SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, January 31, 2024

Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11th Amity National Moot Lucknow, 2018

Winner Team Memorial - Respondent

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 21 AND 110 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIANA, 1950 & SECTIONS 499 AND 500 OF INDIANA PENAL CODE & SECTIONS 43
AND 66 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000.
STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH . . APPELLANT NO. 1
V.
MS. MEDHA SINGH . . RESPONDENT NO. 2
AND
UIDAI . . APPELLANT NO. 2
V.
NEWS NETWORK 24 . . RESPONDENT 2
AND
UIDAI . . APPELLANT NO. 2
V.
AMAN SRIVASTAVA . . RESPONDENT 3
TANYA KUMARI . . RESPONDENT 4
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES iv
[A] Cases iv
[B] Statutes vi
[C] Other Authorities vi
[D] Books vi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS viii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES x
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS xi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE JANAADHAAR ACT, 2016 IS IN VIOLATION 1
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
[1.1] Janaadhaar Act, 2016 is in violation of the fundamental right 1
under Article 21
[1.1.1] Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to privacy 1
[1.1.2] The Janadhaar Act, 2016 is in violation of the right to privacy 1
[1.1.2.1] Vacuum of legislation in Indiana 2
[1.1.2.2] Excessive involvement of private parties 2
[1.2] The mandatory nature of the Janaadhaar Act violates Articles 14, 3
19, and 21 of the Constitution
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1.2.1] The Act is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution 4

[1.2.1.1] The Classification is not based on intelligible differentia 4
[1.2.1.1] The Classification lacks reasonable nexus with the object 5
sought to be achieved through the impugned legislation
[1.2.2] The mandatory linking of Janaadhaar number with PAN 5
infringes Articles 19(1)(g) r/w 14 of the Constitution
[1.2.2.1] The Act infringes Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and 6
doesn't come under ambit of reasonable restriction
[1.2.2.2] It infringes Article 14 of the Constitution 7
[1.2.3] The Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution is 9
violated by mandatory nature of the Act
[1.2.3.1] Right to Medical Care 9
[1.2.3.2] Right to Livelihood 10
[1.2.3.3] Bodily Integrity and Privacy 10
[1.2.3.4] Right to Choose 11
[1.3] The Janaadhaar Act has not been passed in compliance with 12
relevant provisions of the Constitution
[1.3.2] The Discretion of the Speaker in determining the nature of a
bill is not final. 12
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE STING OPERATION CONDUCTED BY NEWS 14
NETWORK 24 AGAINST UIDAI IS DEFAMATORY
[2.1] The Sting Operation Report was not defamatory in nature 14
[2.1.1] All three essentials need to be proven for defamation 14
[2.1.2] The Sting operation Report was published by the News 14
Agency, had no intention to harm the reputation of UIDAI
[2.2] THE PUBLISHED REPORT FALLS UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS 15
PROVIDED IN SECTION 499 OF THE INDIANA PENAL CODE
[2.2.1] The Report published by News Network 24 is true 16
[2.2.2] The Publication of the report was in good faith 17
[2.2.2.1] The Circumstances Under Which The Report Was 17
Published
[2.2.2.2] The Published Report Held No Malice 18
[2.2.2.3] A Proper Enquiry Was Made Before The Report Was 18
Published
[2.2.2.4] The News Agency Worked With Care And Caution 18
[2.2.2.5] There Is A Probability That The Appellant Acted In Good 18
Faith
[2.2.3] The Publication of the report was for public good 18
ISSUE III : WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF AMAN SRIVASTAVA AND 20
TANYA KUMARI ARE REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED
[3.1] DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT DATA THROUGH 20
ADEQUATE MEASURES AND PROVISIONS
[3.2] THE ACTS OF AMAN SRIVASTAVA AND TANYA KUMARI WERE 20
DONE IN THE BEST INTEREST AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC
[3.2.1] There was no personal motivation for the students to hack the 21
data
[3.2.2] The Data under the UIDAI database is vulnerable to damage 21
PRAYER 23
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABBREVIATION
FULL FORM
AIR
All India Reporter
All.
Allahabad
AnotherAnr.
Article Art.
Bombay Bom
Company Co.
Criminal Cri
CriLJ
Criminal Law
Journal
Ed Edition
Guj Gujarat
Hon'ble Honourable
Ors. Others
Ors. Others
Pvt. Ltd. Private Limited
R. Rex/Regina
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court
Cases
Sec. Section
TOI Times of Indistan
U.S. United States
v. Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
[A] CASES
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88 9
2. All India Anna DMK v. K Govindam Kutty, (1995) 3 ALT 108 15
3. Amar Singh v. K.S. Badalia, (1965) 2 Cri LJ 83 14
4. Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Administration), (2000) 2 SCC 646 : 14
AIR 2000 SC 718
5. Aniruddha Bahal v. State, (2010) 172 DLT 269 16
6. Babu Ram v. State of U.P., (1996) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1996 SC 857 8
7. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : AIR 9
1984 SC 802
8. Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, (2017) 7 SCC 59 : 11, 12
AIR 2017 SC 2967
9. Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (1955) 1 SCR 1045 8
10. Chaman Lal v. State, (1970) 1 SCC 590 16, 17
11. Chandrasekhara Pillai v. Karthikeyan, 1964 SCC Online Ker 79 17
12. Chemfab Alkhalis Limited v. S. Balasubramanian, Editor, “Junior 17
Vikadan”, 2001 SCC Online Mad 637
13. Common Cause and Anr. v. Union of India, WP No. 683 of 2016 15
14. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104 7
15. Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi 10
Administration, (1992) 2 SCC 547 : AIR 1992 SC 786
16. Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578 (614) 14
17. Fertilizer Corpn. Kamagar Union v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 6
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

568 : AIR 1981 SC 344

18. Francis Corli v. Administrtaor UT of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 : AIR 9
1981 SC 746
19. Govind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148 : AIR 1975 SC 1378 1
20. Hanif v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 8
21. Harbhajan Singh v. State, AIR 1966 SC 97 16
22. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 11
23. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI, 15
2008 SCC Online Bom 1448
24. Jt. Commissioner of Gift-Tax v. Shri Shreyans J. Shah, (2005) 95 6
TTJ Mum 896
25. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and 1
Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1 : AIR 2015 SC 3081
26. Kaliram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 : AIR 1973 15
SC 2773
27. Kanwal Lal v. State, AIR 1963 SC 1317 19
28. Leonard Hector v. Attorney General of Antigua, (1990) 2 All ER 15
103 : [1990] 2 WLR 606
29. M. Nagraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 4
30. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, 6
Civil Appeal No. 3255 of 1984
31. Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 7 SCC 6
751 : AIR 2009 SC 2432
32. Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar, (2010) 4 SCC 653 14
33. NALSA v. Union of India, WP (Civil) No. 604 of 2013 11
34. Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 262 3
35. Nishar Ali v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 366 15
36. Olga Tellisv. Bombay Corpn, (1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180 1
37. P.B. Roy v. Union of India, (1972) 3 SCC 432 4
38. Pratibha v. State, 1995 Cri LJ 1997 (Bom) 17
39. Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan, (1987) 3 SCC 367 : AIR 16
1987 SC 1748
40. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 1, 11
41. R.K. Anand v. Registrar Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106 15
42. R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471 : AIR 1973 11
SC 157
43. Radha Govind v. Salia Kumar, 51 Cri LJ 1293 16
44. Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court, (2003) 3 SCC 427 : AIR 15
2003 SC 1467
45. Rakesh Chandra v. State of Bihar, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 644 : AIR 10
1989 SC 348
46. Ramana Dayram Shetty v. I.A.A.I, (1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 8
1628
47. Ravi Paul v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 300 8
48. RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1996) 1 8
SCC 642
49. Re Special Courts Bill, (1979) 1 SCC 380 : AIR 1979 SC 478 4
50. Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment 8
Col Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC 642
51. S. Chawdhury v. H.M. Jadwet, AIR 1968 Cal 266 14
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52. Saghir Ahmed v. State of U.P., (1995) 1 SCR 707 6

53. Sewakram v. R.K. Karanjia, (1981) 3 SCC 208 : AIR 1981 SC 1514 18
54. Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493 : AIR 2003 SC 3450 1
55. Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1983) 1 SCC 438 : AIR 15
1983 SC 194
56. Shrikrishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1955) 2 SCR 531 : AIR 7
1955 SC 795
57. Somawanti v. State of Punjab, (1963) 2 SCR 774 9
58. Sri Bhardwaj Media Pvt. Ltd. v. State, (W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1125 and 16
1126/2007
59. State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh, (1997) 4 SCC 430 3
60. State of Gujarat v. Samir Hasmukhbhai Patel, 2012 SCC Online Guj 16
5097
61. State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 14
475
62. State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, (1983) 3 SCC 387 : AIR 1983 1
SC 803
63. State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal, (1995) 1 SCC 519 : AIR 8
1995 SC 2114
64. State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, (2005) 13 SCC 444 15
65. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 254 4
66. Subramanian Swamy v. UOI, (2016) 7 SCC 221 16
67. Sukra Mahato v. Basdeo, (1971) 1 SCC 885 : AIR 1971 SC 1567 18
68. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488 : AIR 1980 11
SC 1579
69. Surendra v. State, 1977 Cri LJ 15
70. Susanta v. State of W.B., 1983 Cri LJ 772 14
71. Tahsildar Singh v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 1012 15
72. Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCR 594 1
[B] STATUTES
1. Janaadhaar Act, 2016.
2. Constitution of Indiana, 1950.
3. Information Technology Act, 2000.
4. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
[C] BOOKS
1. BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, 6th ed.
2. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (34th ed. 2014).
3. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8th
ed. 2008).
4. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (5th ed. 2003).
5. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (25th ed. 2014).
[D] RESEARCH PAPERS
1. 2 DONALD C. DOWLING, WHITE & CASE LLP, INTERNATIONAL DATA
PROTECTION AND PRIVACY LAW (2009).
2. Adrienne D'Luna Directo, Data Protection in India: The Legislation of
Self Regulation, North Western Journal of International Law and
Business, Vol.35, No.1 (2014)
3. Adrienne D'Luna Directo, Data Protection in India: The Legislation of
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Self Regulation, North Western Journal of International Law and

Business, Vol.35, No.1 (2014).
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana has jurisdiction to hear the matters under
Art. 136 and Art. 139A of the Constitution of Indiana, 1950.
“Art.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 Indiana
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.”
“Art.139-A. Transfer of certain cases
1. Where cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are
pending before the Supreme Court and one or more High courts or before two
or more High Courts and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or
on an application made by the Attorney-General of India or by a party to any
such case that such questions are substantial questions of general
importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw the case or cases pending
before the High Court or the High Courts and dispose of all the cases itself:
Provided that the Supreme Court may after determining the said questions of
law return any case so withdrawn together with a copy of its judgement on
such questions to the High Court from which the case has been withdrawn,
and the High Court, shall on receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the case in
conformity with such judgement.
2. The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of
justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any
High Court to any other High Court.”
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Union Of Indiana, is a democratic Country located in the South Asian Region of
the world. Earlier, various identity proofs like driving license, voter id and others were
required by the citizens of Indiana for access to Government benefits. The Janaadhaar
Project initiated in 2009 envisaged as a biometric based unique identity number,
which was thought to be a more reliable Identity proof.
The Janaadhaar Act passed by the Parliament in 2016, allowed Janaadhaar to be
used for authentication purposes by all public and private bodies. Under the provisions
of the act, it was made mandatory to register and possess Janaadhaar number for not
only government services and to avail benefits of schemes, but also for filing of income
tax returns and applying for PAN. The main aim for this policy was to check the
leakage in Government schemes and to prevent corruption. For the purposes of
collecting the information for identification and storing it in the Central Identities Data
Repository, the Unique Identification Authority of Indiana (UIDAI) was set up, which
was made responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Janaadhaar database,
and also for laying down the security protocols for the same.
First Trial Against Janaadhaar In The High Court Of Uttam Pradesh
Ms. Medha Singh, a citizen of Indiana filed a PIL challenging the policy of the
mandatory Janaadhaar cards, and raised contentions for the same to be
unconstitutional. She stated that the collection of data without proper safeguards,
violated the right to life, privacy and personal liberty, enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of Indiana. A specific incident of leakage of data from the Janaadhaar
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

database, also signified on the incompetency of the UIDAI security system. It was also
mentioned by the Appellant, that making Janaadhaar mandatory for Govt. benefits
which the citizens were entitled to, by law makes it questionable.
It was also contended that Janaadhaar, which was made mandatory for filing of tax
returns and applying for PAN, in 2017 interferes with a citizen's fundamental right to
equality and their right to practice any profession, trade or business which are
enshrined in Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) respectively.The Janaadhaar Act was passed as
a money bill, and Ms. Medha, in her PIL has also contended that Janaadhaar does meet
the constitutional requirements of money bill mentioned in Article 110, and hence is
unconstitutional.
The High Court of Uttam Pradesh held that the Janaadhaar scheme and act was
invalid and unconstitutional and gave the verdict in the favour of the Appellant, as also
there was no effective security system of the UIDAI. The Govt. has moved to the
Supreme Court challenging the judgement of the High Court of Uttam Pradesh.
The Sting Operation Conducted By News Network 24
While the appeal in the Janaadhaar issue was pending, Nalin Mishra, a journalist of
News Network 24, conducted a sting operation on UDIAI, claiming that it was possible
to obtain two Janaadhaar cards, with the same set of biometrics, questioning the
authenticity of the security system of UIDAI. The published report stated that it was
not safe to link anything with Janaadhaar, on which UIDAI served a defamation notice
against the News Agency, claiming the sting operation to be fake and that the report
led to a trial by media. The News Agency on the other side, claimed the operation to
be authentic, and published in public interest and welfare.
The Instance Of Two Students Hacking Into The Uidai Server
Students of Indiana University, namely Aman Srivastava and Tanya Kumari hacked
the UIDAI server, and extracted data. By gaining access through the Digital India e-
hospital initiative of Ministry of IT, the students sent verification requests to the UIDAI
database for their own app. UIDAI gave the data permission to the access since it
came from the e-hospital system. A FIR was filed against the students, and a case of
Cyber Crime under the IT Act was filed against the students for hacking into the server
and leaking the data of more than 50,000 individuals. The students argued that their
only intention was to prove that the UIDAI servers were not equipped enough to
protect the data.
Since the public of Indiana was upset by the easy leakage of details, the Supreme
Court sensing the urgency of the matter suomoto took cognizance of all the cases and
clubbed them together, posted for hearing on 23rd March, 2018.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
~ I SSUE I ~
WHETHER THE JANAADHAAR ACT, 2016 IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA, 1950.
~ I SSUE II ~
WHETHER THE STING OPERATION CONDUCTED BY NEWS NETWORK 24
AGAINST UIDAI IS DEFEMATORY.
~ I SSUE III ~
WHETHER THE ACTS OF TANYA KUMARI AND AMAN SRIVASTAVA ARE
REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE JANAADHAAR ACT, 2016 IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA, 1950.
It is humbly contended before this Hon'ble Court that the Janaadhaar Act, 2016 is
in violation of the Constitution of Indiana, 1950. The Act is in violatation of the Articles
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14, 19, 21 and 110 of the Constitution.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE STING OPERATION CONDUCTED BY NEWS NETWORK
24 AGAINST UIDAI IS DEFEMATORY.
It is humbly contended that the published Sting operaion by News Network 24 is
not defamatory, as there was no intention to harm the reputation of UIDAI, and the
report ws claimed in public interest. Furthermore, it is also contended that sing
oeration is a valid evidence, and the published report falls under the Exceptons 1 and
9 of Sec 499 of the Indiana Penal Code.
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE ACTS OF TANYA KUMARI AND AMAN SRIVASTAVA
ARE REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED.
It is humbly contended that the acts of Tanya Kumari and Aman Srivastava were in
the best interest of the public and for the public good. The government has a duty to
protect the data of the citizens through adequate measures and provisions, which were
not met with. The had no personal motivaion to access the UIDAI database and that
the UIDAI database was vulnerable to damage. Therefore, the students were
reasonable and justified when acting for the welfare of the citizens.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE JANAADHAAR ACT, 2016 IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
It is submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the Janaadhaar Act, 2016 is
unconstitutional as it infringes the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21[1.1],
the mandatory nature of the Act violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution
[1.2] and the Janaadhaar Act has not been passed in compliance with relevant
provisions of the Constitution [1.3].
[1.1] JANAADHAAR ACT, 2016 IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
UNDER ARTICLE 21
It is contended that the Janaadhaar Act of 2016 infringes upon the fundamental
right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution. The
contention in this regard is two fold, firstly that this right to personal liberty includes
the right to privacy; and secondly that the Janaadhaar Act infringes upon the
fundamental right to privacy.
[1.1.1] Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to privacy
1
Article 21 protects the individual's life to the right to life and personal liberty. This
right also includes under its purview the right to live life with human dignity.2 It has
3
been held in, that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to privacy. The
Supreme Court has defined right to privacy as the ‘right to be let alone',4 and has
highlighted the importance of a man's inviolable private space, relegating the right to
5
the status of a fundamental right. The Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of
K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors6 held the Right to Privacy
to be a part of Article 21 of the constitution. The court also held that such a right also
encompasses bodily integrity and one's informational privacy.
[1.1.2] The Janadhaar Act, 2016 is in violation of the right to privacy
The Janaadhaar Act, 2016 has overlooked various concerns regarding data
protection. The Act allows excessive involvement of private parties to outsource
sensitive data without established data protection laws in the country. Hence,
sensitive data which is not regulated, can be misused, directly infringing Article 21.
[1.1.2.1] Vacuum of legislation in Indiana
In Indiana, data protection laws are covered by the Information Technology Act,
2000 ("IT Act") and subsequent Rules, that is, the Information Technology
(Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

information) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as IT Rules). However, there exist no

codified mechanism to safeguard in India to protect the right to privacy in the digital
age. The State also lacks a constituted Data Privacy Authority to protect personal
7
data. This comprises of method of principles of data collections and protection,
transfer, storage and security of personal data, obligations of data controller and data
processors, bar against surveillance, Constitution of data protection authority and
offences and penalty.
There arises a need for data protection laws to hold stakeholders accountable,
8
penalize for any breach and guarantee security and confidentiality of information.
Janaadhaar Act deals with the collection and transfer of sensitive data and without a
data regulation regime. Hence, Janaadhaar Act is a pre- natal development.
[1.1.2.2] Excessive involvement of private parties
Regulation 21 of the Janaadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016
stipulates that Registrars would carry out the enrolment of residents either by
themselves or through enrolling agencies appointed by them. As per Regulations 23,
Enrolling Agencies shall be appointed by UIDAI through Memoranda of Understanding
(MoU) or agreements. Entities that are eligible to be Registrars are Central and State
governments and the departments or agencies under them, public sector companies,
and scheduled banks, amongst others, whereas Enrolling Agencies are dominated by
private entities.
It is contended that the enrolment process is entirely dominated by private parties,
who are not bound in any manner by the regulation standards that apply to the
Government. Residents will be expected to hand over their sensitive, personal
information to private entities without high protection standards. The confidential data
of residents could be misused and shared illegally. Furthermore, enrolments can be
conducted on an arbitrary basis.
It is submitted that judicial review of administrative action is an essential part of
9
the rule of law, integral to Article 14. The Directive Principles of State Policy as laid
down in Part IV of the Constitution places an obligation on the State to create an
atmosphere conducive to promote justice by suitable legislations, schemes, or any
other way. Opportunities for securing justice should not be denied to any citizen.
Section 47 of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under this Act, save on a complaint made by the Authority or any officer or
person authorised by it. This effectively implies that no individual can raise an action
in a Court with regard to any offence under the Act. This clearly violates their right to
legal recourse as it leaves the individual unable to pin liability for impersonation or
disclosure of identity information amongst other things.
It is also contended that by placing private parties and the State on the same
10
plane, the Act classes together two fundamentally different entities. This is clearly
not in line with the object of the Act, which is to provide for efficient, transparent, and
targeted delivery of centrally sponsored subsidies, benefits and services. Hence, the
scheme of the Act unites two completely different entities in the same category, and
this does not have a reasonable nexus with the object of the Act. Therefore, this
violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Therefore, it is submitted that the Janaadhaar Act, 2016 violates the individual's
right to privacy as it poses the threat of State sponsored mass surveillance. It alters
the relationship of the State qua the individual by extending eminent domain to
include sensitive, personal information. Thus, in the absence of a data protection
regime within the territory of Indiana and great involvement of private parties in
implementation, it increases the risk of mass surveillance and simultaneously affecting
the right to privacy.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1.2] THE MANDATORY NATURE OF THE JANAADHAAR ACT VIOLATES

ARTICLES 14, 19, AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
We hereby submit before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Janaadhaar Act of
2016 violates the rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of Indiana as,
[2.2.1] the Act is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, [2.2.2] the mandatory
linking of Janaadhaar Number with PAN infringes articles 19(1)(g) r/w 14 of the
Constitution [2.2.3] the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated by
the mandatory nature of the Act.
We contend herewith that the Court shall consider the provisions of the Janadhaar
scheme in relation to the fundamental rights and declare them unconstitutional for the
violation of the same.
[1.2.1] The Act is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
A Statutory Provision or a State Action in violation of Article 14 is liable to be struck
down if [i] The Classification is not based on intelligible differentia,11 or [ii] if it lacks
reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved through the impugned
12
legislation. If such discrimination is arbitrary or not founded on relevant
considerations or supported by a substantial cause, the impugned provision or action
is liable to be struck down.13
[1.2.1.1] The Classification is not based on intelligible differentia
The expression intelligible differentia means difference capable of being understood,
which should be reasonable and not arbitrary.14 The basis of such differential or
classification and the object of the act are two distinct things. It is necessary is that
there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the act
which makes the classification. It is only when there is no reasonable basis for a
15
classification, the same will be declared as discriminatory.
The object of the Janaadhaar Act, 2016 is good governance, efficiency,
transparency, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services to individuals
residing in India. These objectives are achieved through assigning of unique identity
numbers to such individuals and for matters connected therewith or incidental
16
thereto. Whereby, the aim of the Act is to check leakage in government schemes and
to prevent corruption occurring in Public Distribution System (hereinafter referred to
as PDS) and other subsidy providing schemes of the government and diversion of
public resources to those who are ineligible.17
In the present case, the Government of Indiana seeks information from the people
for the purpose of making Janaadhaar Cards which does not have any relation with the
object of the Act. Therefore, the classification is not only unreasonable but also
promotes class legislation. The details sought by the government for the purpose of
making Janaadhaar Cards are not only intimate to one's person, but also cannot be
treated as a class of their own as this does not adequately differentiate between the so
-called class of people and the rest. Moreover, the
classification has no relation with the objective of the Janaadhaar Act. The
Janaadhaar Act has been brought by the government to reduce corruption, strengthen
the security of the state and to ensure successful implementation of welfare schemes.
There is no nexus between the classification and the objectives of the Act; therefore, it
fails the test of reasonable classification.
[1.2.1.1] The Classification lacks reasonable nexus with the object sought to
be achieved through the impugned legislation.
Further, Section 3 of the Janaadhaar Act ‘entitles' every resident to obtain a
Janaadhaar card. This means that any resident can enrol for Janaadhaar Card
voluntarily and that it's not compulsory in nature. Contrary to the same, Section 7 of
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the Act r/w Regulations 12 and 12A of the Janaadhaar (Enrolment and Update
Regulations), 2016 demands the authentication of the identity through Janaadhaar
Card as a condition for receipt of subsidy, benefit or service. Therefore, there exists a
dichotomy in the Section 3 and Section 7 of the Janaadhaar Act, 2016 as it offers a
contrary view to the voluntary nature of Janaadhaar.
In line with the settled law, in the given case, Section 7 of the Janaadhaar Act
clearly restrains an individual's means to avail the benefits of various State- sponsored
social service schemes and subsidies. This mandatory imposition creates an
unreasonable classification between the residents enrolling for Janaadhaar and those
refraining to enrol for Janaadhaar. This is arbitrary in nature as the latter category is
placed at a disadvantaged position as they will be denied and excluded from benefits
of essential welfare schemes and subsidies. Moreover, the Janaadhaar Act sanctions
the exclusion of the non-enrolling class of the residents from the very services contrary
to the object of good governance through target. This classification is based on an
irrational principle and is discriminatory in nature. Therefore, lacks intelligible
differentia.
Therefore, it is submitted that the provisions of Janaadhaar Act, 2016 encroaches
upon the right to equality of the people of Indiana as it has failed to create a
reasonable differentia and has discriminated between those individuals who are
equally situated based on the possession of the Janaadhaar Card. Hence should be
declared as unconstitutional.
[1.2.2] The mandatory linking of Janaadhaar number with PAN infringes
Articles 19(1)(g) r/w 14 of the Constitution
It is submitted to the Hon'ble Court that all the provisions of the Act which makes
the Janaadhaar Card a mandatory requirement to link with PAN are constitutionally
invalid as [2.2.2.1] it infringes Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution and doesn't come
under ambit of reasonable restriction and [2.2.2.2] it infringes Article 14 of the
Constitution.
[1.2.2.1] The Act infringes Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and doesn't
come under ambit of reasonable restriction.
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees every citizen to the right to pursue or carry on
occupation of his own choice18 and it aims to protect individuals from state action that
19
may restrict and put constrains on their practice of earning a livelihood. Amendment
to the Income Tax Act, inserting section 139AA, mandates linking of Janaadhaar to the
Permanent Account Number, which is a mandatory requirement for filing tax returns.20
It is submitted that people willing to use PAN card to file their tax returns are
individuals who are professionals like lawyers, doctors, architects etc. and lakhs of
businessmen having small or macro enterprises. According to section 139 AA (2)
failure to provide Janaadhaar number would lead to penalty of cancelling their PAN
cards and deeming that they never applied for it.21 This is direct infringement to
Article 19(1)(g) as these individuals will not be able to carry out any business or
22
professional activity under the Rule 114 B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and
thereby would be made unable to operate bank accounts with transaction above Rs.
50,000/-, use debit cards, purchase motor vehicles, purchase property etc.
The failure of linking of Janaadhaar with PAN resulting in cancelation of PAN would
constrict the undertaking of the aforementioned financial transactions. These
transactions are in nature of absolutely basic to life in contemporary society. The non-
availability of services based on cancellation of PAN and seizure of bank account
amounts to barring of necessary services and a “civil death”.23 These restrictions
amount to a restriction on the day-to-day practice of carrying out uninterrupted trade
and hence is a violation of freedom to practice of trade and profession guaranteed by
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The statutory provision further does not hold ground on reasonableness as it does
25
not apply the principle of proportionality. Proportionality in this respect implies
achievement of public interest in a manner that the same does not infringes upon
other rights. Hereby, the defence of reasonableness under Article 19 (6) would be
invalid if there exists an alternate way of achieving the same objective.
The object of the Janaadhaar Act aims at efficient and targeted delivery of benefits
and services, to individuals residing in India through assigning of unique identity
26
numbers, and made no mention of black money or fraud hence providing no
indication of that in the parent statute. Therefore, it is submitted that, the restriction
i.e. the mandatory enrolment of the Janaadhaar is not in nexus to objective being
targeted delivery of schemes and subsidies as post enrolment problems like duplicity,
authentication, data leakage and data integrity of the Janaadhaar still persists which
leads to decrease in the total number of Janaadhaar users, thereby decreasing the
number of people availing the benefits of schemes and services.
Furthermore, in view of the fact that only 0.4% of all PAN Cards were found to be
duplicate,27 and in view of Janaadhaar's own, widely publicized failings, it shall not be
made means to harassing the 99.6 per cent accesses. In respect to Pension Scheme,
instances of denial of pension have been noted, resulting in death of individuals
28
because of technical errors of linking wrong accounts to Janaadhaar . The refusal of
such services directly attach the loss of livelihood for people relying on these schemes
and services.
Janaadhaar does not form a proportionate restriction upon the right under Article 19
(1)(g). While the objective of the Act sees to achieve transparency, the failure to
comply with the provisions result in harsher consequences i.e. of deprivation of
individual's right to facilities, hence being unreasonable.
Therefore, it is submitted that the provisions of Janaadhaar Act, 2016 and Section
139AA encroach on the right to freedom of practice of trade and profession without
any proportionate and reasonable cause and are not in public interest of the people on
Indiana and hence should be declared unconstitutional.
[1.2.2.2] It infringes Article 14 of the Constitution
29
Article 14 guarantees equality and equal protection of laws i.e. right to equal
treatment in similar circumstances.30 Also, equal treatment of unequal is liable to be
struck down as discriminatory when there is simultaneous absence of rational relation
31
to the object intended to be achieved by the law. This constitutes as one of the
32
ground for the test of permissible classification.
It is submitted that section 139AA draws an arbitrary distinction between assesses
who were individuals (and therefore compelled to get an Janaadhaar Card), and non-
individual assesses (such as an HUF, or a company). This classification is drawn on the
basis of that only individual's activities lead to corruption, fraud, tax evasion and
money laundering, and therefore Janaadhaar must be linked only to individuals.
Therefore, such a classification, made on the basis of irrational principle, is arbitrary33
34 35
and discriminatory in nature and doesn't constitute reasonable classification.
It is contended that the deferential does not have rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the statute in question.36 If the objective of introducing
Section 139AA was to use Janaadhaar to check black money and fraud, then the
distinction between individual and non- individual taxpayers bore no rational nexus to
the objective as corruption and fraud can also be played by the non-individual tax
assesses like existence of shell companies; which won't be tracked by the means of
Janaadhaar. It is submitted, there exist no nexus between the classification and the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37
object of Income Tax Act, therefore the deferential is violating Article 14 of the
Constitution.
When the same legislature enacts a number of connected or similar laws, their
combined operation may be taken into consideration for determining whether the
38
provisions of any one of them are discriminatory. Purpose of Article 14 is that one
law is not discriminatory when read with the provisions of other, made by same
legislature.
It is submitted, that subsequent legislations are not in consonance with the scheme
of Janaadhaar Act. Section 139AA of Income Tax Act mandates giving of Janaadhaar
number for applying PAN cards in the income tax returns or notified Janaadhaar
39
number to the designated authorities. The object of the Janaadhaar Act itself makes
no mention of black money or fraud. Therefore, if Janaadhaar was to be used for that
purpose, then surely there would have been some indication of that in the parent
statute. All these factors combined pointed to a clear colourable exercise of power.40
It is humbly submitted that there exists no reasonable classification with regards to
the amendment, the amendments do not have rational nexus to the statement and
object of the Act, and the provisions of one law are discriminatory to the provisions of
other when read together; therefore, subsequent amendments are violating Article 14
of the Constitution.
[1.2.3] The Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated by
mandatory nature of the Act.
Article 21 of the Indiana Constitution guarantees to all its citizens the right to life
41
with human dignity. These rights, bestowed upon an individual cannot be taken
away unless by a procedure established by law42 Human dignity rises above mere
animal existence and encompasses the bare necessities of life like adequate nutrition,
43
clothing, shelter, facilities to read, write, express and freely move about. To live with
human dignity further involves being free from exploitation including protection of
health.44 The article further guarantees a right to livelihood to people, to ensure that
45
no state action deprives them of a meaningful living.
[1.2.3.1] Right to Medical Care
The Ministry of Women and Child Right with its Janani Suraksha Yojana provides for
facilitation to pregnant women belonging to BPL families under the Pradhan Mantri
Matru Vandana Yojana. The scheme ensures financial assistance to pregnant and
lactating women. With a recent notification, the aforementioned scheme now
46
necessitates the linking and production of Janaadhaar to avail these services. The
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare further issued a notification restricting financial
assistance to holder of Janaadhaar only.47
In light of the aforementioned changes, individual have been denied services by
civil bodies for non-enrolment under the Janaadhaar Scheme. This on one hand
endangers the health of women bearing children and on the other refuses health
benefits to individuals in need.48 It is the obligation of the state to preserve life and
immaterial of their background or differentiations shall be provided adequate health
49
care by those in-charge.
[1.2.3.2] Right to Livelihood
The Indiana Constitution, provides to all its citizens the right to practice any
50
profession and trade within the legal limitations with respect to reasonable
51
restrictions in favour of public interest. The recent circular on National Action Plan for
Skill Training of Person with Disability mandates the usage of Janaadhaar for enrolling
52
and utilizing the benefits of the aforementioned scheme. As earlier mentioned, the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 14 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

distribution and enrolment under the Janaadhaar Scheme has been varied and scarce
in different states and has not reached a 100 per cent enrolment. This deprivation of
an individual with disability due to non-procurement of Janaadhaar would result in loss
of a chance to attain a self-dependency skill. This may consequently lead to loss of
livelihood that forms an essential under Article 21.53 Associating life and livelihood,
the condition that make possible living must be deemed to be an integral component
54
of right to life. Broad interpretation of right to livelihood encompasses a right to work
that shall further be extended to procurement of skills for undertaking such work.55
The mandatory linking of Janaadhaar to this scheme and the seclusion of those not
possessing it is a direct violation of the individual's right to life.
Therefore, it is submitted that the provisions of Janaadhaar Act, 2016 breaches on
the right to life of the people on Indiana by restricting access medical services,
livelihood and privacy without any reasonable cause of public interest or procedure
established by law, simply basing the same on possession of the UID and hence
should be declared unconstitutional.
[1.2.3.3] Bodily Integrity and Privacy
The Janaadhaar Act provides for procurement of personal biometric information and
the utilization of the same by private and public entities for reference purposes. The
56
information received under the Act involves fingerprints and iris scans . This delicate
information is belonging to an individual and is a part of their body. An individual is an
absolute owner of his own body and hence possesses a right to bodily integrity.
The usage and divulgence of such sensitive and personal information of an
individual amount to the breach of the individual's right to privacy. The right to bodily
integrity and privacy are implicit in right to life and every citizen is entitled to
57
safeguard the privacy of his own self. The continued tracking of an individual's
activity on pretext of public interest is not justifiable and outside the ambit of Article
21.58
The holding of sensitive information of an individual and providing it to private
parties in a violation of the person's control over his body and mind.59 These
information, as promised under the Act though only divulged for cross checking
60
purposes can also be handed over to a private entity certified as a facilitator. The
object of the Act, though is transparent delivery of services, the sensitivity of the
information involved his higher and risk of misuse are numerous.61 The biometric
information of an individual can be circulated to other authorities or corporate bodies
which, in turn can be used by them for commercial exploitation and, therefore, must
62
be stopped. The choice of use of one's body should be their decision, mandating the
provisions of transferring the information in the hands of the state is a clear violation
of the right to bodily integrity under Article 21.
[1.2.3.4] Right to Choose
A concomitant of the right to dignity is the individual's right to choose, couched
63
within Article 21. There exist right of every person to make essential choices which
affects the course of life.64 However, for the individual to effectively exercise the right
to choice, (s)he must be presented with a real, valid choice, and not options that
masquerade as legitimate choices while actually providing none.
In furtherance to this, the conflict between Sections 3 and 7 of the Act affects the
Right to Choose of the residents. Also, Section 7 reiterates that alternate and viable
means of identification will be offered to whom Janaadhaar numbers are not assigned.
However, by way of Notification dated 15th September, 2016,70 this alternate means
shall be available to the resident only till the time a Janaadhaar number is not
assigned. This leaves the residents
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 15 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

with no real choice to avail social services and compels them to mandatorily enrol
for Janaadhaar. This infringes their right to choose guaranteed u/a 21 of the
Constitution.
Therefore, it is submitted that the provisions of Janaadhaar Act, 2016 breaches on
the right to life of the people on Indiana by restricting access medical services,
livelihood and privacy without any reasonable cause of public interest or procedure
established by law, simply basing the same on possession of the Janaadhaar and
hence should be declared unconstitutional.
[1.3] THE JANAADHAAR ACT HAS NOT BEEN PASSED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
It is humbly contended the passage of the Janaadhaar Bill as a Money Bill was not
done in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution as, firstly, the Janaadhaar
Bill doesn't meet the requirements of a Money Bill as per the Constitution and
secondly, the Discretion of the Speaker in determining the nature of a bill is not final.
[1.3.1] Janaadhaar Bill doesn't meet the requirements of a Money Bill as per
the Constitution
It is contended that the Janaadhaar Bill did not qualify for an action under Article
110 of the Constitution that provided criteria for categorizing Bills as Money Bill when
passed by the Parliament. The Constitution of Indiana under Article 110(1) provides
for the definition of a Money Bill.
The Janaadhaar Bill is not a Money Bill since it does not satisfy clause (a) or (b) or
(c)-(g) of Article 110(1) i.e., it does not involve taxation or the borrowing of money by
the government or it does not delve into Consolidated fund for its functioning.
It is thus submitted that as none of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (g)
of Article 110(1) are satisfied, the Janaadhaar bill is not a Money bill.
[1.3.2] The Discretion of the Speaker in determining the nature of a bill is not
final.
It is contended that the final status accorded to the decision of the speaker in
classifying the bill as a money bill cannot be considered as final and is subject to
Judicial Review. The framers of the Constitution while incorporating the Draft Article
101 (Art.122 of the Constitution of Indiana) deliberated on whether any alleged
irregularity of Parliamentary Proceeding could be questioned before the Hon'ble Courts.
While Mr. H.V. Kamath called for a clarification and sought that, it be clarified that
validity of Parliamentary Proceeding shall not be called in question before any Court.65
Replying to the concern raised by Mr. Kamath, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that inserting
the phrase ‘any court' was not required as there was no need to specify the forum
which could legally entertain a matter and provide legal relief regarding the same.
Further it is contended that this Supreme Court itself has exercised judicial review
over other types of ‘final' decisions made by various Constitutional authorities
including the Speaker under other provisions of the Constitution of Indiana. This
argument is further supported by the fact that in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu,66 the
“final” decision of the speaker regarding disqualification of members of the House
under the Tenth Schedule of the Indiana Constitution was held to be a judicial decision
subject to judicial review.
It is submitted that the “final” status given by the Indiana Constitution does not
automatically immune the Indian speaker's decision or certificate from judicial review.
As the provisions of the Janaadhaar Act do not pertain to the essential provisions of a
money bill, the passage of the Act must be declared unconstitutional along with the
Act.
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE STING OPERATION CONDUCTED BY NEWS NETWORK
24 AGAINST UIDAI IS DEFAMATORY
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 16 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is humbly contended before this Hon'ble Court that the report that was published
by News Network 24 commenting on the inefficient security system of UIDAI is not
defamatory in nature as The Sting Operation Report was not defamatory in nature
[2.1] and the published report falls under the Exceptions provided in Section 499 of
the Indiana Penal Code [2.2].
[2.1] THE STING OPERATION REPORT WAS NOT DEFAMATORY IN NATURE.
Any report that is published in public interest, without the intention of causing
harm to the reputation of the other party is not defamatory in nature.
[2.1.1] All three essentials need to be proven for defamation.
It is necessary to prove all the 3 elements of defamation,67 namely publication, by
68
words spoken or intended, and intention to cause harm. It is an established fact,
that if these 3 elements are not satisfied, the trial would not lead to defamation.69
In the facts of the present case, even though the sting operation report was
published, and it was intended to be read by the public, however, the statement or
publication was not made to harm the reputation of UIDAI, and since intention to
harm one's reputation is one of the most crucial elements of defamation,70 the sting
operation report is not defamatory, but simply a report upholding their investigation.
Also a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to three entities, namely, the victim, the
71
accused and the society at large. In this case, the initiated case of defamation fails,
since the intention is missing, as a true report was claimed in public welfare, for the
welfare of the society at large.
[2.1.2] The Sting operation Report was published by the News Agency, had no
intention to harm the reputation of UIDAI
The freedom of Press, though not explicitly mentioned under the Constitutional
72
rights, is included in the wider ‘expression' of freedom guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) .
The freedom in itself is an amalgamation of the freedom to write, comment, criticize,
advertise, draw, create images or cartoons and publish the same.73 Also, in a criminal
74
trial, the view which is favorable to the accused is accepted. The Freedom of Press
includes the press' right to criticize and comment on the Government's administration
and policies,75 provided such representation does not endanger the social interest of
76
the nation.
Justice Mathews has explicitly mentioned, “The people of this country have a right
to know every public act, everything that is done in a public by way of their public
77
functionaries. Their right to know is derived from the concept of freedom of speech.”
It has also been held by the Hon'ble Court, that the freedom of press and information
were ‘vital for the realization of human ‘rights'.78
It also includes the idea of “publication”, distribution or circulation and the freedom
79
of communication of one's ideas through any medium. Public administration must
always be open to criticism as it is critical to its accountable and responsible
functioning80. Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to political
81
censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind . Going by the view point of
this case, the Government organizations, the UIDAI in our case, must be open to
criticism, and this report pointing out the loopholes in the same, is majorly a criticism,
and not an imputation harming their reputation82.
From the aforementioned laws and authority, it can be concluded that the report
that was published by the news agency, was with reference to their Freedom of press.
The motive or basic intention of the report was not to defame UIDAI, but to simply let
the people of the country be aware of the public authorities and their functioning.
Since the 3rd element proving defamation, that is, the intention to cause harm is
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 17 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

missing in the facts, hence the Sting operation report is not defamatory.
[2.2] THE PUBLISHED REPORT FALLS UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN
SECTION 499 OF THE INDIANA PENAL CODE.
In order to come within the first exception to Section 499, which states that
“Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published”, it has to be
established that the report published by News Network 24 is true and the publication
83
of the imputation is for the public good. Also, the onus to prove these two
84
ingredients is on the accused, which in this case, is News Network 24.
[2.2.1] The Report published by News Network 24 is true.
Sting operations in Indiana have been majorly undertaken with a view to look into
the working of the government or to see whether the acts of any individual or an
organization are against the public order.
The Hon'ble Court has observed that there is no doubt that the “truth” should be
shown to the public in public interest whether in the nature of a sting operation or
85
otherwise. It is sufficient if the accused can show that the statements are
substantially true in regard to the material portion of the allegation that has been
published86 and the publication of a true statement does not lead to defamation.87
The Delhi High Court upheld the legality of the sting operation conducted by
journalists to expose corruption in Union Parliament.88 The position of Sting operations
has also been validated by the Court's opinion, that evidence remained evidence even
89
if the methods prescribed in CrPC were not complied with. It has also been observed
that the courts have ignored the factum of entrapment, in cases of sting operations
especially, keeping in mind the larger public interest.90 The Naroda Patiya Massacre
91
case is one of the landmark judgments wherein a sting operation by a journalist was
considered as a reliable and valid piece of evidence, and on the basis of which, the
wrong doers were punished.
The report claiming that “the system can be breached easily and ended with the
92
statement that it was not safe to link anything with Janaadhaar”, laid its credential
and basis on a sting operation that was conducted by Nalin Mishra, a journalist of
News Network 24. The condemned news agency is a recognized media house, which
has been upholding the integrity of press ever since its very establishment. The sting
operation that was conducted by the News Agency, is true and the report published of
the same is in due honesty, and without any malice or wrong intentions of the
accused.
Hence, it is concluded, that the Sting operation conducted by news Network 24 is a
valid evidence, and on the basis of the true evidence, that is submitted before this
Hon'ble court, the publish report is also true in all its entirety.
[2.2.2] The Publication of the report was in good faith.
Defamation cannot be held against a statement that is true and is made in public
good. The publication needs to be in both; good faith and for the public good.93
Whether or not it is for public good is a question of fact, and in the facts of our case,
the News Agency had no malice against UIDAI, as an association or any pre-existing
bias as such, the only reason as to why the report stating the merits of the sting
operation was published, was in public welfare and interest.
Good faith requires care and caution and prudence in the background of context and
94
circumstances. Dealing with the expression of Good faith, the Supreme Court has
stated that, “In considering the question as to whether the appellant acted in good
faith in publishing his impugned statement, we have to inquire whether he acted with
due care and attention. The appellant must show that the belief in his impugned
statement had a rational basis and was not just a blind sample belief. That is where
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 18 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the element of due care and attention plays an important role.”95

In case of alleged defamatory publication, the burden is on the accused to prove
that it was published in good faith.96 Thus, if one is to establish Good faith, it has to
be seen firstly, the circumstances under which the defamatory material was published;
secondly, whether there was any malice; thirdly, whether the appellant made any
enquiry before he made the allegations; fourthly, whether there are reasons to accept
the version that he acted with care and caution and finally, whether there is
97
preponderance of probability that the appellant acted in good faith.
The Report that was published by news Network 24 was in good faith. Going by the
above tenets of proving the same, it is an established fact that:-
[2.2.2.1] The Circumstances Under Which The Report Was Published
The article was published by the news agency in a situation where the UIDAI , was
established as a data repository for the Janaadhaar Act and had to prove its secure
system of saving the collected data. Since UIDAI is a Government Organization, it has
the onus to have a safe and secure system. The report published dealt with a similar
concurrent issue, for the welfare of the public, and for the awareness of the people.
The sting operation conducted by the News Agency gave them the results, which were
published in all relevance in the report.
[2.2.2.2] The Published Report Held No Malice.
The News Agency produced an unbiased report. The Sting Operation conducted,
fetched them the results, which were published in the report. There was no malice or
bad intention to defame the UIDAI, as an organization. Had the UIDAI Security system
been safe and sound, a positive report would have been published for media
awareness. Since the security system of the same, was flawed, a negative report was
published and simply because, the report was not in the favour of UIDAI, it does not
lead to a conclusion, that there was any malice.
[2.2.2.3] A Proper Enquiry Was Made Before The Report Was Published
The appellant in our case, made relevant enquiries before the report was published.
The News Agency conducted a proper sting operation to fetch the results that were
published. The preparation, conduction and execution of the sting operation is a valid
evidence to prove that a proper enquiry and research was made, before the
allegations/accusations were published.
[2.2.2.4] The News Agency Worked With Care And Caution
As has been mentioned earlier, the sting operation conducted by News Network 24
is considered to be valid evidence in the Hon'ble court, and that there is no malice or
any monetary gain that the News Agency would derive from the publication, it is
contended that there are reasons to believe that the accused acted with caution and
care, and only post pure confirmation was the publication released.
[2.2.2.5] There Is A Probability That The Appellant Acted In Good Faith
There is preponderance of probability that the accused has acted in good faith,
since due caution and reasonable care was taken before the publication was posted,
and also a true statement was published. There was no malice, and the News
Network's intentions were only to bring about true and unbiased information to the
public.
Hence, by the aforementioned, it can be concluded that the Publication by News
Network 24 was made in good faith, and not due to malice or intentions to defame
UIDAI.
[2.2.3] The Publication of the report was for public good.
The Ingredients of Exception 9 are: first, that the imputation must be made in good
faith98, secondly, the imputation must be for the protection of the interest of the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 19 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99
person making it or for the public good.
Interest of the person has to be real and legitimate when communication is made in
protection of the interest of the person making it.100 The question whether or not an
allegation was made for public good is a question of fact. It must be clearly
101
established that the attack on the credibility of another was for public good.
The essence of how the published article was made in good faith has already been
established above. The News Network via the publication, that was evaluated by the
sting operation that they conducted, only intended to bring forward the fact that the
security system of UIDAI was not as secure as it seemed, and wanted the public to be
aware of the same fact. Hiding such an important information, post realizing the same
was against the Journalism ethics, and moreover, keeping the public in wrong light.
As there was no malice, or any individual benefit, and only intentions of public
welfare and social being, it is contended before the Hon'ble Court that the Report was
published in public interest, and hence is not defamatory.
ISSUE III : WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF AMAN SRIVASTAVA AND TANYA
KUMARI ARE REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED
It is contended that hacking into the UIDAI server by the students was lawful,
justified and for the benefit of the public. This contention is two fold, as firstlythe
government had a duty to protect data through adequate measures and provisions
[3.1] and secondly that the acts of Aman Srivastava and Tanya Kumari were in the
best interest and welfare of the Public [3.2].
[3.1] DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT DATA THROUGH ADEQUATE
MEASURES AND PROVISIONS
The legislature vide the relevant act has tasked the government with the
responsibility to protect the private and sensitive data of the public and keep such
information secure and confidential.102 Public Officials have an over-arching obligation
to act in the public interest. They must perform their official functions and duties, and
exercise any discretionary powers, in ways that promote public interest that is
applicable to their official function.
The Jaanaadhar Act, 2016 makes it an obligation on the government to protect the
information and ensure the security of the identity information and authentication
records of individuals. It is their duty to ensure confidentiality of identity information
and authentication of records.103 It shall take all necessary measures to ensure that
the information in the possession or control of the Authority, including information
stored in the Central Identities Data Repository, is secured and protected against
unauthorized access or use. The Authority or any of its officers or other employees or
any agency that maintains the Central Identities Data Repository is duty bound, not to
reveal any information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository or
104
authentication record to anyone during their service or thereafter.
Therefore in light of the above-mentioned provisions, it can be concluded that it is
the duty of the government to take adequate steps and measures to protect the data
of the citizens of the country, and if there is a breach in this security, it would be the
government that would be held liable for not maintain a safe security system
[3.2] THE ACTS OF AMAN SRIVASTAVA AND TANYA KUMARI WERE DONE IN
THE BEST INTEREST AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC
It is contended before this Court that the students acted in the interest of the
public, for its welfare and security. Their actions were necessary and relevant to show
the entire nation the true nature of the safety measures being used by the
government for the UIDAI database. They did not hack into the e-hospital initiative
with malice but only acted under public interest.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 20 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Interest is defined as something in which the public, the community at large
has something pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or
105
liabilities are affected.
There should not be prosecution for such breaches, where breach of data is
necessary in preventing or detecting crime, or where in the particular circumstance the
obtaining, disclosing or procuring of data was justified, as being in the public interest.
[3.2.1] There was no personal motivation for the students to hack the data
As contented the students had no need of the data from UIDAI server, they simply
acted for the benefit of the citizens and for the public good as they did not need the
data for their app. They had a legitimate aim of protecting national security, public
safety and the rights of those victims whose data could have been hacked by any
other person hacking with mala fide intentions.
The students acted with the intent of providing knowledge to the public regarding
this fallacy and to make them aware about the fact that the government needs to
provide greater transparency. They have done this to promote public understanding
and by exposing the truth about the UIDAI database, they bring an important subject
to the publics' attention. As There was serious maladministration involved and the
students felt the need and responsibility for ensuring that highest standard of
professional conduct and competence is maintained by the UIDAI servers, by
showcasing the possible ways of breaching the private data.
Hence, it can be proved that the students had no personal intention or motivation
to hack into the UIDAI servers and that they did not commit any offence under
Information and Technology Act, 2000.
[3.2.2] The UIDAI database is vulnerable to external attacks.
It is contended that the UIDAI database is vulnerable to exposure and leakage as a
result of inefficiency on part of the government. The students have tried to prove that
the database can be hacked by any private entity around the globe with the
technological know-how to access and process data unlawfully.
It may be utilized by Non-State Actors to target Indian citizens through cyber-
attacks for financial gains as well as to profile the interests of any person. Ready
availability and accessibility of personal data can also assist terror groups or religiously
extreme groups in profiling, propagating extremist ideology and preying on young,
poor and destitute. There is an overwhelming need to secure personal data and ensure
better security by creating a statutory obligation to safeguard data of the individuals
especially because of the current era of globalization and growing technological know-
how.
Hence, it is a serious maladministration on part of the UIDAI servers that their
database is not well secured and any person can easily access the information kept
under it. The students were not wrong in doing anything in the current situation.
Therefore, it is submitted that the students acted in the Interest of the public and
had a bona fide intent to access data from the UIDAI servers, which was to prove that
UIDAI is not fully equipped with security systems. Thus, the students did not hack
into the UIDAI database to gain undue access to information and data from it, but only
to prove that the security systems of the UIDAI servers were very poorly secured and
lacked an authentic safety mechanism.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the Issues Raised, Authorities Cited and Arguments
Advanced, it is most humbly and respectfully requested that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of Indiana be pleased to:
1. UPHOLD the decision of the High Court of Uttam Pradesh.
2. DECLARE that the Jaanaadhar Act, 2016 is violative of the Articles 14, 19, 21 and
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 21 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

110 of the Constitution of Indiana and as Unconstitutional.

3. QUASH the proceedings of Criminal Defamation against News Network 24, as the
report was published in Public Welfare.
4. DECLARE the actions of Aman Srivastava and Tanya Kumari as reasonable,
justified and in the Interest of the Public.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
S/d
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS
1
Art. 21 of the Constitution of India (1950).
2
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corpn, (1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180; State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan,
(1983) 3 SCC 387 : AIR 1983 SC 803.

3
Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCR 594; Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493 : AIR 2003 SC 3450.

4
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.

5
Govind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148 : AIR 1975 SC 1378.

6
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1 : AIR 2015 SC 3081.
7
Adrienne D'Luna Directo, Data Protection in India: The Legislation of Self Regulation, North Western Journal of
International Law and Business, Vol.35, No.1 (2014).

8
2 DONALD C. DOWLING, WHITE & CASE LLP, INTERNATIONAL DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY LAW (2009).
9
State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh, (1997) 4 SCC 430, para. 3.
10
Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 262.

11
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 254.
12
P.B. Roy v. Union of India, (1972) 3 SCC 432.

13
Re Special Courts Bill, (1979) 1 SCC 380 : AIR 1979 SC 478.
14
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 876 (7th ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur,
2016).

15
M. Nagraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.

16
Preamble, Janaadhaar Act, 2016.

17
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.
18
Fertilizer Corpn. Kamagar Union v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568 : AIR 1981 SC 344.
19
Saghir Ahmed v. State of U.P., (1995) 1 SCR 707.
20
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.

21
Finance Act, 2017, S. 56.

22
Income Tax Rules, 1962.

23
Jt. Commissioner of Gift-Tax v. Shri Shreyans J. Shah, (2005) 95 TTJ Mum 896.
24
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3255 of 1984.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 22 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25
Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 7 SCC 751 : AIR 2009 SC 2432.
26
Objective of the Act.

27
Over 24.37 crore PAN cards alloted in country, I-T department says, Times of India Business, Feburary 24,
2016 (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Over-24-37-crore-PAN-cards-alloted-in-
country-I-T-department- says/articleshow/51124182.cms).

28
Jharkhand starvation death related to bank fraud, Times of India, December 26, 2017
(https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/jharkhand-starvation-death-related-to-bank-
fraud/articleshow/62257058.cms).

29
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104.
30
Shrikrishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1955) 2 SCR 531 : AIR 1955 SC 795.

31
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Col Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC 642.

32
Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (1955) 1 SCR 1045.
33
RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC 642.

34
Ramana Dayram Shetty v. I.A.A.I., (1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628.

35
Hanif v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731.

36
Babu Ram v. State of U.P., (1996) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1996 SC 857.
37
Ravi Paul v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 300.

38
State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal, (1995) 1 SCC 519 : AIR 1995 SC 2114.
39
Section 139 AA of Income Tax Act.

40
Somawanti v. State of Punjab, (1963) 2 SCR 774.

41
Constitution of Indiana, 1950, Article 21.
42
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88.
43
Francis Corli v. Administrtaor UT of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 : AIR 1981 SC 746.
44
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : AIR 1984 SC 802.

45
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp., (1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180.

46
The Ministry of Women and Child Development, August 10, 2017 D.O. No. 13/1/2017 -.

47
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, March 3, 2017, [F. No. 17-22(1)/2016-Sch.].

48
Tanbir Dhaliwal, Janani Suraksha Yojana: Over 60% would-be moms in Chandigarh miss cash benefits, says
study, Hindustan Times, Jun 08, 2017 (http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/janani-suraksha-yojana-over-60-
would-be-moms-in-chandigarh-miss-cash-benefits-says-study/story-W1maHhqbK9jZqGpL6YKzeO.html).
49
Rakesh Chandra v. State of Bihar, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 644 : AIR 1989 SC 348.
50
The Constitution of Indiana, 1950, Article 19 (1) (g).
51
Ibid, Article 19 (6).

52
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment [Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities
(divyangjan)] Notification, 3rd March, 2017 S.O. 727(E).

53
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp, (1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 23 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54
Ibid.
55
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, (1992) 2 SCC 547 : AIR 1992 SC
786.

56
Supra at Note 26, Section 2(g).
57
R. Rajgopalan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 : AIR 1995 SC 264.

58
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471 : AIR 1973 SC 157.

59
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488 : AIR 1980 SC 1579.
60
Jean Dreze, Hello Aadhaar, Goodbye Privacy, The Wire, March 24, 2017 (https://thewire.in/118655/hello-
aadhaar-goodbye-privacy/).
61
NALSA v. Union of India, WP (Civil) No. 604 of 2013.

62
Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, (2017) 7 SCC 59 : AIR 2017 SC 2967.

63
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1.

64
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, 64.
65
3 B. SHIVA RAO, THE FRAMING OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: SELECTED DOCUMENTS (Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd 2012).

66
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 : AIR 1993 SC 412.
67
S. Chawdhury v. H.M. Jadwet, AIR 1968 Cal 266
68
Susanta v. State of W.B., 1983 Cri LJ 772

69
Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar, (2010) 4 SCC 653; State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar,
(2008) 9 SCC 475

70
Amar Singh v. K.S. Badalia, (1965) 2 Cri LJ 83
71
Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Administration), (2000) 2 SCC 646 : AIR 2000 SC 718
72
Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578 (614).

73
Ibid.

74
Nishar Ali v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 366; Kaliram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 : AIR
1973 SC 2773; Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1983) 1 SCC 438 : AIR 1983 SC 194

75
Tahsildar Singh v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 1012

76
Surendra v. State, 1977 Cri LJ.
77
State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, (2005) 13 SCC 444
78
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI, 2008 SCC Online Bom 1448
79
All India Anna DMK v. K Govindam Kutty, (1995) 3 ALT 108; Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court, (2003)
3 SCC 427 : AIR 2003 SC 1467.

80
Common Cause and Anr. v. Union of India, WP No. 683 of 2016.

81
Leonard Hector v. Attorney General of Antigua, (1990) 2 All ER 103 : [1990] 2 WLR 606.

82
R.K. Anand v. Registrar Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 24 Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Printed For: Ayushi Aman, CHRIST (Deemed University)
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83
Harbhajan Singh v. State, AIR 1966 SC 97

84
Chaman Lal v. State, (1970) 1 SCC 590
85
Sting Operations as Evidence in India, Research Paper by Academike, as accessed on 10.3.18, at 8:00 pm
https://googleweblight.com/i?u=https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/sting-operations-evidence-india/&hl=en
-IN

86
Radha Govind v. Salia Kumar, 51 Cri LJ 1293

87
Subramanian Swamy v. UOI, (2016) 7 SCC 221

88
Aniruddha Bahal v. State, (2010) 172 DLT 269

89
Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan, (1987) 3 SCC 367 : AIR 1987 SC 1748
90
Sri Bhardwaj Media Pvt. Ltd. v. State, (W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1125 and 1126/2007
91
State of Gujarat v. Samir Hasmukhbhai Patel, 2012 SCC Online Guj 5097

92
Moot Proposition, Pg 4, Para 9

93
Chandrasekhara Pillai v. Karthikeyan, 1964 SCC Online Ker 79

94
Chaman Lal v. State, (1970) 1 SCC 590
95
Supra at Note 1

96
Pratibha v. State, 1995 Cri LJ 1997 (Bom)
97
Chemfab Alkhalis Limited v. S. Balasubramanian, Editor, “Junior Vikadan”, 2001 SCC Online Mad 637
98
Sewakram v. R.K. Karanjia, (1981) 3 SCC 208 : AIR 1981 SC 1514

99
Sukra Mahato v. Basdeo, (1971) 1 SCC 885 : AIR 1971 SC 1567

100
Kanwal Lal v. State, AIR 1963 SC 1317
101
Supra at Note 17

102
Section 28, Jaanaadhar Act, 2016.

103
Section 28(1) and (2), Jaanaadhar Act, 2016.

104
Section 28(3), Jaanaadhar Act, 2016.

105
Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed.

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.