mouthshut petition on it act
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
1/48
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013
[Und! A!"#$% 32 &' " C&n"#"*"#&n &' Ind#+,
-ETWEEN
1. MouthShut.com (India) Private LtdRegistered under companies Actbearing Registration No. No.11-1!"1#$% Pa&i 'i&&age% andra%Mumbai #** *+*% Maharashtra
,hrough its hie /0ecutive icerMr. 2aisa& 2aroo3ui
. 2aisa& 2aroo3ui%$% Pa&i 'i&&age%andra%Mumbai -#** *+*%Maharashtra Petitioners
VERSUS
1. 4nion o India
Represented b5 the Secretar5%Ministr5 o ommunications 6 Inormation ,echno&og5%/&ectronics Ni7etan% 8% 9 omp&e0%Lodhi Road% Ne: ;e&hi 11***
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
2/48
2
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
,%
,=/ =N>L/ =I/2 ?4S,I/ 2 IN;IAAN; =IS ,=/R MPANIN ?4;9/S2 ,=/ =N>L/ S4PR/M/ 4R, 2 IN;IA
,=/ =4ML/ P/,I,IN 2P/,I,IN/RS A'/NAM/;
MOST RESPECTFULL/ SHOWETH
1. ,hat the instant @rit Petition is being i&ed under
Artic&e b&e ourt% inter-a&ia or 3uashing the
Inormation ,echno&og5 (Intermediaries
9uide&ines) Ru&es% *11 (hereinater the
Impugned Ru&esB) as the5 are vio&ative o Artic&es
1#% 1" and 1 o the onstitution o India. n
11th Apri&% *11% Respondent No. 1 6 notiied
the Inormation ,echno&og5 (Intermediaries
9uide&ines) Ru&es% *11% (herein ater reerred to
as impugned Ru&es) prescribing guide&ines or
intermediaries% in e0ercise o the po:ers conerred
b5 c&ause (Cg) o sub- section () o section !$ read
:ith sub-section () o section $" o the
Inormation ,echno&og5 Act% *** (1 o ***).
,he Impugned Ru&es% are &iab&e to be set aside as
the5 contain arbitrar5 provisions :hich p&ace
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
3/48
3unreasonab&e restrictions on the e0ercise o ree
speech and e0pression% as :e&& as the reedom to
practice an5 proession% or to carr5 on an5
occupation% trade or business as guaranteed b5
Artic&e 1" (1) (a) and Artic&e 1" (1) (g) o the
onstitution o India. ,he Impugned Ru&es are
a&so &iab&e to be struc7 do:n because o their
ai&ure to conorm to the Statute under :hich the5
are made and e0ceeding the &imits o authorit5
conerred b5 the enab&ing Act :hich is the
Inormation ,echno&og5 Act% *** (hereinater
,he ActB).
,hat the Respondent No.1% 4nion o India has
notiied the Impugned Ru&es and Respondent No.
is the ;irector 9enera&% 9 (5ber La:s 9roup
2ormu&ation 6 /norcement ;ivision)%
;epartment o /&ectronics and Inormation
,echno&og5. It is submitted that the Petitioners
have received notices and phone ca&&s rom the
c5ber ce&&s and po&ice stations o dierent States
in India as such the Petitioner has no eicacious
remed5 e0cept to approach this =on>b&e ourt
under Artic&e
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
4/48
o the onstitution o India. =ence the present @rit
Petition.
1A. ,hat the 1st Petitioner is a private &imited compan5
incorporated under the re&evant provisions o the
ompanies Act% 1"+8 having registration No. 11-
1!"1# o *** and being represented b5 its hie
/0ecutive icer 2aisa& 2aroo3ui. ,he Petitioner No.
is the hie /0ecutive icer o the Petitioner No.1 and
is i&ing the present @rit Petition in his individua&
capacit5. ,he Petitioner No.1 has authoriCed the
Principa& 2aisa& 2aroo3ui to s:ear the aidavit and
e0ecute the va7a&atnama or the present @rit Petition.
A true cop5 o the certiicate o incorporation o the
Petitioner No.1 dated !-"-*** and the cop5 o the
oard reso&ution dated *-1-*1 authoriCing Mr
2aisa& 2aroo3ui to represent the Petitioner No.1 are
anne0ed as Anne0ure P-1 o&&5.,hat the Petitioners
state that the5 have not approached an5 other
authorit5 see7ing simi&ar re&ie as has been sought in
the present @rit Petition.
.
,hat the acts &eading to the i&ing o the present @rit
Petition beore this =on>b&e ourt are as o&&o:sD
a. It is submitted that the Petitioner No.1 is a
compan5 that operates MouthShut.com% a socia&
net:or7ing% user revie: :ebsite. It :as ounded
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
5/48
in the 5ear *** to provide a tru&5 democratic
p&atorm or consumers to e0press their
opinions on goods and services% thereb5
aci&itating the ree
b. &o: o truthu& inormation in the mar7etp&ace. It
is estimated that at &east !* &a7hs (eight5 &a7hs)
users visit the :ebsite ever5 month. ,he :ebsite
acts as a meeting p&ace or bu5ers to e0change
ideas% opinions and eedbac7 on products and
services the5 have used or are considering bu5ing.
/ach business or product &isting resu&t contains a
+-point rating% revie:s rom other site visitors%
and detai&s such as the business address% oice
hours% accessibi&it5% and par7ing. @ebsite visitors
can become members and aid in 7eeping the
business &istings up to date% :ith moderator
approva&% and business o:ners can direct&5
update their o:n &isting inormation. usiness
o:ners can communicate :ith contributors :ho
post revie:s on their page via messages or pub&ic
comments in order to address their grievances or
present their e0p&anations. Such a business
mode& has emerged to be universa&&5 productive
and successu& in the current environment o
consumer reach and interaction. ,he various
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
6/48
categories o products and services% the revie:s o
:hich are avai&ab&e on the :ebsite% are
app&iances% automotives% boo7s% computers%
mobi&eEInternet% persona& inance% trave&%
education% househo&d goods% e&ectronics% music%
sma&& businesses% ma&&s% stores% emp&o5ers%
sports% hea&th and beaut5 etc. It is submitted
that MouthShut.com has emerged as a mar7et
&eader in its niche in India and :as the irst in
this ie&d to gain such traction and momentum. It
ma5 be pointed out that other successu&
businesses in this area started much &ater are
ce&ebrated :or&d over. ne such :ebsite is the
San 2rancisco based Fe&p.com that :as started in
**#. It is submitted that MouthShut.com is &ed
b5 an ab&e team% committed to improve consumer
e0perience% headed b5 Mr 2aisa& 2aroo3ui :ho
gave up a &ucrative career in the 4nited States to
bootstrap peer revie: based on&ine business in
India. ,rue copies o the ertiicate o
Incorporation o the Petitioner No.1 dated
!.*".*** and the cop5 o the e0tracts o the
Minutes o the meeting o the oard o ;irectors
o Petitioner No.1 dated *.1.*1 are anne0ed
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
7/48
hereto and mar7ed as ANNE4URE P51 COLL/
(P+6 052)
c. It is submitted that the ,erms o 4se po&ic5 o
MouthShut.com states c&ear&5 that An5 opinions
e0pressed b5 a member are those o a member
a&one% and are not to be attributed to
MouthShut.com. MouthShut.com cannot and
does not assume responsibi&it5 or the accurac5%
comp&eteness% saet5% time&iness% &ega&it5 or
app&icabi&it5 o an5thing said or :ritten b5 an5
memberB.
d.
It is submitted that a&though the :ebsite provides
a means to connect businesses :ith aggrieved
customers or revie:ers to address their
comp&aints about the product or service in
3uestion% the 1st Petitioner receives numerous
re3uests or ta7ing do:n negative revie:s rom a
variet5 o business o:ners inc&uding reputed
ban7s% consumer e&ectronics companies% rea&
estate dea&ers and bui&ders etc. in the regu&ar
course o business. =o:ever% the 1st Petitioner
does not e0ercise an5 in&uence on the content o
the revie:s. Re&ecting the consumer protection
ethos on :hich the 1st PetitionerGs business is
based% the 1st Petitioner does not screen an5
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
8/48
7revie: beore it is posted on&ine% in order to avoid
creating an indirect prior restraint on speech
:hich :i&& inevitab&5 &ead to &esser user generated
revie:s overa&&. ,here is an automated a&gorithm
:hich chec7s the content or e0p&etivesB but its
accurac5 and comp&eteness cannot be trusted.
e.
It is submitted that the 1st PetitionerGs oicia&
po&ic5 is to on&5 remove content i ordered b5 a
court o competent Hurisdiction or on a :ritten
re3uest signed b5 a competent authorit5 o the
9overnment in vie: o an5 un&a:u&B content.
.
It is submitted that the Inormation ,echno&og5
Act% *** :as enacted to provide &ega& recognition
or transactions carried out b5 means o e&ectronic
data interchange and other means o e&ectronic
communication% common&5 reerred to as
e&ectronic commerce% :hich invo&ve the use o
a&ternative to paper-based methods o
communication and storage o inormation to
aci&itate e&ectronic i&ing o documents :ith the
9overnment agencies.
g. In **#% Avnish aHaH% the / o aaCee.com% an
auction porta&% :as arrested or an obscene MMS
c&ip that :as put up or sa&e on the site b5 a user.
,he aaCee case sho:ed the &ega& ris7s that
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
9/48
8corporates operating an on&ine business that
provide a p&atorm or users to host their content%
cou&d be e0posed to in spite o the act that the5
are not the authors o the content. ,he
aaCee.com case resu&ted in an appea& b5 the
industr5 to amend the Inormation ,echno&og5
Act% *** b5 providing protection to
intermediaries rom &iabi&ities arising out o user-
generated content. ,he Inormation ,echno&og5
(Amendment) Act% **! amended Section $" o
the I, Act% *** to provide or a sae harbour
protection to intermediaries. ,he Legis&ature
intended to reduce &ega& uncertaint5 or
Intermediaries and ma7e the creator o the
content responsib&e or it and not the host o the
content as it :ou&d be both unHust and
impractica& to ho&d companies responsib&e or
:ords someone e&se posted or videos% a third
part5 created. 2urther% it is techno&ogica&&5
ineasib&e or intermediaries to pre-screen each
and ever5 bit o content being up&oaded onto their
p&atorms% especia&&5 as the amount o inormation
coming on&ine is increasing e0ponentia&. As per
data provided b5 9oog&e% Inc.% over # bi&&ion hours
o video are :atched each month and
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
10/48
10appro0imate&5 $ hrs ( Sevent5 ,:o) o video are
up&oaded ever5 minute to its service%
Foutube.com. ,he Legis&ature ac7no:&edged that
imposition o such a burdensome standard :ou&d
crush innovation% thrott&e Indian competitiveness%
and prevent entrepreneurs rom dep&o5ing ne:
services in the irst p&ace% a tru&5 unortunate
outcome or the gro:th o the Internet in India.
h. ,he Inormation ,echno&og5 (Amendment) Act%
**!% received the assent o the President on *+-
*-**" and came into orce on $-1*-**" as
per Notiication No. S..8!"(/) dated $-1*-
**". ,his Amendment Act made substantia&
amendments to various provisions in the Principa&
Act.
i. Section $" o the Inormation ,echno&og5 Act%
*** as amended provides protection or
intermediaries rom &iabi&it5 arising out o user
generated content. As per c&ause (:) o sub-
section (1) o Section o the Principa& Act as
amended% an intermediar5% :ith respect to an5
particu&ar e&ectronic records% means an5 person
:ho on beha& o another person receives% stores
or transmits that record or provides an5 service
:ith respect to that record and inc&udes te&ecom
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
11/48
11service providers% net:or7 service providers%
internet service providers% :eb-hosting service
providers% search engines% on-&ine pa5ment sites%
on-&ine auction sites% on-&ine mar7et p&aces and
c5ber caes. ,hus% Intermediaries are entities that
provide services that enab&e an5 content that is
created on the internet to be de&ivered to the user.
,his inc&udes socia& media :ebsites &i7e 2aceboo7
and ,:itter that act as p&atorms to store and
retrieve content% :ebsites such as that o the 1st
Petitioner :hich provide a p&atorm to the pub&ic
to revie: various products and services% b&ogging
p&atorms &i7e &ogspot and @ordpress% search
engines &i7e 9oog&e and Fahoo% :eb hosting
providers &i7e 9o;add5% auction sites &i7e ea5%
pa5ment gate:a5s &i7e Pa5Pa& and ISPs &i7e Airte&
and M,NL amongst others.
H. ,hat the nd respondent re&eased a set o drat
ru&es ca&&ed the Inormation ,echno&og5 (;ue
di&igence observed b5 intermediaries guide&ines)
Ru&es% *11 (=ereinater the drat ru&esB) and
invited comments on these ru&es. =o:ever these
ru&es :ere ina&ised :ithout ta7ing into account
eedbac7 submitted b5 man5 organisations and
individua&s. A true cop5 o the Inormation
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
12/48
12,echno&og5 (;ue di&igence observed b5
intermediaries guide&ines) Ru&es% *11 is anne0ed
here:ith and mar7ed as ANNE4URE P52 (P+6
350)
7. ,hat on 11th Apri&% *11% the 1st Respondent
notiied the Inormation ,echno&og5
(Intermediaries 9uide&ines) Ru&es% *11%
prescribing guide&ines or intermediaries% in
e0ercise o the po:ers conerred b5 c&ause (Cg) o
sub- section () o section !$ read :ith sub-
section () o section $" o the Inormation
,echno&og5 Act% *** (1 o ***). A true cop5 o
the ,echno&og5 (Intermediaries 9uide&ines) Ru&es%
*11% notiied on 11th Apri&% *11 is anne0ed
hereto and mar7ed as ANNE4URE P53 (P+6 15
7)
&. ,hatRu&e < o the impugned ru&es prescribes due
di&igence to be observed b5 the intermediar5.
Sub-ru&e (1) o ru&e < mandates intermediaries to
pub&ish ru&es and regu&ations% privac5 po&ic5 and
user agreement or access or usage o the
intermediar5Gs computer resource. Sub-ru&e () o
ru&e < mandates the intermediar5 to inorm users
the 7ind o inormation that cannot be hosted%
up&oaded% modiied% pub&ished% transmitted%
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
13/48
13updated or shared. Sub-ru&e (#) o ru&e b&e ourt considered the issue o
restrictions on reedom o speech in detai& in Sa7a&
Papers (P) Ltd. 's. ,he 4nion o India% AIR 1"8 S
b&e ourt he&d in para b&e ourt urther he&d that
The orret approah in s'h ases sho'd -e to
en4'ire as to what in s'-stane is the oss or
in/'r a'sed to the iti5en and not ere what
anner and ethod has -een adopted - the
$tate in pain* the restritionB.
0)
,his =onGb&e ourt has he&d in $.Ran*ara/an v. P.
6a*/ivan Ra, (!#!) 3 $%% "&7that the oitent
to freedo deands that it annot -e s'ppressed 'ness
the sit'ations reated - aowin* the freedo are
pressin* and the o'nit interest is endan*ered. The
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
24/48
2antiipated dan*er sho'd not -e reote, on/et'ra or
far8fethed. It sho'd have a proxiate and diret nex's
with the expression. The expression of tho'*ht sho'd
-e intrinsia dan*ero's to the p'-i interest. In other
words, the expression sho'd -e insepara- i+e the
e4'ivaent of a 9spar+ in a power +e*9.: ,he impugned
ru&es resu&t in censorship o a broad spectrum o
inormation :ithout &oo7ing at the eect such speech
:ou&d have on the pub&ic interest.
0i) ,he impugned ru&es resu&t in remova& o an5 content
that is dis&i7ed b5 an5 person or is not in his interest.
,his =onGb&e ourt has he&d in Naraindas v. State o
Madh5a Pradesh 1"$# < SR 8# thatD
It is our irm be&ie% na5% a conviction :hich
constitutes one o the basic va&ues o a ree
societ5 to :hich :e are :edded under our
onstitution% that there must be reedom not on&5
or the thought that :e cherish% but a&so or the
thought that :e hate. As pointed out b5 Mr.
?ustice =o&mes in Abramson v. 4nited States% +*
4.S. 818D ,he u&timate good desired is better
reached b5 ree trade in ideas--the best test o
truth is the po:er o the thought to get itse&
accepted in the competition o the mar7et.B ,here
must be reedom o thought and the mind must
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
25/48
2be read5 to receive ne: ideas% to critica&&5 ana&5se
and e0amine them and to accept those :hich are
ound to stand the test o scrutin5 and to reHect
the rest.B. ,his =on>b&e ourt has he&d in A/a
;oswai v. Union of India, AIR 3
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
26/48
20ii) ecause the impugned ru&es impose unreasonab&e
restrictions on the 1st Petitioner>s right to practice an5
proession% or to carr5 on an5 occupation% trade or
business as guaranteed b5 Artic&e 1" (1) (g) o the
onstitution o India b5 orcing upon it to ac3uire an
adHudicative ro&e :hich &eads to censorship or suer
&itigation or crimina& &iabi&it5 or both at the hands o
the Respondent and private parties.
0iii) ecause the impugned Ru&es impose a signiicant
burden on the 1st Petitioner orcing it to screen content
and e0ercise on&ine censorship :hich in turn impacts
the 2reedom o speech and e0pression o its customers
thereb5 ris7ing a &oss o its &arge consumer base or
incurring &ega& costs and acing crimina& action or
third part5% user generated content. It is submitted
that the 1st Petitioner is made to choose bet:een the
option o ta7ing do:n content :hich cou&d in turn
resu&t in &osing the conidence o its users or the option
o ta7ing a &ega& ris7 o crimina& prosecution b5 &etting
the content sta5 on&ine or numerous posts ever5 da5.
,hus% the impugned ru&es ma7e it diicu&t or the
Petitioners to run their business. It is submitted that
:hi&e a private part5 ma5 a&&ege that certain content is
deamator5 or inringes cop5right% such determinations
are usua&&5 made b5 Hudges and can invo&ve actua&
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
27/48
2in3uir5 and careu& ba&ancing o competing interests
and actors. ,he 1st Petitioner is not :e&&-positioned to
ma7e these t5pes o determinations but is being orced
to adopt an adHudicative ro&e in ma7ing such
determinations. It is submitted that as per the
impugned ru&es the 1st Petitioner is re3uired to ta7e an
action :ithin thirt5 si0 (3 AIR
=
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
28/48
27pub&ic order% decenc5 or mora&it5 or in re&ation to
contempt o court% deamation or incitement to an
oence. It cannot% &i7e the reedom to carr5 on
business% be curtai&ed in the interest o the
genera& pub&icB. ,he impugned ru&es in the garb
o regu&ating intermediaries end up contro&&ing the
reedom o e0pression o citiCens.
It :as he&d in ennett o&eman 6 o. 6 rs vs
4nion India 1"$< AIR 1*8% 1"$< SR () $+$
that
Pub&ication means dissemination and
circu&ation. ,he press has to carr5 on its
activit5 b5 7eeping in vie: the c&ass o
readers% the%conditions o &abour% price o
materia&% avai&abi&it5 o advertisements% siCe
o paper and the dierent 7inds o ne:s
comments and vie:s and advertisements
:hich are to be pub&ished and circu&ated.
,he &a: :hich &a5s e0cessive and prohibitive
burden :hich% :ou&d restrict the circu&ation
o a ne:spaper :i&& not be saved b5 Artic&e
1" (). I the area o advertisement is
restricted% price o paper goes up. I the price
goes up circu&ation :i&& go do:n. ,his :as
he&d in Sa7a& Papers case (supra) to be the
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
29/48
28direct conse3uence o curtai&ment o
advertisement. ,he reedom o a ne:spaper
to pub&ish an5 number o pages or to
circu&ate it to an5 number o persons has
been he&d b5 this ourt to be an integra&
part o the reedom o speech and
e0pression. ,his reedom is vio&ated b5
p&acing restraints upon it or b5 p&acing
restraints upon something :hich is an
essentia& part o that reedom. A restraint on
the number o pages% a restraint on
circu&ation and a restraint on
advertisements :ou&d aect the undamenta&
rights under Artic&e 1" (1)(a) on the aspects
o propagation% pub&ication and circu&ation.B
0v) It is most humb&5 submitted that in this digita& age
intermediaries &i7e the 1st Petitioner b5 providing a
p&atorm enab&ing ree e0pression o ideas provides
users a medium that ma7es it easier or users to
e0press their opinion and vie:s. ,he 1st Petitioner
thus oers greater options or users to e0press their
vie:s and opinions :hen compared to a ne:spaper.
,he 1st Petitioner has the same 7ind o rights as
uphe&d b5 this =on>b&e ourt in Sa7a& Papers case and
ennet o&eman case. ,he impugned ru&es ma7e it
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
30/48
30impossib&e or the 1st Petitioner and other
intermediaries to run their business as it imposes
unreasonab&e restrictions on the reedom o e0pression
o users and b5 orcing the intermediaries to indu&ge in
censorship.
0vi) ,he petitioners are receiving notices and phone ca&&s
rom c5ber ce&&s and po&ice stations in various states
as7ing them to de&ete content and a&so as7ing them to
provide inormation o users. ,hese re3uent notices
and threats rom po&ice oicers on the emp&o5ees o
the 1stpetitioner ma7e it diicu&t or the petitioners to
run their business.
0vii) ecause Subru&es () and (#) o Ru&e < o the impugned
ru&es are unreasonab&e and arbitrar5 and thus are
&iab&e to be struc7 do:n.
0viii)It is most humb&5 submitted that Sub-ru&e () o Ru&e b&e court and is thus
unconstitutiona&.
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
43/48
3Sub-ru&e ($) o ru&e < mandates the intermediar5% :hen
re3uired b5 &a:u& order% to provide inormation or an5
such assistance to 9overnment Agencies :ho are
&a:u&&5 authoriCed or investigative% protective% c5ber
securit5 activit5. ,he re3uirement or &a:u& order is
modiied :hi&e mandating that the inormation or an5
such assistance sha&& be provided or the purpose o
veriication o identit5% or or prevention% detection%
investigation% prosecution% c5ber securit5 incidents and
punishment o oenses under an5 &a: or the time
being in orce% on a re3uest in :riting stating c&ear&5
the purpose o see7ing such inormation or an5 such
assistance. ,he re3uirement o giving inormation
about users b5 the intermediar5 on a mere :ritten
re3uest rom an agenc5 cou&d have serious imp&ications
on the right to privac5 o citiCens. Sub-ru&e ($) o Ru&e
< o the impugned ru&es are vio&ative o the right to
privac5 :hich is an integra& part o the undamenta&
right o right to &ie and persona& &ibert5 guaranteed to
a&& and is &iab&e to be struc7 do:n as unconstitutiona&.
000vi)
ecause the impugned ru&es in their entiret5 are
unconstitutiona& and are &iab&e to be struc7 do:n.
000vii),he provisions o the impugned ru&es operate b5 as7ing
the intermediar5 to restrict the reedom o users to post
or up&oad content. Such a restriction on the users are
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
44/48
a vio&ation o the undamenta& right to reedom o
speech and e0pression guaranteed b5 the onstitution
o India. Sub-ru&es ()% (#)% (+) and ($) o Ru&e < are the
most important provisions o the ru&es and these ru&es
are unconstitutiona& and u&tra vires o the parent act.
As the ru&es have provisions that are be5ond the
reasonab&e restrictions that can be imposed as per
Artic&e 1"() o the onstitution% these provisions are
not severab&e rom the rest o the &egis&ation and the
ru&es as a :ho&e is &iab&e to be struc7 do:n as
unconstitutiona& and u&tra vires o the parent act.
1Dhere a aw p'rports to a'thori5e the iposition
of restritions on a f'ndaenta ri*ht in an*'a*e
wide eno'*h to over restritions -oth within and
witho't the iits of onstit'tiona perissi-e
e*isative ation affetin* s'h ri*ht, it is not
possi-e to 'phod it even so far as if a -e
appied within the onstit'tiona iits, as it is not
severa-e. $o on* as the possi-iit of its -ein*
appied for p'rposes not santioned - the
%onstit'tion annot -e r'ed o't, it 'st -e hed to
-e who 'nonstit'tiona and void. In other
words, a'se (3) of artie ! havin* aowed the
iposition of restritions on the freedo of speeh
and expression on in ases where dan*er to the
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
45/48
$tate is invoved, an enatent, whih is apa-e
of -ein* appied to ases where no s'h dan*er
o'd arise, annot -e hed to -e onstit'tiona and
va&id to an5 e0tent.B.
000viii),he impugned ru&es% :ith the broad &ist o un&a:u&
inormation mentioned in sub-ru&e () o ru&e
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
46/48
,hereore% the Petitioner humb&5 pra5s that this
=on>b&e ourt be p&eased toD
a. ,o issue an appropriate :rit% order or direction in the
nature o @rit o ertiorari 3uashing the Inormation
,echno&og5 (Intermediaries 9uide&ines) Ru&es% *11 as
i&&ega&% nu&& and void as the same is u&travires o the
onstitution
b. ,o issue an appropriate :rit% order or direction
directing the Respondent No.1 to promu&gate ne: ru&es
in &ine :ith the statement and obHects o the
Inormation ,echno&og5 Act% *** (1 o ***).
c.
,o issue such other appropriate :rit% order or
directions as this =on>b&e court ma5 deem Hust and
proper to issue in the circumstances o the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF 9INDNESS THE PETITIONERS
AS IN DUT/ -OUND SHALL EVER PRA/.
DRAWN AND FILED -/
MEs. La:5er>s Jnit 6 o.
Advocate or the Petitioners
P&aceD Ne: ;e&hi;ra:n onD 1
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
47/48
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF
Mouthshut.com(India) Private Limited 6 Anr.
Petitioners
'ersus
4nion o India 6 rs.
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I% 2aisa& aroo3ui% son o Idris 2aroo3ui% aged about
-
8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act
48/48
7best o m5 7no:&edge and be&ie. No part o this aidavit isa&se and nothing materia& has been :i&&u&&5 concea&edthererom.
DEPONENT