9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

TEAM CODE: E

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WADHIYA

SPECTER ROSS

JANATHA PARTNERS

AIRLINE ASSOCIATES …PETITIONERS

V.

THE GOVERNMENT OF WADHIYA …RESPONDENT

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WADHIYA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners-

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR.NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2

2. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 3

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

4. SUMMARY OF FACTS 6

5. ISSUES RAISED 9

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12

8. PRAYER 25

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 1

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sr. No. Abbreviation Full Form

1. & And.
2. A.I.R. All India Reporter.
3. Ed Edition.
4. Art. Article
5. Hon’ble. Honourable
6. I.T. Information Technology.
7. Ltd. Limited
8. S.C. Supreme Court.
9. S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases.
10. S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter.
11. Sec. Section

12. U.S. United States

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

SR.NO. CASE NAME CITATION

1. Uoi v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter 1971 AIR 1093, 1971 SCR (3)
483
2. Uoi v. Tulsiram patel 1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR
SUPL.(2) 131
3. Brundaban Nayak v. Election commission of India 1965 AIR 1892, 1965 SCR (3)
53
4. Raja ram pal v. Hon’ble speaker, Lok Sabha and (2007) 3 SCC 184 : (2007) 1
Ors SCR 317
5. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zanchichu and Ors. (1991)
6. Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors. V. Uoi (2018) SCC 109
7. S and Harper v. United Kingdom
8. Elloy de Fretias v. Permanent Seceretary of (1999) 1 AC 69
Ministry of Agriculture, fisheries, lands and
housing
9. Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) v. Raj Narain and Ors.
10. Som raj v. State of Haryana
11. West virgina state board of education v. Barnette (591) 319 U.S. 624
12. R.D. shetty v. airport authority AIR 1979 SC 1628
13. Suresh Chandra Sharma v. chairman AIR 2005 SC 2021
14. Javed v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 3057
15. Ram Jethmalani v. Uoi 2 (2011) 8 SCC 1
16. S.R. Bommai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors [(1994) 3 SCC 1]
17. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors [(1997) 3 SCC 261]

18.

 BOOKS REFERRED

SR.NO. NAME OF BOOK AUTHOR/S

1. Constitution of India Durga Das Bas
2. Shorter Constitution Of India Durga Das Basu

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 3

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

3. Parliamentary Privilages R.S. Jethmalani , D.S.Chopra

4. Commentary on Information S.R. Bhnasali
Technology Act
5. Information Technology-Law & Vakul Sharma
Practice
6. Transborder Data Flows and Data Christopher Kuner
Privacy Law

 DYNAMIC LINKS

 www.manupatra.com
 www.westlawindia.com
 www.scconline.com
 https://www.sci.gov.in/

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 4

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

The Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Memorandum for the
Petitioner in Petition No: .____ of 2019 under Article 32 of the Constitution of Wadhiya.

By virtue of the same article this court has inherent jurisdiction to try entertain and
dispose of the matter.

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 5

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

(A)
 Wadhiya is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. According to 2011 census
of Wadhiya, the infant mortality rate (IMR) was as high as 44 per 1000 live births, while
the child mortality rate was 12.2.In the period 2010-11 there has been a major increase in
the percentage of children aged 12-23 months who were receiving vaccination for BCG,
DPT, polio and measles.
 The immunisation rate for children in Wadhiya is 58.9% for SC category and 49.8% for
ST category. Wadhiya still lacks a robust system to track vaccine –preventable diseases..
 Wadhiya has introduced computerised immunisation register that track each child’s
vaccination and feed that information into a national database. Subject to the validation
through specific and certified documents, families from the lower strata of the society,
i.e., BPL families receive an amount of Rs. 2000 per immunisation in the family that is
directly credited to their bank accounts. The details of such cash benefits are saved in the
register.
 In order to give a legal basis for the computerised register, the National Immunisation
Register (Personal Information System) Bill, 2018 was introduced as a Money Bill before
the Lok Sabha. The Opposition was contending that it was not a Money Bill under Article
110 of the Constitution of the Wadhiya. Thereupon, the speaker of the Lok Sabha ruled
that the National Immunisation Register (Personalised Information System) Bill, 2018
was a Money Bill under Article 110 and was subsequently passed by both Houses of the
Parliament, as per procedure established under the Constitution. On 16 October 2018, it
received the assent of the President and was published in the Official Gazette.
 Pursuant to the right to privacy being recognized as a fundamental right through judicial
interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, The Personal Data Protection Act, 2018
was enacted on 16 November 2018 with the objective to protect personal data as a facet
of informational privacy.
 On 2 December 2018, the Immunisation Register was hacked by a group of student
hackers known as ZMU wherein 5 million user record data were breached. The hackers

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 6

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

had committed the said act only to show the weakness in the details firewalls and data
protection schemes and not with the intent of misusing the information. The information
was destroyed, and the records were returned to the Ministry of Health, Union
Government, shortly thereafter. This incident resulted in public outcry for a better
protection regime.

(B)

 Wadhiya is the fastest growing market for the e-commerce sector. Through its Annual
Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment Policy, 2018, released on 29 January 2018, the
Wadhiyan Government relaxed the FDI norms for e-commerce sector, allowing 100%
FDI under the automatic route.
 Wadhiya is the fastest growing market for the e-commerce sector. Through its Annual
Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment Policy, 2018, released on 29 January 2018, the
Wadhiyan Government relaxed the FDI norms for e-commerce sector, allowing 100%
FDI under the automatic route.
 LF Corporation is an e-commerce market giant incorporated in the United States of
Hogwarts. LF Corporation set-up business in Wadhiya under the name LF Wadhiya Pvt.
Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of the LF corporation.
 The LF Wadhiya Pvt. Ltd. Is engaged in business-to-business (B2B) services pertaining
to transportation of goods and materials, by means of rail or road. The company
developed an online platform where transportation agencies could register themselves.
The consideration, deposit and other charges were payable by either of the parties
through the online portal.
 The data servers of the LF Wadhiya Pvt. Ltd. Are located in Godrige, in the United States
of Hogwarts, where the parent company LF Corporation is located. On 04 December
2018, a group of anonymous hackers hacked into the data servers of LF Corporation
located at Godridge. Data pertaining to nearly 2 million business entities from LF
Wadhiya Pvt. Ltd. were made accessible to public by the hackers which included user
passwords, bank details of the accounts of the companies, registered GST numbers and

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 7

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

other sensitive information that is not accessible by the public. This led to an outcry in
Wadhiya, against the failure of the laws and regulations on data protection in Wadhiya.
 Specter Ross, an NGO based in Wadhiya filed a petition before the Supreme Court of
Wadhiya challenging the constitutionality of the National Immunisation Register Act as
violative of the fundamental rights.
 Subsequently, similar petitions were filed by other NGOs, janatha partners and Airlines
Associates before the Supreme Court of Wadhiya, for the protection and localization of
data with parent companies outside Wadhiya, thereby challenging the validity of Chapter
VIII of Personal Data Protection Act.

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 8

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

ISSUES RAISED

The Petitioners request the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Wadhiya to consider the following issues:

1. Whether the decision of the Speaker under Article 110 (3) of the Constitution is subject
to judicial review, and if yes, whether the National Immunisation Register (Personalised
Information System) Act, 2018 is a Money Bill?

2. Whether the collection and storage of data by the Government under the National
Immunisation Register (Personalised Information System) Act, 2018 violate the
fundamental right to privacy of the citizens guaranteed under the Constitution of
Wadhiya?

3. Whether Chapter VIII of the Personal Data Protection Act, 2018 and other related
provisions thereto, are ultra vires the Constitution of Wadhiya?

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 9

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE DECISION OF THE SPEAKER UNDER ARTICLE 110(3) OF THE

CONSTITUTION IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AND, THE NATIONAL
IMMUNISATION REGISTER (PERSONALISED INFORMATION SYSTEM) ACT,
2018 IS NOT A MONEY BILL.

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the decision of the speaker of the lok
sabha relating to a bill being a money bill is subject to judicial review as there is
supremacy of law and any decision of the speaker which is illegal can be reviewed by the
judiciary and Article 110 (3) is no bar to judicial scrutiny and the National Immunisation
Register (Personalised Information System) Act, 2018 is not a money bill as the primary
scope of the ac is to give immunisation and vaccination to public and to collect personal
data related to it.

2. THE COLLECTION AND STORAGE OF DATA BY THE GOVERNMENT

UNDER THE NATIONAL IMMUNISATION REGISTER ( PERSONALISED
INFORMATION SYSTEM) ACT, 2018 VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
TO PRIVACY OF THE CITIZENS GUARANTEED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF WADHIYA.

The collection and storge of data under the National Immunisation Register
(Personalised information system) Act, 2018 is violative of the Fundamental Right to
Privacy guranteed under the constitution of Wadhiya.The provisions of the act
infringes our fundamental right to privacy as it stores and collects all our basic and
commercial information into a central database prone to cybercrimes. The
information which is collected is in excess to what is essential for the achievment of
the objective of the government.The entire structure of the aforesaid act is violative of
the concept of rule of law which is one of the basic features of our constitution.

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 10

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

3. CHAPTER VIII OF THE PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2018 AND

OTHER RELATED PROVISIONS THERETO, ARE ULTRA VIRES THE
CONSTITUTION OF WADHIYA.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Personal Data
Protection Act, 2018 is violative of the fundamental rights, that means it infringes
Right to Privacy of the Constitution Of Wadhiya..

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 11

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I

IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT THAT

THE DECISION OF THE SPEAKER OF THE LOK SABHA RELATING TO A BILL

BEING A MONEY BILL IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ARTICLE 110 (3)
IS NO BAR TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND THE NATIONAL IMMUNISATION
REGISTER (PERSONALISED INFORMATION SYSTEM) ACT, 2018 IS NOT A
MONEY BILL.

 RULE OF LAW:

The rule of law has been considered the most fundamental principle on which the English legal
system is based. The concept of rule of law signifies 3 inter-related concepts namely,

1. The supremacy of the law

2. Equality before the law
3. Predominance of the legal spirit1

Now linking them with the case that we have, regarding the authority given to the speaker of the
Lok Sabha to declare a bill as a money bill and such decision is final and such a power if we
construe in sense that give it the meaning so as to show that this decision cannot be questioned
under the court of law, would become violative of the rule of law. No doubt to the fact that rule
of law holds major importance for the English constitution, however since the same constitution
is the source for Indian constitution, it has a vital importance for us as well and thus, their value
cannot be neglected.

In the words of Sir A.V. Dicey, if any discretion is given to an administrative authority,
individual freedom is in danger and this can be fatal to the supremacy of the law. Since, the
speaker is given the power to decide the nature of a bill to be a money bill or an ordinary bill,
this becomes a discretionary power thus violates the rule of law.

1
PROF.H.D.PITHWALLA, HISTORY OF COURTS,P 3,(2017)

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 12

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

Sir Dicey also state that the citizens of a country are better protected by the courts than by a mere
declaration of their rights in a document like the constitution of the country. According to this,
rejecting the claim for any person to reach the courts of law is taking away their freedom.

It is thus necessary to interpret the section in the sense that the decision of the speaker is final so
far as the legislative bodies are concerned. It cannot however be kept outside the scope of
judicial review.

 CHECKS AND BALANCES:

The theory of separation of power does not come alone; it has to be accompanied by the theory
of checks and balances. No doubt that the three organs of government shall be separated but then
it is equally important to keep a check that no single organ becomes extra powerful. In the instant
matter, if the decision of the speaker is kept outside the scope of the judicial scrutiny, it is very
much possible that the speaker might use these powers arbitrarily.

 NATURAL JUSTICE:

The concept of natural justice envisages the need for speaking orders. It is necessary that any
order shall speak for itself. The principle is not only applicable in the courts of law but also in the
day to day life. For speaker to just declare a bill as a money bill is not enough, a proper
justification is required thus when justice is not visible, it becomes necessary for the courts of
law to enquire into the matter by the way of judicial review. The whole concept of judicial
review is thus applicable on the decision of the Supreme Court to declare a bill as a money bill.

In Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter2 a similar finality clause in Article 217(3) of the
Constitution camp up for consideration. This Court said:

The President acting under Article 217(3) performs a judicial function of grave importance under
the scheme of our Constitution. He cannot act on the advice of his Ministers. Notwithstanding
the declared finality of the order of the President the Court has jurisdiction in appropriate cases
to set aside the order, if it appears that it was passed on collateral considerations or the rules of
natural justice were not observed, or that the President's judgment was coloured by the advice or
representation made by the executive or it was founded on no evidence."
2
1971 AIR 1093, 1971 SCR (3) 483

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 13

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

Referring to the expression "final" occurring in Article 311(3) of the Constitution this Court in
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel3 held:

The finality given by Clause (3) of Article 311 to the disciplinary authority's decision that it was
not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry is not binding upon the court. The court will also
examine the charge of mala fides, if any, made in the writ petition. In examining the relevancy of
the reasons, the court will consider the situation which according to the disciplinary authority
made it come 348 to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. If
the court finds that the reasons are irrelevant, then the recording of its satisfaction by the
disciplinary authority would be an abuse of power conferred upon it by Clause (b)....

In brundaban Nayak v. Election Commission of India4

in spite of finality attached by Article 192 to the decision of the Governor in respect of
disqualification incurred by a member of a State Legislature subsequent to the election, the
matter was examined by this Court on an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the
Constitution against the decision of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

The next case, which needs to be considered, is Raja Rampal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha
and Others5

The Constitution Bench in the above case had occasion to consider the question of issue of
Judicial Review of a decision of Speaker disqualifying from membership of the Parliament.     A
submission was raised before the Court by virtue of Article 122 of the Constitution, which puts
an embargo on questioning any proceeding of the Parliament, the decision of the Speaker is
immuned from the Judicial Review.

It was held (in following paragraphs) that:

3
1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR SUPL. (2) 131
4
1965 AIR 1892, 1965 SCR (3) 53
5
(2007) 3 SCC 184 : (2007) 1 SCR 317

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 14

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

“364. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the Union of India and the learned Additional
Solicitor General seek us to read a finality clause in the provisions of Article 122(1) in so far as
parliamentary proceedings are concerned. On the subject of finality clauses and their effect on
power of judicial review, a number of cases have been referred that may be taken note of at this
stage. ”

“376. In our considered view, the principle that is to be taken note of in the aforementioned
series of cases is that notwithstanding the existence of finality clauses, this Court exercised its
jurisdiction of judicial review whenever and wherever breach of fundamental rights was alleged.
The President of India while determining the question of age of a Judge of a High Court under
Article 217(3), or the President of India (or the Governor, as the case may be) while taking a
decision under Article 311(3) to dispense with the ordinarily mandatory inquiry before dismissal
or removal of a civil servant, or for that matter the Speaker (or the Chairman, as the case may be)
deciding the question of disqualification under Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule may be acting as
authorities entrusted with such jurisdiction under the constitutional provisions. Yet, the manner
in which they exercised the said jurisdiction is not wholly beyond the judicial scrutiny. In the
case of the Speaker exercising jurisdiction under the Tenth Schedule, the proceedings before him
are declared by Para 6(2) of the Tenth Schedule to be proceedings in Parliament within the
meaning of Article 122. Yet, the said jurisdiction was not accepted as non justifiable. In this
view, we are unable to subscribe to the proposition that there is absolute immunity available to
the Parliamentary proceedings relating to Article 105(3). It is a different matter as to what
parameters, if any, should regulate or control the judicial scrutiny of such proceedings.

 DECISION FINAL V. DECISION NOT UNDER JUDICIAL SCRUITNY.

For the articles that would not come under the judicial scrutiny, the framers have mentioned it
word by word, that the said article would be away from being challenged in the court of law. For
instance article 329 a specifically states that “shall not be called in question in any court”
however, in article 110 (3) it is only said that the decision of the speaker is final, going by the
logic, that only means that it binds on the legislative and does not mean that it is away from the
judicial review.

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 15

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

 JUDICIAL REVIEW :

In S.R. Bommai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors6 it was reiterated that the judicial review
is a basic feature of the Constitution and that the power of judicial review is a constituent
power that cannot be abrogated by judicial process of interpretation. It is a cardinal
principle of our Constitution that no one can claim to be the sole judge of the power
given under the Constitution and that its actions are within the confines of the powers
given by the Constitution. 

  It was held in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors7 that power of judicial review
is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution constituting the basic part, the
jurisdiction so conferred on the High Courts and the Supreme Court is a part of inviolable
basic structure of Constitution of India.

 THE BILL IS NOT A MONEY BILL.

It is humbly submitted that the bill passed in the lok sabha was not a money bill on the following
ground.

As per section 110 of the Indian constitution8,

110. Definition of Money Bill

(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only
provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely

(a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax;

(b) the regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Government
of India, or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to
be undertaken by the Government of India;

6
[(1994) 3 SCC 1]
7
[(1997) 3 SCC 261]
8
DD BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, P. 740,VOL.1,14TH EDITION (2009)

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 16

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

(c) the custody of the consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India, the payment of
moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund;

(d) the appropriation of moneys out of the consolidated Fund of India;

(e) the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India
or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure;

(f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of India or the public account of
India or the custody or issue of such money or the audit of the accounts of the Union or of a
State; or

(g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub clause (a) to (f)

(2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason only that it provides for the
imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees for
licences or fees for services rendered, or by reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition,
remission, alteration or regulation of any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes

The section clearly states that a bill is a money bill if it deals with the appropriation of funds out
of the consolidated fund of India. The National Immunisation Register (personal information
system) act shall not have been passed as a money bill as the sole objective of the act is not
related to providing subsidy but keeping the personal information system.

It is very well clear from the first line of the act that states that “an act to provide for the creation
of a national immunization register and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”

It is as much logical that one states the aspects important to the subject matter and whatever is
not the main substance is left in the extra part, same way, the wording makes it very much clear
that what is important is the data collection and maintenance and not the provision of subsidy.

Hence, to conclude, the council seeks to prove that the decision of the speaker of the lok sabha
regarding a bill being a money bill is subject to judicial review and the aforesaid bill is not a
money bill.

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 17

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

ISSUE II

IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE COLLECTION AND STORAGE OF

INFORMATION UNDER CHAPTER 2 OF THE NATIONAL IMMUNISATION
REGISTER (PERSONALISED INFORMATION SYSTEM ) ACT,2018 IS VIOLATIVE
OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY GUARANTEED
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF OF WADHIYA.

1) The petitioners submits that in Wadhia, for the purpose of data protection ,a body corporate is
subject to section43A of the Information Technology Act,2000. Rule 5(7)9of the of the above
mentioned act requires that the individual must be provided with the option of opting out in case
any such information is sought by the body corporate. Whereas in the given case no such
condition is filled as registration is mandatory for all parent/guardian and no such provision is
available in order to opt out of the scheme. Further if all the information that is sought is not
provided and registration is not completed the benefits of the scheme under section 7 of the act is
not provided to the person.

2) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court stated that what is contained in that persons
bank account could perhaps be stated to be information over which he expects a reasonable
expectation of privacy and would, if divulged to others constitute an infraction of his
fundamental right to privacy10.

3) In the United Kingdom which is a similar jurisprudence once the court concluded that the
retention of data by the authority constituted a disproportionate interference with Right to
Privacy. Under The National Immunisation Register (Personalised Information System) Act.
There is no provision whatsoever relating to the disposal or deletion of the information which
has been stored, once all the vaccines have been provided in the Immunisation Register11.

9
The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedure and Sensitive Personal Data or
Information) Rules ,2011.
10
Justice KS Puttaswamy(Retd.) and Another v. Union Of India and Others.(2017)

11
S and Harper v. United Kingdom (2008)

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 18

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

4) It is submitted that making such a statutory law like The Immunisation Register can be made
by a simple majority in the parliament but the fundamental right like right to life including Right
to Privacy which are provided in the constitution of Wadhiya is an Inalienable Right’ which one
inherits from the sake of being a human being. The infringement done by the aforesaid act is
violative of Right to Privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of Wadhiya. Hence
as there is no reasonable interest to collect personal details like biometrics, bank accounts details
of all the individuals and other identifying information of even the non participatory people and
such legislation infringe the fundamental rights and should be struck down.

TEST OF PROPORTIONALITY

The Apex Court has in the past in its various judgements laid down certain tests. A law which
encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on
fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the
basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable12. The law must also
be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty Under Article 21.

In KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India it was formulated that invasion of life or personal liberty
must meet the three-fold requirement of:

(i) legality, which postulates the existence of law

(ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate state aim; and
(iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects an
the means adopted to achieve them.

The Privy Council in England formulated the parameters of proportionality elaborating a three-
fold test13:

12
J KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anothers v. Union of India and Ors.(2017) 10 SCC.
13
Elloy de Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing, [1999] 1 AC 69
.

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 19

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

WHETHER:

1) the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right;

2) the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and

3) the means used to impair the right or freedom are no more than is necessary to accomplish the
objective.

The role of the test of proportionality is to enable the court to determine whether the legislative
measure is disproportionate in its interference with the fundamental rights. The court should see
whether a less intrusive measure could have been adopted consistent with the object of the law
and whether the impact of the encroachment on fundamental rights is disproportionate to the
benefit which is likely to incur.

So in the humble submission of the petitioner

1) Collecting and storing

a)bank account details of every legal representative whether he/she is qualified for the benefits or
not.

b) Identifying information even if the person is immuned or has a medical contraindication to a

vaccine.

c) contact and residential details of the practioner with a possible track of places and practioners
where the vaccine has been administered and by whom the vaccine has been administered.

2) Creating

A central online database which is without any doubt prone to hacking and many other cyber
crimes.

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 20

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

These provisions of the national immunisation register are not at all proportional to the objective
the government tend to achieve. The very concept of the register amounts to serious invasion to
the privacy of the citizen .The legislation without any doubt doesn’t satisfy the 3rd requirement of
the above mentioned dicta.

The National Immunisation Register (Personalised Information System) Act,2018 is against Rule
of Law which is one of the basic feature of our constitution

Rule of law is a basic feature of our constitution14 and has its place in the preamble. The entire
national immunisation register structure is anathema to the democratic principles and the rule of
law which is the bed rock of the Indian Constitution. It could be argued that this register is a
grave risk to the rights and liberties of the citizens of this country which are secured by the
Constitution of India namely the right to privacy under article 21 of the constitution. It militates
against the constitutional abiding values and its foundational moralities and has the potential to
become a surveillance state on the basis of the information that is collected in respect of each
individual by creating a central online mesh.

This national register is destructive to the concept of limited government as with all the
information of various aspects of an individual the government’s presence will increase
contradicting the concept.

In such a society there is little or no personal autonomy. The state is pervasive and the dignity of
the citizen stands extinguished. With the availability of all kind of information including
commercial in confidence and identifying information of the people the government and the
absence of appropriate checks and balances the government could become arbitrary in its role
and functions which is opposite to what the concept of rule of law says. Absence of arbitrary
power is the primary postulate of rule of law15.

Through this legislation the government tends to collect and store the bank account details,
contact information, residential details, biometric information and other relevant information
which in today’s digital world is of utmost importance and with this information in its pocket and

14
Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) v. Raj Narain and Anr. (1975)
15
Som Raj v. State of Haryana (1990)

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 21

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

the checks and balances where the government is the final or the deciding authority there is a
probable chance of creation of arbitrariness which is against the very concept.

ISSUE III

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 22

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT CHAPTER VIII OF THE PERSONAL DATA

PROTECTION ACT, 2018 AND OTHER RELATED PROVISIONS THERETO, ARE
ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF WADHIYA.

Chapter VIII of the Personal Data Protection Act violates the Right to Privacy which is a
Fundamental Right.

The Petitioners submit that as recently declared by this Hon’ble Supreme Court, the right to
privacy is not merely a civil right that can be curtailed or otherwise restricted by the exercise of
the legislative powers of the State. The inclusion of fundamental rights in the Constitution of a
country is for the purpose of preserving certain fundamental human rights which are not only to
be protected by the State, but contains an area which the State has no right to interfere. As
observed by Lord Jackson,16

In Justice K.S Puttaswamy vs. Union of India Puttaswamy held that informational privacy is an
essential aspect of the fundamental right to privacy. It protects an individual’s free, personal
conception of the ‘self.’ Any unauthorised use of such information may therefore lead to
infringement of the right to privacy.

“Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. The dangers to privacy in an age of
information can originate not only from the state but from non-state actors as well. We commend
to the Union Government the need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data
protection. The creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance between
individual interests and legitimate concerns of the state.”17

Consent, transparency and control over information are crucial to informational privacy. In this
structure, Court has principally focused on the “individual” as central to our jurisprudence.

The accessibility of personal data without consent of the individual infringes Right to Privacy.

Reasonability of Right to Privacy

16
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (No. 591) 319 U.S. 624
17
(2018) SCC 109

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 23

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

Right to Privacy being a fundamental right is entitled to be protection under Article 21 that
cannot be infringed upon except for the procedure established by law. In Thus, ‘arbitrary
interference’ in any person’s privacy constitutes an infringement of his fundamental
right.18Interference is arbitrary when it does not pass the test of reasonableness.19

It is submitted that the term reasonableness is very significant to determine the synchronization
of the restriction imposed with the entire fabric of Fundamental Rights.20 It is further submitted
that a restriction is unreasonable if it takes away within its ambit activities which constitute a
legitimate exercise of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the celebrated case of Ram Jethmalani v Union of India
21
had stated that the revelations of the details of the bank account of individuals without the
establishment of a prima facie ground of wrongdoing would be a violation of the right to privacy.

In relation to the obligation under sub clause 40 (1) regarding the storage of data on a server or in
a data centre located in India. Data localisation per se does not protect the safety of personal
data. If other jurisdictions offer an adequate level of protection, there is no justification based on
safety of personal data for preventing their transfer or imposing the storage of the personal data
in a particular country. Further, in other jurisdictions the imposition of data localisation has been
introduced as a way to facilitate unlawful surveillance and limiting the capacity of individuals to
protect the confidentiality of their communications.

Chapter VIII of the Act imposes unreasonable restrictions on the transfer of data outside India,
the central government prescribes that transfers to a particular country are permissible

RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY –

18
J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, p. 306 (1970)
19
R. D. Shetty v Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628; Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021
20
Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057
21
2 (2011) 8 SCC 1

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 24

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free from
exploitation.22

Privacy, it was held, reflects the right of the individual to exercise control over his or her
personality. This makes privacy the heart of human dignity and liberty. Liberty and dignity are
complementary constitutional entities. Privacy was held to be integral to liberty.

“The right to privacy is an element of human dignity. The sanctity of privacy lies in its functional
relationship with dignity. Privacy ensures that a human being can lead a life of dignity by
securing the inner recesses of the human personality from unwanted intrusion. Privacy
recognises the autonomy of the individual and the right of every person to make essential
choices which affect the course of life. In doing so privacy recognises that living a life of dignity
is essential for a human being to fulfil the liberties and freedoms which are the cornerstone of
the Constitution.”23

CONCLUSION - Chapter VIII of the Act puts unreasonable restrictions on the flow of data
outside India. The Act violates Rights to Privacy which is a fundamental right. The act also
violates human dignity of the individual which is concerned with living a life with freedoms and
liberties.

PRAYER

22
1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
23
(2018) SCC 109

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 25

 9th SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
.

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is humbly prayed by the Petitioner’s that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. That the court may declare that the decision of the speaker of lok sabha on matter
relating to a particular bill being a money bill is subject to judicial review.

2. The court shall declare the National Immunisation Register (personalised information
system) as ultra vires and that the act must be strike down .

3. The Personal Data Protection Act, 2018 shall be strike down as it is ultra vires to the
Constitution of Wadhiya.

And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of
justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONERS

-Submissions on behalf of Petitioners- 26