I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………..iii-iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................... v

STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... vi-vii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ......................................................................................................... viii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................... ix

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………………..1-7

PRAYER ......................................................................................................................................... x

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 II

ABBREVIATIONS

AIR : ALL INDIA REPORTER

AP : ANDHRA PRADESH

ART. : ARTICLE

DEL. : DELHI

GUJ. : GUJARAT

HON'BLE : HONOURABLE

MPLJ : MADHYA PRADESH LAW JOURNAL

SC : SUPREME COURT

SCC : SUPREME COURT CASES

UOI : UNION OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Godawat Pan Masala Products(P) Ltd. V. UOI AIR 2004 SC 4057

2. Binubhai Moti Ram Vyas v. Dt. Collector, Ahmedabad, AIR 2000 Guj. 229
3. State of A.P. V v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 2083
4. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI AIR 1978 SC 597
5. Ozhair Hussain v. UOI AIR 2003 del. 103
6. G. Gurunadha Reddy v. A.P. Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1999 AP 179
7. Delhi Development Horticultural Employees Union v. Delhi Admin., AIR 1992 SC 789
8. Centre for Environment and Food Security v. UOI, (2011) 5 SCC 676
9. Dr. Hariraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC 1708
10. A.P. Bankers& Pawn Brokers Association v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, AIR
2001 SC 1356
11. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI AIR 1978 SC 597
12. R.C. Cooper v. UOI (1970)1 SCC 248
13. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh AIR 2001 SC 3837

14. Randhir Singh And Another vs. State Of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 5097
15. B. M. Khodade vs. Kumar Saptarshi 2007 Cri LJ (NOC)570
16. Shyamrao vs. Champala 2007(1) MPLJ 195
17. Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State Of M.P AIR 2002 SC 1998
18. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012
19. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India 1950 scr 2. S
20. . Netai Dutta vs State of West Bengal
21. Praveen Pradhan V. State of Utranchal
22. Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chandigarh. RC Cooper v. UOI 7
23. Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 106.
24. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group Inc, 146 Led 2d 865
25. In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and Ors. v.
Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors, 1995 2 SCC 161
26. In State of U.P. v. Raj Narayan and Ors.(1975) 4 SCC 428
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 IV

27. In Santosh Mittal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors.( RLW 2005 (1) Raj 486).
28. Kharak Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1963 SC 1295.
29. In R. P. Limited v. Proprietors, Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay, Pvt. Ltd. (1988) 4
SCC 592,
30. In People's Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2004) 2 SCC
476
31. 15. Kameshwar Prasad vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1962 SC 1166]

BOOKS

1. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (6th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa,

2010)
2. 1-4 P RAMANATHA AIYAR, ADVANCED LAW LEXICON, (YV Chandrachud, 3rd Ed,
LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa, 2009)
3. 13 MANOHAR & CHITALEY, AIR MANUAL – CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, (6th Ed, All India
Reporter Pvt. Ltd. Nagapur, 2004)
4. 1-4 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA A CRITICAL COMMENTARY, (4th Ed.
Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2010)
5. 1-10 ACHARYA DR. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
(11th Ed. , Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2009)
6. 1-3 ARVIND P.DATAR, DATAR COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (2nd Ed. ,
Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2010)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 V

STATUES REFERRED

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Information Technology Act, 2000
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica has inherent jurisdiction to try and entertain the present
case by virtue of Article 321 of The Constitution of India, 1950.

1
Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1949

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 VI

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction
all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Constitution

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 VII

STATEMENT OF FACTS

PART-I

1. Indica, a South Asian Country is having a written Constitution and a federal government
with strong centralizing tendency. X, a company engaged in designing online games has
created a game entitled ‘Green Fox’ which is to be played on mobile phones.
The game being challenging in nature, caught immediate attention of the users especially
children and youngsters. It became a big hit and popular among the people throughout the
world including ‘Indica’.

2. State of Pride has filed an F.I.R under Sec. 306 and Sec. 120B of IPC against the
company for abetment of suicide by conspirating with the administrators, imposed a ban
on the game throughout the country U/S 69-A of Information Technology Act- 2000.

3. The mode of playing the game is- the user has to download the game from app store. He
is required to agree to the terms and conditions of the game. One of such terms and
conditions of the game is that the user has to be above the age of 18 years to register and
play the game. Once agreed to the terms and conditions, he is required to register for the
game by providing his personal details. Once registered, he is provided with one
administrator whose shall then observe the given tasks performed by the player. The
game consists of 50 levels. On each level, the difficulty level increases. In the beginning,
some simple tasks are assigned to be performed by the player which shall be verified by
the administrator. In order to verify such performance, the player has to leave some mark
and upload the video of the same. In the last level of the administrator demands the
player to do life threatening act after drawing an image of Green Fox on his hand.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 VIII

PART-II

4. The ‘State of Pride’ identifying the game “Green Fox” as life threatening. They have
issued notice to the company X for withdrawing its game from online portal to which the
company responded that they will not withdraw the game as such it do fall within the six
golden freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution.

5. The object of the game is to make the user more firm and competent at their decision.
The reply consists of a statement that ‘there is no abetment to suicide as such as the task
given was supposed to be individual competence and observance. Moreover so many
persons have committed suicide for various reasons either by hanging to a tree or fan or
poisoning even many of the times brides are burnt by gas explosion but the government
did nothing to prevent these activities by adopting a mechanism and thus this notice is
violative of their fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of Indica under Art.
14, 19(1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) read with Art. 21.

PART –IV

4. The company is aggrieved by the decision of State of Pride; therefore, the company has
moved a petition under Art. 32 of the constitution claiming violation of their rights under Art.
14, 19(1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) read with Art. 21. And for quashing the FIR contending that before
this event there were few more games like- ‘DukemanDo’, of the similar nature which were
banned by the government. But no criminal case was registered against them. Petitioner also
contended that, the state has not given them an opportunity of hearing while imposing ban on
their application. Thus, it violated fundamental rights of the petitioner.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 IX

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The matter is admitted by the Supreme Court and is now kept for final hearing upon the
following issues:

ISSUE 1: Whether the petitioner has committed any offence under sec. 306 and 120B of IPC?

ISSUE 2: Whether the State of Pride has violated the rights of petitioner enshrined under Art.
14, 19(1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) read with Art. 21?

ISSUE 3: Whether imposing ban on the application “Green Fox” u/s 69A of information
Technology Act is constitutionally valid?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 X

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE ONE: The petitioner has not committed any offence under sec. 306 and 120B of IPC.

The petition filed by the Company X is maintainable. There were few more games like-
‘DukemanDo’, of the similar nature which were banned by the government. But no criminal case
was registered against them. The game being challenging in nature, caught immediate attention
of the users especially children and youngsters. It does not mean that it takes life of users.

ISSUE TWO: The State of Pride has violated the rights of petitioner enshrined under Art. 14,
19(1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) read with Art. 21.

The decision of State of Pride is ultra vires the Constitution of Indica as it is in violation with the
fundamental rights of the citizens of Indica guaranteed under 14, 19(1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) read
with Article 21 of the Constitution. The state of Pride has no right to ban the game completely
without prior consultation or issuing notice to the company.

ISSUE THREE: The imposing of ban on the application “Green Fox” u/s 69A of information
Technology Act is constitutionally invalid.

The decision of the State of Pride of imposing ban on the application “Green Fox” u/s 69A of
information Technology Act is constitutionally invalid. They did not provide an opportunity for
the ‘originator’ of the information being blocked to be heard.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 XI

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare on behalf of
the Company X that:

1. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ/writs order or direction to
the Company, X;
2. The Petition filed by Company X is maintainable;
3. The notice issued by State of Pride is ultra vires the Constitution;
4. The petitioner has not committed any offence under sec. 306 and 120B of IPC;
5. The State of Pride has violated the rights of petitioner enshrined under Art. 14, 19(1) (a)
and 19 (1) (g) read with Art. 21;
6. Imposing ban on the application “Green Fox” u/s 69A of information Technology Act is
constitutionally invalid;
7. Take steps to make awareness in our society.

The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
light of justice, equity and good conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of
the Petitioners

Sd/-

Date.............................. (Counsel for the “Petitioner”)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS