TC: A-5

OSGU, 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INTIA

IN THE MATTER OF

VICKY
PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF INDRA PARDESH

RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITONER

 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. List of Abbreviations 3

2. Index of Authorities 4-6

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 7

4. Statement of Facts 8-9

5. Issues Raised 10

6. Summary of Arguments 11-12

7. Arguments Advanced 13-21

8. Prayer 22

2
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. NO. EXPANSION
ABBREVIATIONS

1. IT Information Technology

2. AI Artificial Intelligence

3. V. Versus

4. & And

7. Sec Section

8. Art. Article

9. Anr. Another

10. SC Supreme Court

Hon’ble
11. Honorable

AIR All India Report

12.

U/S Under Section

13.

UOI Union of India

14.

ORS. Others
15.

3
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.NO. CASES CITATION

1. State of Karnataka v. M. R. Hiremath AIR 2019 SC

2377

2. State of U.P. v. Krishna Master AIR 2010 SC 3071

3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram AIR 2007 SC

144
4. Hemraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1981 SC
2007

5. AIR2022 SC 593
Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu and Anr.
6. Sri Amith vs STATE OF KARNATKA AIR 2019 KHC
51321
7 Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand AIR 2005 SC
2731
8 (2024) 04 SHI
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anil CK 0061
9 AIR 2012 SC
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra 3565

10. AIR 2020 SC 405

Shilpa Mittal v State (NCT Delhi)
11. State Of Maharashtra vs. Shadab Tabarak Khan (BOM)-2022-3-
266
12. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997) 8 SCC 114

13. Mohammed Arif v. State of West Bengal 2018 W.P. 14826

14. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India 2017) 10 SCC 1

15. Selvi v. Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974

16. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172

17. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995 AIR 264

18. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra 1954 AIR 300

19. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1963 AIR 1295

4
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

S.NO. BOOKS

1. RV KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

2. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, INDIAN PENAL CODE

3. PRAKARSH PANDEY, THE LAW EVIDIENCE

4. S.R. BHANSALI, THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT

S. NO. STATUES
1. THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

2. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

4. THE INDIAN EVIDIENCE ACT, 1860

5. THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT,

2012
6. JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE & PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT,2015

5
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024
2. INDIAN KANOON https://indiankanoon.org/
3. LAW BHOOMI https://lawbhoomi.com/
4. LEGAL SERVICE INDIA https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
5. SCC ONLINE https://www.scconline.com/
6. MANUPATRA https://www.manupatrafast.com/

S. NO. ONLINE DATABASE

1. AIR ONLINE (ALL INDIAN REPORTER) https://www.aironline.in/

6
OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

7
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ms. Aliza, a 19-year-old student at Howart High School, received explicit and demeaning images of
herself via her social media account on January 14th. The images were sent from a fabricated account,
causing significant emotional distress to Ms. Aliza and prompting her to report the incident to her
parents and the authorities. Ms. Aliza's distress upon receiving the explicit and malicious images is
compounded by the violation of her privacy and dignity, prompting her parents to take swift legal
action.

2. Parties Involved:

• State of Indra Pradesh: A significant state known for its development initiatives and strong law
enforcement.

• Victim/Prosecutrix (Ms. Aliza): A respected student and School Prefect, who suffered emotional trauma
due to cyberbullying.

• Accused (Mr. Vicky): A 17-year-old student, formerly a close friend of Ms. Aliza, accused of perpetrating
the cyberbullying incident.

• Aliza's Parents: Government servants who filed a formal complaint with the local police on behalf of their
daughter.

3. The offensive images were received on Ms. Aliza's social media platform, allegedly from a fake
account, leading to immense distress and psychological impact. Initial police investigation revealed
the use of AI-technology in creating the malicious content, with the IP address traced back to Mr.
Vicky's computer system.The deteriorating relationship between Ms. Aliza and Mr. Vicky, stemming
from a heated argument six months prior, added complexity to the case.

4. Inspector Kapil Sharma led the investigation, interviewing witnesses including mutual friends and
school counselors. Witness testimonies provided insights into the dynamics of the relationship
between Ms. Aliza and Mr. Vicky, shedding light on possible motives and behaviors. Forensic
analysis indicated hacking attempts on Mr. Vicky's social media accounts, raising questions about his
culpability.

5. Witness testimonies provide crucial context to the strained relationship between Aliza and Vicky,
revealing a past altercation and subsequent estrangement.

6. Dr. Anish, the mental health counselor at Howart High School, sheds light on the efforts made by
both Aliza and Vicky to resolve their differences, portraying Vicky as a mature individual despite
occasional temper issues.

7. The case proceeded through lower courts, resulting in Mr. Vicky's conviction under relevant sections
of the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act. Mr. Vicky's defense centered on claims of
hacking and privacy breaches, while the prosecution emphasized digital evidence linking him to the
crime. The question of Mr. Vicky's age and treatment as a juvenile or adult further complicated the
8
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024
legal proceedings.

8. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Intia, with implications extending beyond the
individuals involved to broader issues of cyberbullying, juvenile justice, and digital privacy rights.
The Supreme Court's decision will shape legal precedents and responses to similar cases in the future,
making it a pivotal moment in the intersection of law and technology in modern society.

9
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

ISSUES RAISED

I.
WHETHER MR. VICKY CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE CYBER
BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ENDURED BY ALIZA?

II.
WHETHER THE AGE OF MR. VICKY WARRANTS SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION FOR HIM, AND SHOULD HE BE
REGARDED AS A JUVENILE OR AN ADULT IN THESE
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?

III.
WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON MR. VICKY IS
JUSTIFIED AND LEGITIMATE?

IV.
WHETHER VICKY’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY HAS
BEEN BREACHED IN THE INVESTIGATIONS AS HIS SYSTEM WAS
LOOKED INTO WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION AND KNOWLEDGE?
WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE SET ASIDE ON THE
AFORESAID GROUND?

10
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether Mr. Vicky can be held liable for the cyber bullying and harassment endured by Aliza?

Mr. Vicky cannot be held liable for the cyberbullying and harassment endured by Aliza due to several
key factors. Firstly, they assert that there is no direct evidence linking Vicky to the creation or
dissemination of the explicit images received by Aliza. Despite the circumstantial evidence pointing
towards Vicky, such as the digital trail leading to his devices, the defense contends that this is not
sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They emphasize that the prosecution has
failed to provide concrete evidence demonstrating Vicky's direct involvement in the cyberbullying
incident. Furthermore, the defense highlights Vicky's claims of being a victim of hacking, suggesting
that his social media accounts were compromised, and thus, he was not responsible for the offensive
messages sent to Aliza. They argue that the sophistication of the cyber-attack, involving AI-generated
content and phishing techniques, supports Vicky's defense of being hacked. Additionally, the defense
raises doubts about the motive attributed to Vicky, pointing out that his relationship with Aliza
deteriorated over academic differences and not out of malice or intent to harm. They contend that
Vicky's actions following the argument, such as seeking resolution and not disclosing the dispute to
others, demonstrate his lack of motive to engage in cyberbullying. In conclusion, the defense maintains
that there is insufficient evidence to hold Mr. Vicky liable for the cyberbullying and harassment
endured by Aliza, and his claims of being a hacking victim should be taken seriously in evaluating his
culpability.

2. Whether the age of Mr. Vicky warrants special consideration for him, and should he be regarded
as a juvenile or an adult in these legal proceedings?

It is humbly submitted that the age of Mr. Vicky warrants special consideration in these legal proceedings.
While he is technically a minor at 17, the courts have denied treating him as such, citing his awareness of
the consequences of his actions. However, we contend that the complexities of modern cybercrime,
coupled with Mr. Vicky's age and potential for rehabilitation, necessitate a nuanced approach. Considering
the evolving understanding of juvenile culpability and the gravity of the offense, we advocate for Mr.
Vicky to be treated as a juvenile in these proceedings. This approach aligns with principles of fairness,
rehabilitation, and the best interests of justice.

3. Whether the penalty imposed on Mr. Vicky is justified and legitimate?

It is humbly submitted that the penalty imposed on Mr. Vicky is not justified or legitimate. While the
severity of cyberbullying cannot be understated, the evidence presented during the proceedings does
not conclusively establish Mr. Vicky as the perpetrator. The defense's assertion of hacking and the lack
of direct evidence linking Mr. Vicky to the creation and dissemination of the malicious content raise
reasonable doubt regarding his culpability. Additionally, considering Mr. Vicky's age and the potential
for rehabilitation, a 10-year sentence appears disproportionate to the offense alleged. We advocate for a
reevaluation of the penalty in light of the complexities of the case and the principles of fairness and
proportionality in sentencing.

11
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

4. Whether Vicky’s fundamental right of privacy has been breached in the Investigations as his
system was looked into without his permission and knowledge? Whether the investigation should
be set aside on the aforesaid ground?

Mr. Vicky's fundamental right to privacy was indeed breached during the investigation, as his system was
accessed without his permission or knowledge. They contend that this unauthorized intrusion into Vicky's
personal computer constitutes a serious violation of his constitutional rights and undermines the integrity
of the investigation. The defense emphasizes the importance of protecting individuals' privacy rights, even
in the context of criminal investigations, as a fundamental pillar of a democratic society. They argue that
allowing evidence obtained through such a breach to be used in court sets a dangerous precedent and
erodes the rights of individuals to privacy and protection from unlawful search and seizure. Moreover, the
defense asserts that any evidence obtained through this breach should be deemed inadmissible in court, as
it was obtained unlawfully. They argue that upholding Mr. Vicky's privacy rights is paramount and that the
investigation should indeed be set aside on the grounds of this breach. In conclusion, the defense maintains
that Mr. Vicky's fundamental right to privacy was violated during the investigation, and as a result, the
evidence obtained through this breach should be excluded from the proceedings, necessitating the setting
aside of the investigation.

12
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WHETHER MR. VICKY CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE CYBER

BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ENDURED BY ALIZA?

In the matter before this Hon'ble Court, the respondent, Mr. Vicky, asserts his innocence in the
allegations of cyberbullying and harassment leveled against him by the petitioner, Ms. Aliza. The
prosecution has failed to produce conclusive evidence linking Mr. Vicky to the cyberbullying
incident. The prosecution has not established a clear causal link between Mr. Vicky and the
cyberbullying endured by Ms. Aliza. Mere association with the victim or prior disagreements does
not amount to conclusive evidence of guilt, especially in the absence of direct involvement or
motive. The prosecution's case relies heavily on speculation and conjecture rather than concrete
evidence establishing Mr. Vicky's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Without irrefutable proof of Mr.
Vicky's culpability, holding him liable for the cyberbullying endured by Ms. Aliza would be unjust
and contrary to the principles of criminal justice. Mr. Vicky maintains his innocence and asserts that
his social media accounts were maliciously hacked, leading to the creation and dissemination of the
offensive content. The presence of malware and hacking attempts on his accounts, as confirmed by
expert testimony, casts doubt on the integrity of the evidence against him. Ms. Aliza's motive in
implicating Mr. Vicky must be scrutinized, particularly in light of their prior disagreement and
strained relationship. The prosecution's case hinges on the assumption of Mr. Vicky's guilt, while
overlooking potential alternative suspects or motives for the cyberbullying incident. Mr. Vicky is
entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden
rests squarely on the prosecution to establish his guilt through credible and admissible evidence, a
burden which they have failed to discharge in this case. The investigation into the cyberbullying
allegations involved unauthorized access to Mr. Vicky's personal computer system, constituting a
violation of his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Any
evidence obtained through such unlawful means should be deemed inadmissible in court. Mr. Vicky
is entitled to a fair trial under Article 21, which includes the right to privacy and the presumption of
innocence. The prosecution's failure to respect his privacy rights and adhere to procedural
safeguards undermines the fairness of the trial and violates his constitutional rights.

As per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution
to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution has failed to provide direct
evidence linking Mr. Vicky to the cyberbullying incident against Ms. Aliza.

Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, recognizes hacking as an offense. Mr. Vicky
asserts that his social media accounts were hacked, leading to the unauthorized creation and
dissemination of the offensive content. The presence of malware and hacking attempts on his
accounts raises reasonable doubt about his involvement.

According to Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, sending offensive messages
through communication services can lead to punishment with imprisonment or fine. Victims have
the right to seek legal recourse against their perpetrators.

13
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

In the case of cyberbullying and harassment endured by Aliza, Mr. Vicky can be held liable if it can
be proven that he was the one responsible for sending offensive messages to her.

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibits the use of evidence obtained through coercion or
inducement. The investigation into the cyberbullying allegations involved unauthorized access to
Mr. Vicky's personal computer system, violating his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.

Any evidence obtained through such unlawful means should be deemed inadmissible under Section
166 of the Indian Evidence Act.

State of Karnataka v. M. R. Hiremath1: In this Indian case, the Supreme Court held that
circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish guilt in criminal cases, provided that it is
strong, cogent, and leads to a single conclusion consistent with guilt. However, the court also
emphasized the importance of ensuring that circumstantial evidence is not used to create a mere
suspicion or conjecture of guilt.

State of U.P. v. Krishna Master2: In this Indian case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the burden
of proof in criminal cases lies on the prosecution, and guilt must be established beyond a reasonable
doubt. The court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and the
accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt if the evidence against them is not conclusive.

______________________________________________
1. AIR 2019 SC 2377

2. AIR 2010 SC 3071

14
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram3: In this Indian case, the Supreme Court emphasized that motive,
by itself, is not sufficient to establish guilt in criminal cases. While motive may provide context and
support the prosecution's case, it cannot substitute for the absence of direct evidence linking the
accused to the commission of the crime.

Hemraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh4 In this Indian case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the
presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal law, and the burden of proving guilt
lies squarely on the prosecution. The court emphasized that the prosecution must present cogent and
reliable evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has failed to establish Mr. Vicky's liability for the cyberbullying and harassment
endured by Ms. Aliza beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of direct evidence, coupled with the
violation of Mr. Vicky's privacy rights during the investigation, undermines the integrity of the case
against him. Therefore, any conviction based on such flawed evidence would be unjust and contrary
to the principles of justice.

_______________________________________
3. AIR 2007 SC 144
4. AIR 1981 SC 2007

15
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

WHETHER THE AGE OF MR. VICKY WARRANTS SPECIAL

CONSIDERATION FOR HIM, AND SHOULD HE BE REGARDED AS A
JUVENILE OR AN ADULT IN THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?

It is humbly submitted that Mr. Vicky's age merits special consideration, compelling the court to treat him as
a juvenile, as delineated below:

A. Defining a Child under the Act:

The Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, in Section 2(12), defines a child as an individual who has not yet attained
18 years of age. Correspondingly, Section 2(35) elucidates that a juvenile encompasses those below 18 years.
This legal stance aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which, under
Article 1, recognizes individuals under 18 years as children.

B. Imperative of Preliminary Assessment:

It is respectfully contended that Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act places a pivotal obligation on the court
to conduct a preliminary assessment. This assessment is essential to evaluate the mental and physical
capacity of the child to understand the consequences of the alleged offense, along with the circumstances in
which it occurred, as mandated by Section 18(3). Notably, the Act permits the engagement of experienced
professionals such as psychologists or psycho-social workers for this purpose.

In Mr. Vicky's case, however, the court neglected to conduct the mandated preliminary assessment, relying
solely on his age without a thorough evaluation of his comprehension of the offense's consequences.

In the case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu and anr5, the accused, aged over 16, stood
accused of the grave offense of murdering a Class II student by slitting his throat in a bathroom. The apex
court deliberated on pivotal issues surrounding Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which allows the
Board to solicit assistance from seasoned psychologists or other experts in assessing a child's mental and
physical capacity to commit the offense. Moreover, it addresses their ability to comprehend the ramifications
of their actions and the contextual circumstances.

The court's interpretation of the term "may" within Section 15 of the JJ Act was illuminating. It deemed it
obligatory for the Board to seek external expertise when lacking a professional with credentials in child
psychology or psychiatry. However, if a Board member possesses such specialized knowledge, they may
exercise discretion in procuring additional assistance. Furthermore, the court underscored that a mere
demonstration of mental capacity, as indicated by an average IQ score, falls short in gauging an individual's
comprehension of the offense's consequences. The court emphasized the imperative of assessing these
consequences comprehensively, considering not only immediate impacts but also the far-reaching
implications for the victim, the accused child, their families, and society at large.

_____________________________________
5. AIR2022 SC 593

16
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

In the subsequent case of Sri Amith vs STATE OF KARNATKA6 the esteemed apex court reiterated the
mandatory nature of conducting the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act, stipulating that
such an assessment must be conducted within the prescribed timeframe.

Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand7: In this case, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the principles of
juvenile justice and held that juveniles should be treated differently from adults in the criminal justice
system. The Court highlighted the need for individualized assessment of juveniles' culpability and potential
for rehabilitation, indicating that age should be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anil8 In this case, the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that juveniles
should be afforded special consideration in legal proceedings due to their developmental immaturity and
greater potential for rehabilitation. The Court stressed the importance of addressing the underlying factors
contributing to juvenile delinquency rather than solely focusing on punitive measures.

Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra9 While not directly related to
juvenile justice, this case is significant for its discussion on mitigating factors in sentencing. The Supreme
Court of India acknowledged the importance of considering the accused's age, background, and other relevant
circumstances when determining the appropriate punishment. This broad principle underscores the relevance
of age-related considerations in legal proceedings.

In light of these precedents, it becomes evident that Mr. Vicky was tried as an adult without undergoing any
form of assessment. The court relied solely on Vicky's age without delving into a broader examination of his
comprehension of the offense's consequences. This oversight flagrantly disregarded the fundamental
principles enshrined in the law, demanding fair evaluation and due process for Mr. Vicky.

_____________________________________
6. AIR 2019 KHC 51321
7. AIR 2005 SC 2731
8. (2024) 04 SHI CK 0061
9.AIR 2012 SC 3565

17
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON MR. VICKY IS JUSTIFIED AND

LEGITIMATE?

It is respectfully contended that the punishment imposed is not justifiable on the following grounds.

The Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 delineates offenses into three categories:

Petty Offenses: Section 2(45) “petty offences" includes the offences for which the maximum
punishment under the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment up to
three years.
Serious Offenses: Section(54) "serious offences" includes the offences for which the punishment under the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force, is imprisonment between three
to seven years.
Heinous Offenses: Section (33) "heinous offences" includes the offences for which the minimum
punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force is
imprisonment for seven years or more.

In the present case, the respondent was convicted under Section 66C and Section 66E of the IT Act, which
carry a maximum punishment of three years. Additionally, the respondent faces charges under Section 354 of
the IPC, which carries a punishment ranging from one to five years for outraging the modesty of a woman.

One may derive substantial reliance from the legislative intent behind the enactment of the JJ Act.
The Minister, during the introduction of the bill, expressly indicated that offenses such as murder,
rape, and terrorism are those that ought to be categorized as heinous offenses under the Act.
In the matter of Shilpa Mittal v State (NCT Delhi)10 and another, the apex court deliberated on
cases involving juveniles aged between 16 and 18. The Court opined that offenses falling into the
category where the maximum sentence exceeds seven years but no minimum sentence is provided, or
where the minimum sentence is less than seven years, shall be treated as "serious offenses" under the
Act. This underscores the Act's overarching purpose to ensure that juvenile offenders are treated
distinctly from adults.

In the case of State Of Maharashtra vs. Shadab Tabarak Khan11, the court emphasized the
necessity for a meticulous evaluation before a juvenile is tried as an adult. Even in instances of
heinous crimes, juveniles are not automatically subjected to adult trials. This underscores that the
term "heinous offense" cannot be expansively interpreted by disregarding the term "minimum

_____________________________________
10. AIR 2020 SC 405
11. (BOM)-2022-3-266

18
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra12 In this case, the Supreme
Court of India emphasized the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to consider
mitigating factors, such as the accused's age and background. The Court held that punishments
should be tailored to fit the individual circumstances of the case and should not be disproportionately
harsh, especially for juvenile offenders.

Gaurav Jain v. Union of India13 In this case, the Delhi High Court highlighted the importance of
ensuring fair trial rights, including the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the
prosecution. The Court emphasized that convictions should only be based on credible evidence that
establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This case underscores the respondent's argument
regarding the lack of conclusive evidence against Mr. Vicky.

Mohammed Arif v. State of West Bengal14 In this case, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the
principle of individualized sentencing and the need to consider mitigating factors, such as the
accused's age, background, and potential for rehabilitation. The Court held that sentences should be
tailored to address the underlying causes of the offense and promote the offender's reintegration into
society. This case supports the respondent's argument for alternative forms of punishment focused on
rehabilitation rather than solely punitive measures.

In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the punishment meted out exceeds the bounds delineated
by the legislative framework and the principles enshrined in the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015.

_____________________________________
12. AIR 2012 SC 3565
13. (1997) 8 SCC 114
14. 2018 W.P. 14826

19
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

WHETHER VICKY’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY HAS BEEN

BREACHED IN THE INVESTIGATIONS AS HIS SYSTEM WAS LOOKED
INTO WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION AND KNOWLEDGE? WHETHER THE
INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE SET ASIDE ON THE AFORESAID GROUND?

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to privacy as a fundamental right. Any intrusion
into an individual's personal space, including unauthorized access to their electronic devices, constitutes a
breach of this constitutional safeguard. The investigation into Mr. Vicky's alleged involvement in
cyberbullying included accessing his personal computer system without his permission or knowledge. This
violates his fundamental right to privacy, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The exclusionary rule
prohibits the admission of evidence obtained through illegal means. As per Section 24 of the Indian Evidence
Act, evidence obtained through coercion, inducement, or violation of privacy rights is inadmissible in court.
Any evidence derived from the unauthorized access to Mr. Vicky's computer system should be deemed
inadmissible under this rule. Article 21 guarantees the right to a fair investigation and trial. This encompasses
the right to be informed of the charges, the right to legal representation, and the right to confront witnesses
and evidence against oneself. The unauthorized intrusion into Mr. Vicky's personal computer system
deprived him of these procedural safeguards, undermining the fairness of the investigation and potentially
tainting the trial proceedings.

In the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India15, the Supreme Court affirmed
the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court emphasized
the importance of protecting individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their personal affairs, including
their electronic devices.

Selvi v. Karnataka16 In this case, the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained through coercion or torture
violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. Similarly,
evidence obtained through unauthorized intrusion into an individual's personal space, such as their electronic
devices, should also be considered inadmissible as it violates their fundamental rights.

State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh17 The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that evidence obtained in
violation of fundamental rights should be excluded from trial proceedings. In this case, evidence obtained
through illegal searches was deemed inadmissible, emphasizing the importance of upholding constitutional
safeguards even in the context of criminal investigations.

_____________________________________
15. (2017) 10 SCC 1
16. AIR 2010 SC 1974
17. (1999) 6 SCC 172

20
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu18 This case established the right to privacy as an integral part of the right
to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that individuals have a
legitimate expectation of privacy, and any unauthorized intrusion into their private affairs violates this right.

M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra19 Although an older case, the principles laid down in M.P. Sharma are still
relevant. The Supreme Court held that searches conducted without proper authorization or legal sanction
violate the right to privacy and are unconstitutional. This case underscores the importance of procedural
safeguards in protecting individuals' privacy rights.

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh20 In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as
inherent in the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The court held that unauthorized
surveillance of an individual's movements and activities violates their privacy rights under Article 21.

The investigation into Mr. Vicky's alleged involvement in cyberbullying involved a blatant violation of his
fundamental right to privacy. The unauthorized access to his personal computer system not only breached his
constitutional safeguards but also compromised the fairness of the investigation and potential trial
proceedings. Therefore, the investigation should be set aside on the grounds of this egregious breach of
privacy rights.

_____________
18. 1995 AIR 264

19. 1954 AIR 300

20. 1963 AIR 1295

21
 OSGU 2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe be pleased to adjudge, hold
and declare that:

1. Mr. Vicky cannot be held liable for the cyberbullying and harassment
endured by Aliza

2. Mr. Vicky's age should indeed warrant special consideration in the legal
proceedings

3. That the penalty imposed on Mr. Vicky is not justified or legitimate

4. Mr. Vicky's fundamental right to privacy was indeed breached during the
investigation, as his system was accessed without his permission or knowledge

And/or

The Petitioner additionally prays that the Hon’ble Court may pass any order as it
deems fit int the interest of justice, equity & good conscience.

And for this the Petitioner shall duty bound, ever pray

Respectfully submitted by,

(Counsel(s) for the Plaintiff)

22
11TH EDITION RCL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

23