing in the terms and conditions. So it
is implied that all the elements of contract has been fulfilled thus making the agreement a valid
contract. The contract between the two parties was valid as there was lawful consideration and it
is enforceable before the law.

[3.1.2] Consent taken is absolute.

It is humbly submitted that the consent taken from the petitioner to give their agreement to the
contract was absolutely free. Such that Sober laid down certain terms and conditions for the
passengers to agree hereby asking for a consent, which was given by the passengers own their
will.

38
Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Page | 8
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

Under the following, all agreements are contracts, if they are made by the free consent of the
parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and which are
not expressly declared to be void.39

Therefore, free consent was obtained from the passengers to get into this contract. Adding to this,
Free consent is defined as, consent is said to be free when it is not caused by the following (1)
Coercion, (2) Undue Influence, (3) fraud, (4) misrepresentation & (5) mistake. 40Such that Sober
didn’t obtained the consent through any of the above mentioned ways. Neither did it used
coercion noris undue influence or misrepresentation or mistake or any other fraudant way to seek
the consent of the passengers. It always open to the person to elect to accept or not to accept with
a condition.41

[3.1.3] There was no breach of Contract.

As it is said that customers voluntarily agreed to the terms and conditions in order to avail
services from Sober42 moreover it is the responsibility of the customers to read the terms and
conditions and then agree to it. It can be inferred that agreement given by the customers to the
terms and conditions was on their will. Further there was no breach of contract on the part of
Sober, as per the contract it provided services that it promised in the contract in lieu of payments
by the passengers. So it is inferred there is no breach of performance.

39
Manoj Kumar Somthalia v. Vivek Goenka & Ors, 9 March (1955)2 MLJ 622
40
Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
41
Union of India v. Gangadhar Mimraj; AIR 1962 Pat 372 at 377(DB)
42
Para 9, Line no.10 of the Fact Sheet

Page | 9
 2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

3.2 Sober has not violated Statutory Obligations.

It is humbly submitted in the Hon’ble Court that Sober is not liable for the violation of Data
protection Laws of Indostan. As per the facts the customers of Sober have agreed to the terms
and condition before using Sober App. It is also mentioned that signing of the terms and
condition includes the giving up of any rights under applicable Data Privacy and Protection Law.

[3.2.1] Giving up of Rights.

It is inferred that the claims of breach of contract against Sober are null and void and also there
has been agreement by the customer on the terms and conditions on that basis they have given up
their rights so there can’t be any violations. Further Sober claimed that they have explicitly taken
the permission to handle their customers payment related data in the manner that they were
handling.43 This implies that the customers should not be concerned about the data storage ways
of Sober, it’s up to Sober only that how will they store it or where will they store it. Sober claims
that once the passengers agrees to the terms and conditions they give up their rights. So the
petitioner under the above mentioned statement cannot claim that there has been a breach of the
contract.

[3.2.2] Sober has not violated Data Protection laws.

It is inferred that as per the facts it is clearly stated that Sober made a public statement that it had
not violated privacy rights of its users. However, Sober completely denied the allegations and
stated that there were no such data breaches. It was only mentioned in the fact sheet that Sober
was only alleged of data breach but it can be implied that there is no such proof of data breach by
Sober. Moreover, if Sober was really liable for the breach of data protection then the High Court
must have given a different direction.

43
Para 9, Line no.13, 14 of the Fact Sheet

Page | 10
2ND SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD, NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Agent for
the Respondent humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court to kindly adjudge and declare:

1. State the rules not as Arbitrary, Unjust, Unfair & unconstitutional as it violates the
Fundamental rights like Art.14, 19 & 21.

2. State the Rules are not violating the right to privacy of the citizens of the Indostan.

3. Direct the respondent to compensate the petitioner for the damages suffered under
Section 72 A& 43 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 73 & 74 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872.

And pass any other appropriate order as the court may deem fit in the interest of equity,
justice and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the respondent as in duty bound, shall forever pray.

Respectfully Submitted
Sd/-
Counsel for the
Respondent

Page | XIII