mouthshut petition on it act

8/10/2019 Mouthshut petition on IT Act

1/48

1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013

[Und! A!"#$% 32 &' " C&n"#"*"#&n &' Ind#+,

-ETWEEN

1. MouthShut.com (India) Private LtdRegistered under companies Actbearing Registration No. No.11-1!"1#$% Pa&i 'i&&age% andra%Mumbai #** *+*% Maharashtra

,hrough its hie /0ecutive icerMr. 2aisa& 2aroo3ui

. 2aisa& 2aroo3ui%$% Pa&i 'i&&age%andra%Mumbai -#** *+*%Maharashtra Petitioners

VERSUS

1. 4nion o India

Represented b5 the Secretar5%Ministr5 o ommunications 6 Inormation ,echno&og5%/&ectronics Ni7etan% 8% 9 omp&e0%Lodhi Road% Ne: ;e&hi 11***


2/48

2

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

,%

,=/ =N>L/ =I/2 ?4S,I/ 2 IN;IAAN; =IS ,=/R MPANIN ?4;9/S2 ,=/ =N>L/ S4PR/M/ 4R, 2 IN;IA

,=/ =4ML/ P/,I,IN 2P/,I,IN/RS A'/NAM/;

MOST RESPECTFULL/ SHOWETH

1. ,hat the instant @rit Petition is being i&ed under

Artic&e b&e ourt% inter-a&ia or 3uashing the

Inormation ,echno&og5 (Intermediaries

9uide&ines) Ru&es% *11 (hereinater the

Impugned Ru&esB) as the5 are vio&ative o Artic&es

1#% 1" and 1 o the onstitution o India. n

11th Apri&% *11% Respondent No. 1 6 notiied

the Inormation ,echno&og5 (Intermediaries

9uide&ines) Ru&es% *11% (herein ater reerred to

as impugned Ru&es) prescribing guide&ines or

intermediaries% in e0ercise o the po:ers conerred

b5 c&ause (Cg) o sub- section () o section !$ read

:ith sub-section () o section $" o the

Inormation ,echno&og5 Act% *** (1 o ***).

,he Impugned Ru&es% are &iab&e to be set aside as

the5 contain arbitrar5 provisions :hich p&ace


3/48

3unreasonab&e restrictions on the e0ercise o ree

speech and e0pression% as :e&& as the reedom to

practice an5 proession% or to carr5 on an5

occupation% trade or business as guaranteed b5

Artic&e 1" (1) (a) and Artic&e 1" (1) (g) o the

onstitution o India. ,he Impugned Ru&es are

a&so &iab&e to be struc7 do:n because o their

ai&ure to conorm to the Statute under :hich the5

are made and e0ceeding the &imits o authorit5

conerred b5 the enab&ing Act :hich is the

Inormation ,echno&og5 Act% *** (hereinater

,he ActB).

,hat the Respondent No.1% 4nion o India has

notiied the Impugned Ru&es and Respondent No.

is the ;irector 9enera&% 9 (5ber La:s 9roup

2ormu&ation 6 /norcement ;ivision)%

;epartment o /&ectronics and Inormation

,echno&og5. It is submitted that the Petitioners

have received notices and phone ca&&s rom the

c5ber ce&&s and po&ice stations o dierent States

in India as such the Petitioner has no eicacious

remed5 e0cept to approach this =on>b&e ourt

under Artic&e


4/48

o the onstitution o India. =ence the present @rit

Petition.

1A. ,hat the 1st Petitioner is a private &imited compan5

incorporated under the re&evant provisions o the

ompanies Act% 1"+8 having registration No. 11-

1!"1# o *** and being represented b5 its hie

/0ecutive icer 2aisa& 2aroo3ui. ,he Petitioner No.

is the hie /0ecutive icer o the Petitioner No.1 and

is i&ing the present @rit Petition in his individua&

capacit5. ,he Petitioner No.1 has authoriCed the

Principa& 2aisa& 2aroo3ui to s:ear the aidavit and

e0ecute the va7a&atnama or the present @rit Petition.

A true cop5 o the certiicate o incorporation o the

Petitioner No.1 dated !-"-*** and the cop5 o the

oard reso&ution dated *-1-*1 authoriCing Mr

2aisa& 2aroo3ui to represent the Petitioner No.1 are

anne0ed as Anne0ure P-1 o&&5.,hat the Petitioners

state that the5 have not approached an5 other

authorit5 see7ing simi&ar re&ie as has been sought in

the present @rit Petition.

.

,hat the acts &eading to the i&ing o the present @rit

Petition beore this =on>b&e ourt are as o&&o:sD

a. It is submitted that the Petitioner No.1 is a

compan5 that operates MouthShut.com% a socia&

net:or7ing% user revie: :ebsite. It :as ounded


5/48

in the 5ear *** to provide a tru&5 democratic

p&atorm or consumers to e0press their

opinions on goods and services% thereb5

aci&itating the ree

b. &o: o truthu& inormation in the mar7etp&ace. It

is estimated that at &east !* &a7hs (eight5 &a7hs)

users visit the :ebsite ever5 month. ,he :ebsite

acts as a meeting p&ace or bu5ers to e0change

ideas% opinions and eedbac7 on products and

services the5 have used or are considering bu5ing.

/ach business or product &isting resu&t contains a

+-point rating% revie:s rom other site visitors%

and detai&s such as the business address% oice

hours% accessibi&it5% and par7ing. @ebsite visitors

can become members and aid in 7eeping the

business &istings up to date% :ith moderator

approva&% and business o:ners can direct&5

update their o:n &isting inormation. usiness

o:ners can communicate :ith contributors :ho

post revie:s on their page via messages or pub&ic

comments in order to address their grievances or

present their e0p&anations. Such a business

mode& has emerged to be universa&&5 productive

and successu& in the current environment o

consumer reach and interaction. ,he various


6/48

categories o products and services% the revie:s o

:hich are avai&ab&e on the :ebsite% are

app&iances% automotives% boo7s% computers%

mobi&eEInternet% persona& inance% trave&%

education% househo&d goods% e&ectronics% music%

sma&& businesses% ma&&s% stores% emp&o5ers%

sports% hea&th and beaut5 etc. It is submitted

that MouthShut.com has emerged as a mar7et

&eader in its niche in India and :as the irst in

this ie&d to gain such traction and momentum. It

ma5 be pointed out that other successu&

businesses in this area started much &ater are

ce&ebrated :or&d over. ne such :ebsite is the

San 2rancisco based Fe&p.com that :as started in

**#. It is submitted that MouthShut.com is &ed

b5 an ab&e team% committed to improve consumer

e0perience% headed b5 Mr 2aisa& 2aroo3ui :ho

gave up a &ucrative career in the 4nited States to

bootstrap peer revie: based on&ine business in

India. ,rue copies o the ertiicate o

Incorporation o the Petitioner No.1 dated

!.*".*** and the cop5 o the e0tracts o the

Minutes o the meeting o the oard o ;irectors

o Petitioner No.1 dated *.1.*1 are anne0ed


7/48

hereto and mar7ed as ANNE4URE P51 COLL/

(P+6 052)

c. It is submitted that the ,erms o 4se po&ic5 o

MouthShut.com states c&ear&5 that An5 opinions

e0pressed b5 a member are those o a member

a&one% and are not to be attributed to

MouthShut.com. MouthShut.com cannot and

does not assume responsibi&it5 or the accurac5%

comp&eteness% saet5% time&iness% &ega&it5 or

app&icabi&it5 o an5thing said or :ritten b5 an5

memberB.

d.

It is submitted that a&though the :ebsite provides

a means to connect businesses :ith aggrieved

customers or revie:ers to address their

comp&aints about the product or service in

3uestion% the 1st Petitioner receives numerous

re3uests or ta7ing do:n negative revie:s rom a

variet5 o business o:ners inc&uding reputed

ban7s% consumer e&ectronics companies% rea&

estate dea&ers and bui&ders etc. in the regu&ar

course o business. =o:ever% the 1st Petitioner

does not e0ercise an5 in&uence on the content o

the revie:s. Re&ecting the consumer protection

ethos on :hich the 1st PetitionerGs business is

based% the 1st Petitioner does not screen an5


8/48

7revie: beore it is posted on&ine% in order to avoid

creating an indirect prior restraint on speech

:hich :i&& inevitab&5 &ead to &esser user generated

revie:s overa&&. ,here is an automated a&gorithm

:hich chec7s the content or e0p&etivesB but its

accurac5 and comp&eteness cannot be trusted.

e.

It is submitted that the 1st PetitionerGs oicia&

po&ic5 is to on&5 remove content i ordered b5 a

court o competent Hurisdiction or on a :ritten

re3uest signed b5 a competent authorit5 o the

9overnment in vie: o an5 un&a:u&B content.

.

It is submitted that the Inormation ,echno&og5

Act% *** :as enacted to provide &ega& recognition

or transactions carried out b5 means o e&ectronic

data interchange and other means o e&ectronic

communication% common&5 reerred to as

e&ectronic commerce% :hich invo&ve the use o

a&ternative to paper-based methods o

communication and storage o inormation to

aci&itate e&ectronic i&ing o documents :ith the

9overnment agencies.

g. In **#% Avnish aHaH% the / o aaCee.com% an

auction porta&% :as arrested or an obscene MMS

c&ip that :as put up or sa&e on the site b5 a user.

,he aaCee case sho:ed the &ega& ris7s that


9/48

8corporates operating an on&ine business that

provide a p&atorm or users to host their content%

cou&d be e0posed to in spite o the act that the5

are not the authors o the content. ,he

aaCee.com case resu&ted in an appea& b5 the

industr5 to amend the Inormation ,echno&og5

Act% *** b5 providing protection to

intermediaries rom &iabi&ities arising out o user-

generated content. ,he Inormation ,echno&og5

(Amendment) Act% **! amended Section $" o

the I, Act% *** to provide or a sae harbour

protection to intermediaries. ,he Legis&ature

intended to reduce &ega& uncertaint5 or

Intermediaries and ma7e the creator o the

content responsib&e or it and not the host o the

content as it :ou&d be both unHust and

impractica& to ho&d companies responsib&e or

:ords someone e&se posted or videos% a third

part5 created. 2urther% it is techno&ogica&&5

ineasib&e or intermediaries to pre-screen each

and ever5 bit o content being up&oaded onto their

p&atorms% especia&&5 as the amount o inormation

coming on&ine is increasing e0ponentia&. As per

data provided b5 9oog&e% Inc.% over # bi&&ion hours

o video are :atched each month and


10/48

10appro0imate&5 $ hrs ( Sevent5 ,:o) o video are

up&oaded ever5 minute to its service%

Foutube.com. ,he Legis&ature ac7no:&edged that

imposition o such a burdensome standard :ou&d

crush innovation% thrott&e Indian competitiveness%

and prevent entrepreneurs rom dep&o5ing ne:

services in the irst p&ace% a tru&5 unortunate

outcome or the gro:th o the Internet in India.

h. ,he Inormation ,echno&og5 (Amendment) Act%

**!% received the assent o the President on *+-

*-**" and came into orce on $-1*-**" as

per Notiication No. S..8!"(/) dated $-1*-

**". ,his Amendment Act made substantia&

amendments to various provisions in the Principa&

Act.

i. Section $" o the Inormation ,echno&og5 Act%

*** as amended provides protection or

intermediaries rom &iabi&it5 arising out o user

generated content. As per c&ause (:) o sub-

section (1) o Section o the Principa& Act as

amended% an intermediar5% :ith respect to an5

particu&ar e&ectronic records% means an5 person

:ho on beha& o another person receives% stores

or transmits that record or provides an5 service

:ith respect to that record and inc&udes te&ecom


11/48

11service providers% net:or7 service providers%

internet service providers% :eb-hosting service

providers% search engines% on-&ine pa5ment sites%

on-&ine auction sites% on-&ine mar7et p&aces and

c5ber caes. ,hus% Intermediaries are entities that

provide services that enab&e an5 content that is

created on the internet to be de&ivered to the user.

,his inc&udes socia& media :ebsites &i7e 2aceboo7

and ,:itter that act as p&atorms to store and

retrieve content% :ebsites such as that o the 1st

Petitioner :hich provide a p&atorm to the pub&ic

to revie: various products and services% b&ogging

p&atorms &i7e &ogspot and @ordpress% search

engines &i7e 9oog&e and Fahoo% :eb hosting

providers &i7e 9o;add5% auction sites &i7e ea5%

pa5ment gate:a5s &i7e Pa5Pa& and ISPs &i7e Airte&

and M,NL amongst others.

H. ,hat the nd respondent re&eased a set o drat

ru&es ca&&ed the Inormation ,echno&og5 (;ue

di&igence observed b5 intermediaries guide&ines)

Ru&es% *11 (=ereinater the drat ru&esB) and

invited comments on these ru&es. =o:ever these

ru&es :ere ina&ised :ithout ta7ing into account

eedbac7 submitted b5 man5 organisations and

individua&s. A true cop5 o the Inormation


12/48

12,echno&og5 (;ue di&igence observed b5

intermediaries guide&ines) Ru&es% *11 is anne0ed

here:ith and mar7ed as ANNE4URE P52 (P+6

350)

7. ,hat on 11th Apri&% *11% the 1st Respondent

notiied the Inormation ,echno&og5

(Intermediaries 9uide&ines) Ru&es% *11%

prescribing guide&ines or intermediaries% in

e0ercise o the po:ers conerred b5 c&ause (Cg) o

sub- section () o section !$ read :ith sub-

section () o section $" o the Inormation

,echno&og5 Act% *** (1 o ***). A true cop5 o

the ,echno&og5 (Intermediaries 9uide&ines) Ru&es%

*11% notiied on 11th Apri&% *11 is anne0ed

hereto and mar7ed as ANNE4URE P53 (P+6 15

7)

&. ,hatRu&e < o the impugned ru&es prescribes due

di&igence to be observed b5 the intermediar5.

Sub-ru&e (1) o ru&e < mandates intermediaries to

pub&ish ru&es and regu&ations% privac5 po&ic5 and

user agreement or access or usage o the

intermediar5Gs computer resource. Sub-ru&e () o

ru&e < mandates the intermediar5 to inorm users

the 7ind o inormation that cannot be hosted%

up&oaded% modiied% pub&ished% transmitted%


13/48

13updated or shared. Sub-ru&e (#) o ru&e b&e ourt considered the issue o

restrictions on reedom o speech in detai& in Sa7a&

Papers (P) Ltd. 's. ,he 4nion o India% AIR 1"8 S

b&e ourt he&d in para b&e ourt urther he&d that

The orret approah in s'h ases sho'd -e to

en4'ire as to what in s'-stane is the oss or

in/'r a'sed to the iti5en and not ere what

anner and ethod has -een adopted - the

$tate in pain* the restritionB.

0)

,his =onGb&e ourt has he&d in $.Ran*ara/an v. P.

6a*/ivan Ra, (!#!) 3 $%% "&7that the oitent

to freedo deands that it annot -e s'ppressed 'ness

the sit'ations reated - aowin* the freedo are

pressin* and the o'nit interest is endan*ered. The


24/48

2antiipated dan*er sho'd not -e reote, on/et'ra or

far8fethed. It sho'd have a proxiate and diret nex's

with the expression. The expression of tho'*ht sho'd

-e intrinsia dan*ero's to the p'-i interest. In other

words, the expression sho'd -e insepara- i+e the

e4'ivaent of a 9spar+ in a power +e*9.: ,he impugned

ru&es resu&t in censorship o a broad spectrum o

inormation :ithout &oo7ing at the eect such speech

:ou&d have on the pub&ic interest.

0i) ,he impugned ru&es resu&t in remova& o an5 content

that is dis&i7ed b5 an5 person or is not in his interest.

,his =onGb&e ourt has he&d in Naraindas v. State o

Madh5a Pradesh 1"$# < SR 8# thatD

It is our irm be&ie% na5% a conviction :hich

constitutes one o the basic va&ues o a ree

societ5 to :hich :e are :edded under our

onstitution% that there must be reedom not on&5

or the thought that :e cherish% but a&so or the

thought that :e hate. As pointed out b5 Mr.

?ustice =o&mes in Abramson v. 4nited States% +*

4.S. 818D ,he u&timate good desired is better

reached b5 ree trade in ideas--the best test o

truth is the po:er o the thought to get itse&

accepted in the competition o the mar7et.B ,here

must be reedom o thought and the mind must


25/48

2be read5 to receive ne: ideas% to critica&&5 ana&5se

and e0amine them and to accept those :hich are

ound to stand the test o scrutin5 and to reHect

the rest.B. ,his =on>b&e ourt has he&d in A/a

;oswai v. Union of India, AIR 3


26/48

20ii) ecause the impugned ru&es impose unreasonab&e

restrictions on the 1st Petitioner>s right to practice an5

proession% or to carr5 on an5 occupation% trade or

business as guaranteed b5 Artic&e 1" (1) (g) o the

onstitution o India b5 orcing upon it to ac3uire an

adHudicative ro&e :hich &eads to censorship or suer

&itigation or crimina& &iabi&it5 or both at the hands o

the Respondent and private parties.

0iii) ecause the impugned Ru&es impose a signiicant

burden on the 1st Petitioner orcing it to screen content

and e0ercise on&ine censorship :hich in turn impacts

the 2reedom o speech and e0pression o its customers

thereb5 ris7ing a &oss o its &arge consumer base or

incurring &ega& costs and acing crimina& action or

third part5% user generated content. It is submitted

that the 1st Petitioner is made to choose bet:een the

option o ta7ing do:n content :hich cou&d in turn

resu&t in &osing the conidence o its users or the option

o ta7ing a &ega& ris7 o crimina& prosecution b5 &etting

the content sta5 on&ine or numerous posts ever5 da5.

,hus% the impugned ru&es ma7e it diicu&t or the

Petitioners to run their business. It is submitted that

:hi&e a private part5 ma5 a&&ege that certain content is

deamator5 or inringes cop5right% such determinations

are usua&&5 made b5 Hudges and can invo&ve actua&


27/48

2in3uir5 and careu& ba&ancing o competing interests

and actors. ,he 1st Petitioner is not :e&&-positioned to

ma7e these t5pes o determinations but is being orced

to adopt an adHudicative ro&e in ma7ing such

determinations. It is submitted that as per the

impugned ru&es the 1st Petitioner is re3uired to ta7e an

action :ithin thirt5 si0 (3 AIR

=


28/48

27pub&ic order% decenc5 or mora&it5 or in re&ation to

contempt o court% deamation or incitement to an

oence. It cannot% &i7e the reedom to carr5 on

business% be curtai&ed in the interest o the

genera& pub&icB. ,he impugned ru&es in the garb

o regu&ating intermediaries end up contro&&ing the

reedom o e0pression o citiCens.

It :as he&d in ennett o&eman 6 o. 6 rs vs

4nion India 1"$< AIR 1*8% 1"$< SR () $+$

that

Pub&ication means dissemination and

circu&ation. ,he press has to carr5 on its

activit5 b5 7eeping in vie: the c&ass o

readers% the%conditions o &abour% price o

materia&% avai&abi&it5 o advertisements% siCe

o paper and the dierent 7inds o ne:s

comments and vie:s and advertisements

:hich are to be pub&ished and circu&ated.

,he &a: :hich &a5s e0cessive and prohibitive

burden :hich% :ou&d restrict the circu&ation

o a ne:spaper :i&& not be saved b5 Artic&e

1" (). I the area o advertisement is

restricted% price o paper goes up. I the price

goes up circu&ation :i&& go do:n. ,his :as

he&d in Sa7a& Papers case (supra) to be the


29/48

28direct conse3uence o curtai&ment o

advertisement. ,he reedom o a ne:spaper

to pub&ish an5 number o pages or to

circu&ate it to an5 number o persons has

been he&d b5 this ourt to be an integra&

part o the reedom o speech and

e0pression. ,his reedom is vio&ated b5

p&acing restraints upon it or b5 p&acing

restraints upon something :hich is an

essentia& part o that reedom. A restraint on

the number o pages% a restraint on

circu&ation and a restraint on

advertisements :ou&d aect the undamenta&

rights under Artic&e 1" (1)(a) on the aspects

o propagation% pub&ication and circu&ation.B

0v) It is most humb&5 submitted that in this digita& age

intermediaries &i7e the 1st Petitioner b5 providing a

p&atorm enab&ing ree e0pression o ideas provides

users a medium that ma7es it easier or users to

e0press their opinion and vie:s. ,he 1st Petitioner

thus oers greater options or users to e0press their

vie:s and opinions :hen compared to a ne:spaper.

,he 1st Petitioner has the same 7ind o rights as

uphe&d b5 this =on>b&e ourt in Sa7a& Papers case and

ennet o&eman case. ,he impugned ru&es ma7e it


30/48

30impossib&e or the 1st Petitioner and other

intermediaries to run their business as it imposes

unreasonab&e restrictions on the reedom o e0pression

o users and b5 orcing the intermediaries to indu&ge in

censorship.

0vi) ,he petitioners are receiving notices and phone ca&&s

rom c5ber ce&&s and po&ice stations in various states

as7ing them to de&ete content and a&so as7ing them to

provide inormation o users. ,hese re3uent notices

and threats rom po&ice oicers on the emp&o5ees o

the 1stpetitioner ma7e it diicu&t or the petitioners to

run their business.

0vii) ecause Subru&es () and (#) o Ru&e < o the impugned

ru&es are unreasonab&e and arbitrar5 and thus are

&iab&e to be struc7 do:n.

0viii)It is most humb&5 submitted that Sub-ru&e () o Ru&e b&e court and is thus

unconstitutiona&.


43/48

3Sub-ru&e ($) o ru&e < mandates the intermediar5% :hen

re3uired b5 &a:u& order% to provide inormation or an5

such assistance to 9overnment Agencies :ho are

&a:u&&5 authoriCed or investigative% protective% c5ber

securit5 activit5. ,he re3uirement or &a:u& order is

modiied :hi&e mandating that the inormation or an5

such assistance sha&& be provided or the purpose o

veriication o identit5% or or prevention% detection%

investigation% prosecution% c5ber securit5 incidents and

punishment o oenses under an5 &a: or the time

being in orce% on a re3uest in :riting stating c&ear&5

the purpose o see7ing such inormation or an5 such

assistance. ,he re3uirement o giving inormation

about users b5 the intermediar5 on a mere :ritten

re3uest rom an agenc5 cou&d have serious imp&ications

on the right to privac5 o citiCens. Sub-ru&e ($) o Ru&e

< o the impugned ru&es are vio&ative o the right to

privac5 :hich is an integra& part o the undamenta&

right o right to &ie and persona& &ibert5 guaranteed to

a&& and is &iab&e to be struc7 do:n as unconstitutiona&.

000vi)

ecause the impugned ru&es in their entiret5 are

unconstitutiona& and are &iab&e to be struc7 do:n.

000vii),he provisions o the impugned ru&es operate b5 as7ing

the intermediar5 to restrict the reedom o users to post

or up&oad content. Such a restriction on the users are


44/48

a vio&ation o the undamenta& right to reedom o

speech and e0pression guaranteed b5 the onstitution

o India. Sub-ru&es ()% (#)% (+) and ($) o Ru&e < are the

most important provisions o the ru&es and these ru&es

are unconstitutiona& and u&tra vires o the parent act.

As the ru&es have provisions that are be5ond the

reasonab&e restrictions that can be imposed as per

Artic&e 1"() o the onstitution% these provisions are

not severab&e rom the rest o the &egis&ation and the

ru&es as a :ho&e is &iab&e to be struc7 do:n as

unconstitutiona& and u&tra vires o the parent act.

1Dhere a aw p'rports to a'thori5e the iposition

of restritions on a f'ndaenta ri*ht in an*'a*e

wide eno'*h to over restritions -oth within and

witho't the iits of onstit'tiona perissi-e

e*isative ation affetin* s'h ri*ht, it is not

possi-e to 'phod it even so far as if a -e

appied within the onstit'tiona iits, as it is not

severa-e. $o on* as the possi-iit of its -ein*

appied for p'rposes not santioned - the

%onstit'tion annot -e r'ed o't, it 'st -e hed to

-e who 'nonstit'tiona and void. In other

words, a'se (3) of artie ! havin* aowed the

iposition of restritions on the freedo of speeh

and expression on in ases where dan*er to the


45/48

$tate is invoved, an enatent, whih is apa-e

of -ein* appied to ases where no s'h dan*er

o'd arise, annot -e hed to -e onstit'tiona and

va&id to an5 e0tent.B.

000viii),he impugned ru&es% :ith the broad &ist o un&a:u&

inormation mentioned in sub-ru&e () o ru&e


46/48

,hereore% the Petitioner humb&5 pra5s that this

=on>b&e ourt be p&eased toD

a. ,o issue an appropriate :rit% order or direction in the

nature o @rit o ertiorari 3uashing the Inormation

,echno&og5 (Intermediaries 9uide&ines) Ru&es% *11 as

i&&ega&% nu&& and void as the same is u&travires o the

onstitution

b. ,o issue an appropriate :rit% order or direction

directing the Respondent No.1 to promu&gate ne: ru&es

in &ine :ith the statement and obHects o the

Inormation ,echno&og5 Act% *** (1 o ***).

c.

,o issue such other appropriate :rit% order or

directions as this =on>b&e court ma5 deem Hust and

proper to issue in the circumstances o the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF 9INDNESS THE PETITIONERS

AS IN DUT/ -OUND SHALL EVER PRA/.

DRAWN AND FILED -/

MEs. La:5er>s Jnit 6 o.

Advocate or the Petitioners

P&aceD Ne: ;e&hi;ra:n onD 1


47/48

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF

Mouthshut.com(India) Private Limited 6 Anr.

Petitioners

'ersus

4nion o India 6 rs.

Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I% 2aisa& aroo3ui% son o Idris 2aroo3ui% aged about


48/48

7best o m5 7no:&edge and be&ie. No part o this aidavit isa&se and nothing materia& has been :i&&u&&5 concea&edthererom.

DEPONENT

mouthshut petition on it act

Documents