TC -25

RUAS SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2.0, 2026

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

WRIT PETITION

Under Article 32 of the Constitution

In the matter of

DR. AYAAN MEHRA & ANOTHER ………………………………………PETITIONER

VS.

UNION OF INDICA & OTHERS………………………………………….RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………….………….02

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………….…………………………….…….….…03

3. TABLE OF CASES …………………………………………………………….04

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………….……...06

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS….…………………………………………………....07

6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ……….…………………………………………......08

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…….…………………………………... ….…...9

8. ARGUMENTS IN DETAIL………………………………………………………11

Issue 1……………………………………………………………………...……11

Issue 2……………………………………………………………………...……15

Issue 3………………………………………………………………….….……20

Issue 4……………………………………………………………………...…...23

8. PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………….28

2
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Information Technology Act, 2000

[Link] Technology (Amendment) Rules, 2026

4.. The Representation of India, 1951

6. Bharatiya Nagarik Sureksha Sanhita, 2023

[Link] Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

[Link] Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

BOOKS

[Link] Pandey: Constitutional Law of India Central Law Agency 57th ed., 2020.

[Link] Jain: Indian Constitutional Law LexisNexis 8th ed., 2018.

ONLINE RESOURCES

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]/p/eSCR

[Link]

[Link]/

[Link]

8. [Link]

3
 TABLE OF CASES

1. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 (2) SCC 574

2. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294

3. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637

4. Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851

5. Election Commission of India vs State of Haryana, 1984 SCR (3) 554

6. In Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi [AIR 1950 SC 129]

7. K.A. Abbas v. Union of India [AIR 1971 SC 481]

8. Sahara India Real Estate [Link].& Ors vs Securities & [Link] of India & Anr, 2012
(10) SCC 603

[Link] Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain, 1975 SCC (2) 159

10. Gulam Abbas & Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors, (1982) 1 MAD LJ 85

11. Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353

12. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. vs The State of Punjab, [1955]2SCR225

13. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 2017 SC 4161

14. Naga People's Movement, Of Human Rights ... vs Union of India, 1998 AIR SCW 8

15. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India case, AIR 1997 SC 568

16. Gobind vs State Of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., AIR1975SC1378

17. District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496

18. The State of Bombay and Another vs F.N. Balsara, 1951 AIR 318, 1951 SCR 682

19. Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P.& Ors, AIR 2014 SC 187

20. State Of A.P vs M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 4 CUR CRI R 584

21. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

22. Valsala v. State of Kerala (1993) Supp (3) SCC 665

23. G.N. Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024: BHC-NAG:2711-DB

4
24. C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567

25. Anvar P. V vs P.K. Basheer & Ors, 2014 AIR SCW 5695

26. Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs State of Bihar & Ors (2017) 3 SCC 1

27. A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710

28. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India,1970, AIR 564

29. Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124

30. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

31. State Of Madras vs V.G. Row. Union of India & State, 1952 AIR 196

32. Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia, 1960 AIR 633

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONERS HAS APPROACHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

BY THE MEANS OF A PETITION, UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OFINDICA TO SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE
AMBIT OF ARTICLES 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.

Thus, invoking the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Hon'ble Court under Article 32, the

petitioner submits this memorial for consideration and adjudication in accordance with the

principles of justice, equity, and the rule of law.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

On 18th February 2026, in the midst of final phase of general elections in Republic of Indica,
a video appeared on various social media platforms depicting Dr. Ayaan Mehra, the PM
candidate of the opposite coalition receiving bribe, and making seditious statements portraying
that the unrest may follow is his party losses in the election. The video became viral, and
resulted in protest gatherings, sporadic clashes and localized public disorder in multiple
districts across the state. A preliminary government analysis of social media platforms showed
the video gained sudden traction through newly created accounts exhibiting coordinated
posting behavior. The original source of the upload remains unidentified.

On 19th February, an independent digital forensic lab opined that the video was likely AI-
generated. However, the Government Forensic Unit stated that technical indicators were
consistent with authentic device capture, though the original source file was necessary for a
conclusive finding. A third private assessment claimed the content was a hybrid reconstruction,
but this was later found to be fabricated. Thus, the authenticity of the content remained
disputed.

On 20th February, the Election Commission of India directed social media platforms to remove
the content and imposed restrictions on political campaigns. The same day, the Ministry of
Home Affairs issued the NETRA-GRID order directing social media intermediaries to furnish
required information. On 21st February, the police of Dakshin Pradesh registered an FIR
against unknown persons. During investigation, an early-upload device was seized, though
concerns arose regarding its evidentiary value. On 23rd February, a senior compliance officer
of WAVV, a online platform, withdrew his earlier statement supporting the government’s claim
of coordinated amplification. WAVV further stated that data required to trace the origin and
dissemination of the content is stored in Estoria and could be disclosed through local judicial
authorization.

On 25th February, President promogulated Electoral Integrity (Synthetic Media) Ordinance,

2026, to protect the integrity of elections from synthetic media. Dr. Mehra filed writ petition
under Article 32 of the constitution challenging the ECI directives, the operation of NETRA-
GRID, the investigative actions and constitutional validity of the Ordinance. He alleged that
Article 14, 19 and 21 of constitution was violated. The Supreme Court accepted the case and
refers the matter to a constitutional bench.

7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSSUE 1

WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DIRECTIVE OF THE ECI IS CONSTITUTIONALLY

VALID?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE ACTIVATION AND OPERATION OF NETRA-GRID BY THE MINISTRY

OF HOME AFFAIRS IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDICA?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THERE IS LAPSE OF INVESTIGATION IN THE PART OF THE DAKSHIN

PRADESH POLICE DEPARTMENT?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE ELECTORAL INTEGRITY (SYNTHETIC MEDIA) ORDINANCE, 2026

IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

The impugned directive is constitutionally valid, legally sustainable, and within the
competence of the Election Commission of India (ECI). The directive does not violate Article
19(1)(a) as the right to free speech is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). In
light of the mass circulation of a potentially misleading political video during the silence
period, there exists a clear and proximate threat to public order and electoral integrity, justifying
limited regulatory intervention. Under Article 324, the ECI possesses plenary and residuary
powers to ensure free and fair elections. Given the absence of specific laws addressing AI-
generated political videos and other campaigning advertisement, the ECI is empowered to issue
necessary directives. The directive is supported by the scheme of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, particularly Section 123, which prohibits false statements and corrupt
practices, and Section 126, which enforces a 48-hour silence period. Thus, the directive merely
enforces existing statutory mandates. The directive is proportionate and non-arbitrary, targeting
only specific electoral content for a limited duration, thereby maintaining a balance between
free speech and democratic integrity. Therefore, the impugned directive is intravires Article
324, consistent with statutory provisions, and constitutionally sustainable, and hence liable to
be upheld.

ISSUE 2

The activation and operation of NETRA-GRID do not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of
Indica, as the impugned measures were adopted to protect electoral integrity, public order and
democratic stability during an extraordinary technological threat. The State was confronted
with a rapidly spreading AI-driven misinformation campaign immediately before the final
phase of the General Election, which had already caused large-scale public unrest and violence.
Therefore, limited technological intervention became constitutionally necessary. The executive
order satisfies the requirement of legality under Article 21and is operated within the framework
of existing statutory powers relating to cyber investigations, intermediary obligations and
maintenance of public order. NETRA-GRID did not authorize blanket mass surveillance or
unrestricted interception of private communications. The framework was narrowly tailored to
collect metadata, provenance indicators and behavioural amplification patterns solely for
tracing coordinated synthetic dissemination networks. The operation was temporary, election-
specific and directly connected to an ongoing criminal investigation. The right to privacy under

9
Article 21 is not absolute and must be balanced against compelling State interests. The
Petitioners have failed to establish any concrete constitutional injury or misuse of data.
Accordingly, the limited and targeted operation of NETRA-GRID constitutes a lawful,
proportionate and constitutionally permissible response to an unprecedented electoral
emergency

ISSUE 3

Iinvestigation conducted in the present case is legally valid, fair, and does not suffer from any
such defects as would vitiate the proceedings. Any alleged lapses such as delay in hashing or
improper sealing of the device are merely procedural irregularities. Does not invalidate the
prosecution unless serious prejudice or miscarriage of justice. There is no material to show that
the investigation was deliberately defective or biased. The case involves complex digital
evidence as this regards to the dissemination of an alleged political video. The investigation
was undertaken in response to a serious threat to public order and electoral integrity. Defects
under the investigation are minor, non-prejudicial, and do not strike at the root of the
prosecution case. The investigation remains fair, lawful, and constitutionally justified, and
therefore does not warrant any interference.

ISSUE 4

The respondent contends that the Ordinance was promulgated in compliance to all provision
of Article 123. According to Krishna Kumar Singh V. State of Bihar, burden of proof regarding
the satisfaction of President is with the petitioner because there is no case of abuse of power
conferred by Article 123, by the President. The President promulgated the Ordinance because
the current parliamentary acts were insufficient to deal with public unrest caused by the
circulation of synthetic contends. The restriction on freedom of speech comes with in the armpit
of the condition in which the restriction can be imposed, that is listed in Article 19(2). The
restriction imposed on the fundamental rights pass reasonable restriction test established by
State of Madras V. V G Row and Superintendent, Central Prison V. Ram Manohar Lohia.

10
 ARGUMENTS IN DETAIL

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DIRECTIVE OF THE ECI IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

1.1 FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS UNDER

ARTICLE 19(2)

1.11 Article 19(1)(a) 1guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression to
all its citizens and Article 19(2) 2explicitly enumerates the grounds under which the state may
impose reasonable restrictions on such right. The grounds for such restrictions are strictly
limited to the in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

1.12 The alleged directives by the ECI were issued in the context of electoral integrity and
public order, which directly falls within the ambit of article 19(2) of the constitution. Therefore,
the directive is constitutionally valid if it satisfies the test of reasonableness and proportionality.

1.13 The court in S Rangarajan v P Jagjivan 3ram held that motion pictures come within the
ambit of free speech and thus face reasonable restrictions. Court held that freedom of speech
can be restricted where a proximate and clear & direct nexus with public disorder exist, and
the threat cannot be remote or speculative. In the present case the spreading of alleged political
video which earned about 60 million views over 6 hours has already resulted in clashes and
local disturbance and public protest over 6 districts across two states. This establishes a clear
eminent threat to the public order and electoral integrity of the state. Unlike hypothetical it
reflects the real danger and satisfies grounds for reasonable restrictions of freedom of speech.

1.14 Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 4is a landmark judgment of
the Supreme Court of India that advanced electoral transparency and citizens’ right to
information. The Court held that voters have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the

1
India Const. art. 19(1)(a)
2
India [Link]. 19 (2)
3
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 (2) SCC 574

4
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294

11
Constitution to know the backgrounds of candidates contesting elections. The widespread
video which is alleged to be AI generated may mislead the voters and give false information
and distorts election, this can be considered as a reasonable restriction by public order. Thus,
the directive operates as a protective measure to ensure that voters are not misled by false or
manipulated content during a critical electoral period

1.15 There is no gainsaying that in today’s world the internet stands as the most utilized and
accessible medium for exchange of information. Expression through the internet has gained
contemporary relevance and is one of the major means of information diffusion. Concern about
the freedom of expression over the medium of internet has been discussed in Anuradha Bhasin
v Union of India 5as the freedom of speech and expression through the medium of internet is
an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) and accordingly, any restriction on the same must be in
accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. In this case the court upheld the restrictions
imposed on grounds of extra ordinary circumstances. The present directive is a measured
response to an emergent technological threat, and falls within the constitutional framework
outlined in the above judgment

1.16 The doctrine of chilling effect is inapplicable in the present case. The directive Applies
only to political content during a limited time frame, Does not prohibit speech but merely
introduces a verification requirement and is aimed at preventing harm, not suppressing any
right unconditionally.

1.17 In light of the above, it is humbly submitted that the ECI directive Falls within the ambit
of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), Addresses a clear and imminent threat to public
order and electoral integrity is narrowly tailored, temporary, and proportionate, which
Enhances rather than suppresses the meaningful democratic participation and therefore does
not violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution

1.2 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 324

1.21 Article 324(1) 6The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the
electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every

5
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637
6
India. [Link]. 324(1)

12
State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution
shall be vested in the Election Commission

1.22 Article 324 7vests the Election Commission of India (ECI) with plenary powers of
superintendence, direction and control over elections, enabling it to take necessary measures
to ensure free and fair elections, which form part of the basic structure of the electoral integrity.
It also enables the commission to act in the absence of specific legislation, not contrary to the
existing laws to ensure free and fair election. The same was opinion was reaffirmed by the
supreme court in Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner 8, it was observed that
by virtue of Article 324 the Election commission possess wide plenary powers to ensure free
and fair elections and where there is no specific legislation addressed or the existing statutory
provisions are insufficient to address extraordinary circumstances, the Election Commission
has the power to adopt necessary measures to preserve electoral integrity

.1.23 It is a settled principle that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the
Constitution and such was also held in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain 9. The
ECI, as the constitutional guardian of electoral integrity, has a positive obligation to take
proactive measures against threats such as Misinformation and deepfakes, Electoral
manipulation, public disorder arising from digital propaganda. Failure to act in such
circumstances would amount to a dereliction of constitutional duty.

1.24 In light of the above submissions, it is humbly contended that Article 324 confers plenary
and residuary powers on the ECI, the directive addresses a legislative vacuum concerning AI-
driven electoral threats, The ECI’s authority in electoral matters has been judicially recognized,
and the directive satisfies the test of fairness, necessity, and proportionality. Therefore, the
Election Commission does possess the constitutional authority under Article 324 to issue the
impugned directive, and the same is legally valid and within its jurisdiction.

1.3 LEGALLY VALID AND CONSTITUTIONALLY SUSTAINABLE

1.31 Representation of people Act supports electoral integrity by the provisions of section 123
10
and [Link] 123 of the act deals with corrupted practices. Corrupted practices of bribery,
undue influence, appeals based on religion or caste, spreading false statements, misuse of

7
India. [Link].324
8
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851
9
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain, 1975 SCC (2) 159
10
Representation of people Act, 1951, section 123

13
government machinery, and booth capturing. These acts are prohibited because they interfere
with free and fair elections. If committed, they can lead to disqualification of the candidate and
the election being declared void.

1.32 Section 126 11mandates a compulsory silence period of 48 hours before the conclusion of
poll. No person shall display to the public any election matter by means of cinematograph,
television or other similar apparatus. In this section, the expression “election matter” means
any matter intended or calculated to influence or affect the result of an election. The alleged
political video of the prime minister candidate was widespread during this period.

1.33 The spirit of the act ensures free and fair election. A Government Digital Forensics Unit
reported that certain technical indicators are consistent with an authentic device capture. The
forensics unit noted that a definitive conclusion regarding the authenticity of the media would
require a thorough examination of the original source file. Publicity of this content violated the
section 126. Thus, the directive is not creating new restrictions, but rather enforcing and
operationalizing existing statutory mandates as the video was disseminated on a mass scale
during the silence period, its authenticity remains uncertain, with forensic reports indicating
the need for further verification.

1.34 The court in Election commission of India vs state of Hariyana 12

ruled that the ultimate
decision on the possibility and expediency to hold an election completely rests with the election
commission of India. This ruling gives a judicial interpretation of article 324 of Indian
constitution

1.35 In Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 13 supreme Court was called upon to balance exercise of
freedom of expression and pre- censorship. Court declared the statutory provision as
unconstitutional in as much as the restrictions imposed by it were outside Article 19(2), as it
then stood. However, Court did not say that pre- censorship per se is unconstitutional. In the
case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India 14, Court upheld prior restraint on exhibition of motion
pictures subject to Government setting up a corrective machinery and an independent Tribunal
and reasonable time limit within which the decision had to be taken by the censoring

11
Representation of people Act, 1951, section 126
12
Election Commission of India vs State of Haryana, 1984 SCR (3) 554

13
In Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi [AIR 1950 SC 129],
14
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India [AIR 1971 SC 481]

14
authorities. In Sahara India Real Estate v. SEBI 15court clarified that the reliance on the above
judgments is only to show that “prior restraint” per se has not been rejected as constitutionally
impermissible”

1.36 The directive Applies only to political content during a limited time frame, Does not
prohibit speech but merely introduces a verification requirement and is aimed at preventing
harm, not suppressing any right unconditionally. And hence it cannot be challenged by chilling
effect. The alleged directives by the ECI were issued in the context of electoral integrity and
public order, which directly falls within the ambit of article 19(2) of the constitution. Therefore,
the directive is constitutionally valid if it satisfies the test of reasonableness and proportionality.
the directive is not arbitrary as it is a necessary instrument for the electoral integrity

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE ACTIVATION AND OPERATION OF NETRA-GRID BY THE

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDICA?

2.1 CONSTITUTIONALLY NECESSARY MEASURE ADOPTED TO PROTECT

ELECTORAL INTEGRITY AND PUBLIC ORDER

2.11. Article 355 of the Constitution16 enjoins the Union to protect every State against external
aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried
on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. In pursuance of these obligations, the
Ministry of Home Affairs is entitled to continuously monitor the internal security situation,
issue appropriate advisories, share intelligence inputs, extends manpower and financial
support, guidance and expertise to the State Governments for maintenance of security, peace
and harmony without encroaching upon the constitutional rights of the States.

2.12 In Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr, the court held that free and fair election
is a core part of the basic structure of the Constitution, implying maintenance of electoral
integrity is a vital part of public order maintenance. Further, in the case of Gulam Abbas v.

15
Sahara India Real Estate [Link].& Ors vs Securities & [Link] of India & Anr, 2012 (10) SCC 603

16
India. [Link].355

15
State of Uttar Pradesh17, the Court clearly stated that preservation of public peace
and tranquillity is the primary function of the Government and the aforesaid power is conferred
on the executive.

2.13 In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Court acknowledged that the State may impose
temporary and proportionate restrictions where necessary to protect public order and national
security. The Court recognized that constitutional freedoms must sometimes be balanced
against urgent societal interests. The AI-driven misinformation campaigns operate through
sophisticated digital amplification systems which cannot be effectively investigated through
conventional investigative techniques. The NETRAGRID order specifically sought metadata,
account linkage information, provenance identifiers and behavioural amplification metrics for
the limited purpose of identifying coordinated inauthentic activity and synthetic influence
operations. The State was confronted with an unprecedented technological threat emerging
immediately prior to polling of the final phase of the general election. Therefore, the
deployment of digital tracing mechanisms and metadata analysis tools constituted a reasonable
and proportionate response aimed at preserving democratic stability and preventing further
escalation of violence.

2.14 In Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 18it was held that where the State
pursues a legitimate objective through proportionate means, courts must accord due
constitutional deference to policy and operational decisions. Protecting the integrity of national
elections from technologically coordinated misinformation campaigns constitutes a compelling
constitutional objective. The Petitioners wrongly characterize NETRA-GRID as a system of
blanket mass surveillance. The order was specifically directed towards identifying coordinated
digital manipulation linked to the disputed short video. The order did not authorize unrestricted
interception of private communications or continuous monitoring of ordinary citizens. Rather,
it focused upon tracing amplification patterns, coordinated bot behaviour and synthetic
dissemination networks. Therefore, the limited digital measures adopted through NETRA-
GRID cannot be treated as unconstitutional merely because they involve technological
investigation techniques.

17
Gulam Abbas & Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors, (1982) 1 MAD LJ 85

18
Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353

16
2.2 SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF LEGALITY UNDER ARTICLE 21

2.21 Article 162 19of the Constitution clearly indicates that executive power of the sate extends
to all matters upon which the legislature may legislate unless specifically prohibited by law. In
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. vs The State of Punjab 20, the Supreme Court clarified
that an executive action does not become unconstitutional merely because every operational
detail is not expressly codified through legislation. The Petitioners in the present case are
incorrect in contending that the NETRAGRID order lacks legal sanction merely because the
operational framework originated through an executive action. The operational order expressly
functioned alongside obligations already applicable under the IT Rules, 2021 as amended in
2026. The State acted pursuant to existing statutory mechanisms relating to cyber
investigations, intermediary obligations and offences concerning public disorder and digital
impersonation. Therefore, the legality requirement under Article 21 stands satisfied.

2.22 The constitutional test laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 21does not mandate
the existence of a separate parliamentary enactment specifically naming every investigative
mechanism used by the State. The requirement of legality merely ensures that executive action
must operate within a lawful framework and pursue legitimate constitutional objectives.
Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 22
also allow for the interception,
monitoring, or decryption of information to protect national security, public order, and to
prevent the incitement of crimes. The surveillance measures were undertaken during an
ongoing criminal investigation involving allegations of coordinated synthetic political
manipulation, cheating by digital impersonation and offences affecting public order. The
impugned measures were therefore directly connected to lawful governmental functions
concerning election security and criminal investigation. Consequently, the Petitioners’
argument that the absence of a separate “NETRA-GRID statute” automatically renders the
framework unconstitutional is legally unsustainable.

2.23 The constitutional governance requires the Executive to possess sufficient operational
flexibility to respond to rapidly evolving technological threats. Artificial intelligence and
synthetic media technologies develop at a pace substantially faster than legislative processes.

19
India. [Link].162
20
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. vs The State of Punjab, [1955]2SCR225

21
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR 2017 SC 4161
22
Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 69

17
Requiring separate legislation for every technological investigative mechanism would severely
impair the State’s ability to respond to urgent digital threats affecting democratic institutions.
In Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, 23
the Court recognized that
executive authorities may exercise special operational powers where extraordinary situations
threaten public order and constitutional stability. The temporary activation of NETRA-GRID
order during a national electoral emergency falls squarely within the permissible scope of
executive authority recognized under constitutional jurisprudence.

2.3 THE IMPUGNED MEASURES SATISFY THE DOCTRINE OF

PROPORTIONALITY UNDER ARTICLE 21

2.31 The measures satisfy the proportionality doctrine recognized by Supreme Court in K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The
State pursued a legitimate and compelling constitutional objective which is the protection of
electoral integrity, prevention of coordinated synthetic manipulation and maintenance of public
order during an ongoing General Election. The content had already viewed 60 million times
and resulted in clashes and riots in six districts within two states. Therefore, immediate
technological intervention became necessary to prevent further destabilization of the electoral
process.

2.32 The measures adopted were narrowly tailored and minimally intrusive in nature. The
impugned framework primarily sought metadata, behavioural amplification indicators and
provenance signals instead of unrestricted access to substantive communication content. The
purpose of the programme was not to monitor private political beliefs of citizens, but to identify
coordinated digital networks involved in synthetic influence operations.

In PUCL v. Union of India24, the Supreme Court recognized that surveillance measures may be
constitutionally permissible were supported by public necessity and accompanied by
operational limitations. The collection of behavioural indicators and account linkage
information was necessary and paramount to identify the unlawful coordinated activity.

2.33 No less restrictive alternatives were available and the targeted investigation against
isolated accounts alone would have been ineffective because the very nature of coordinated
synthetic influence operations involves decentralized amplification networks operating through

23
Naga People's Movement, Of Human Rights ... vs Union of India, 1998 AIR SCW 8
24
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India case, AIR 1997 SC 568

18
multiple linked accounts and automated systems. The State therefore required broader metadata
tracing mechanisms to identify the origin, dissemination and coordination patterns associated
with the viral content.

2.34 Further, the measures were only temporary, election-specific and linked to a rapidly
evolving emergency situation. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that temporary restrictive measures adopted in response to urgent public threats may
satisfy constitutional scrutiny where proportionality is maintained. Accordingly, the limited and
temporary operation of NETRA-GRID cannot be characterized as excessive or
unconstitutional.

2.4 THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER ARTICLE 21 IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND MUST
BE BALANCED AGAINST COMPELLING STATE INTERESTS

2.41 Although informational privacy forms part of Article 21, the same is not absolute and may
be reasonably restricted in pursuit of compelling State interests. In Gobind v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 25
the Supreme Court recognized that privacy rights are subject to reasonable
restrictions based upon public interest and societal necessity. This principle was subsequently
reaffirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, wherein the Court held that privacy may be
lawfully restricted where legitimate governmental objectives and proportional safeguards exist.
The reasonable restrictions must be in the interests of: (i) the sovereignty and integrity of India,
(ii) the security of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv) public order, (v)
decency or morality or (vi) in relation to contempt of court, (vii) defamation or (viii) incitement
to an offence.

2.42 In the present case, the State acted to prevent electoral destabilization, coordinated
misinformation campaigns and public unrest immediately preceding national polling. Such
objectives directly concern preservation of democratic order and constitutional governance.
Therefore, the limited intrusion caused by metadata analysis and behavioural tracing cannot
outweigh the compelling public interest sought to be protected.

2.43 The NETRAGRID framework primarily involved metadata analysis rather than
unrestricted surveillance of substantive private communications. The operational order sought
device identifiers, provenance markers, account linkages and amplification metrics required to

25
Gobind vs State Of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., AIR1975SC1378

19
identify coordinated synthetic dissemination networks. In District Registrar and Collector v.
Canara Bank26, the Court recognized that the degree of constitutional protection depends upon
the nature and extent of informational intrusion. The Respondents submit that limited metadata
collection for election-security purposes constitutes a substantially narrower intrusion than
direct interception of private communications or content surveillance. Consequently, the
Petitioners’ attempt to portray NETRA-GRID as unrestricted mass surveillance is factually
inaccurate and constitutionally exaggerated.

2.44 In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara 27, the Court held that constitutional invalidation cannot
rest upon speculative apprehensions detached from actual demonstrable injury. The Petitioners
have failed to establish any concrete constitutional injury resulting from the operation of
NETRA-GRID. The impugned framework neither criminalized political dissent nor imposed
permanent surveillance architecture. There is no material demonstrating unlawful disclosure,
indefinite retention or misuse of personal data collected pursuant to the operational order. The
Respondents therefore submit that the present challenge is founded largely upon hypothetical
fears rather than proven constitutional violations. Accordingly, the activation and operation of
NETRA-GRID do not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of Indica

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THERE IS LAPSE OF INVESTIGATION IN THE PART OF THE

DAKSHIN PRADESH POLICE DEPARTMENT?

3.1 UNREASONABLE DELAY IN FILING FIR AND STARTING INVESTIGATION

3.11 Section 173 of BNSS 28deals with report of police officer on completion of investigation
and states that

(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.

In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh29, and reiterated thereafter to the effect that
registration of FIR is mandatory ,if the information discloses commission of a cognizable
offence and no preliminary inquiry before FIR is permissible in such a situation; however, if

26
District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496
27
The State of Bombay and Another vs F.N. Balsara, 1951 AIR 318, 1951 SCR 682

28
BNSS,2023, Section 173
29
Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P.& Ors, AIR 2014 SC 187

20
the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates necessity of an
inquiry being conducted, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain facts
disclosing cognizable offence, if any.

3.12 In State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao 30

the principle of, delay in
investigation or fir is not fatal unless it leads to prejudice, has been recognized. The present
case expected to involve AI generated video, digital forensic evidences, and election integrity.
which require technical forensic assessment and a preliminary verification before registering
fir due to the conflicting forensic reports regarding the authenticity of video.

3.13 The case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal31is primarily known for its guidelines for
quashing an FIR, not just because of delay in registering of FIR. The Court clarified that delay
is not the only ground, but if the delay and other circumstances make the case frivolous or mala
fide, an FIR can be quashed. Here reasonable suspicion itself required technical validation.

3.14 While the general rule is that delay in investigation does not automatically vitiate the entire
case, this judgment in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu highlights that if the delay is
unjustified and raises doubts about the veracity of evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit
of the doubt.

3.15 The alleged delay as not unreasonable, but contextually justified and it was necessitated
by technical complexity, conflicting evidence cross-border investigation constraints did not
prejudice the accused or compromise fairness hence the petitioner’s reliance on procedural
delay is misplaced, and the investigation remains legally valid and constitutionally sound.

3.2 NO DEFECT IN INVESTIGATION

3.21 Irregularity in procedure does not render evidence inadmissible, it affects only the weight,
not admissibility. Valsala v. State of Kerala 32was a 1993 judgment of the Supreme Court of
India concerning procedural safeguards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court overturned a conviction for drug possession, emphasizing
strict adherence to evidentiary procedures when handling seized [Link] this case Acquittal

30
State Of A.P vs M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 4 CUR CRI R 584

31
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
32
Valsala v. State of Kerala (1993) Supp (3) SCC 665

21
resulted due to complete failure to establish chain of custody, not mere technical lapses Unlike
physical evidence Digital evidence requires flexible application of traditional seizure rules

3.22 The observations in G. N. Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra 33

regarding hash values must
be understood as guidelines to ensure integrity, not as inflexible rules rendering evidence
inadmissible upon deviation. Hash value generation after transfer does not establish tampering,
no inconsistency in data has been proven, Allegations are based on mere apprehension and not
by any evidence Hence, the integrity of evidence remains legally sustainable.

3.23 Statements recorded during investigation are presumed voluntary unless proven
otherwise. It is submitted that under Sections 180 34and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
35
Sanhita, police are empowered to examine witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. In
this case, no material evidence of force or threat is shown and no complaint against
investigating officers has been substantiated so the existence of procedural delay is not present
in this case

3.24 In C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu 36, it was observed that a defective investigation
cannot be a ground for acquittal unless miscarriage of justice is shown., here the allegations
such as delayed hashing or improper sealing and technical irregularities and do not affect the
substantive evidentiary value unless tampering is proven. The present case involves highly
technical digital evidence, including metadata, AI-generated content, and cross-platform
dissemination.

3.25 The digital forensics is an evolving field and Immediate seizure may precede formal
hashing due to urgency, Cross-border data access and limitations affected evidence collection.

The Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer 37recognized the importance of procedural safeguards
for electronic evidence but did not mandate that every deviation automatically renders evidence
inadmissible, especially when authenticity can be otherwise [Link] this judgment of
the Supreme Court of India that redefined the admissibility of electronic evidence under Indian

33
G.N. Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024: BHC-NAG:2711-DB
34
BNSS,2023, Section 180
35
BNSS,2023, Section 183
36
C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567

37
Anvar P. V vs P.K. Basheer & Ors, 2014 AIR SCW 5695

22
law. The Court clarified how digital materials like CDs, emails, and recordings must be
authenticated before being used in legal proceedings, setting a pivotal standard for the
electronic era.

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE ELECTORAL INTEGRITY (SYNTHETIC MEDIA) ORDINANCE,

2026 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

4.1 PROMOGULATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 123

4.11 Article 123 of the Constitution38 confers Ordinance power to the President. By accordance
to Article 123, President can promulgate Ordinance when neither of the houses of parliament
is in session or either one of the houses are not in session and the President is satisfied certain
circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action.

4.12In Krishna Kumar Singh and Ors V. State of Bihar and Ors, 39 the Supreme Court held that
for a valid Ordinance, two conditions should be satisfied. They are;

a. Neither house of Parliament or either one of the houses of Parliament are in

session, and;

b. The President should be satisfied of circumstances existing which make it a

necessity for him to take immediate action.

4.13 The President promogulated the Ordinance on 25 February 2026. At that time the Lok
Sabha was dissolved. By Article 85, the Lok Sabha will be dissolved after 5-year duration, just
before the general election is conducted. The result of General Election of Indica, 2026 was
not announced during that time and therefore, new Lok Sabha was not formed. So, Lok Sabha
was not in session at the time when the Ordinance was issued. The first condition as put forward
in the ‘Krishna Kumar Singh and Ors V. State of Bihar and Ors’ is satisfied.

4.14 The Ordinance was issued to prevent any unrest that may be caused due to the spread of
any social media content. Before the polling of last phase of the General Election, clashes and
protest occurred in multiple districts due to the appearance of a video containing Prime Minister
candidate Ayaan Mehra receiving bribe money from individuals, and making statements that if
he lost the election, then unrest will follow. The authenticity of the video content is still question

38
India. [Link].123
39
Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs State of Bihar & Ors (2017) 3 SCC 1

23
and the investigating team is trying to make a conclusion regarding its authenticity. This
Ordinance was promulgated with the intention to stop such further clash and protest that can
be caused due to the circulation of contents that can even be synthetic, AI generated or hybrid
constructions. So, there was reasonable circumstances that required immediate action.
Therefore, second condition propounded by Krishna Kumar Case is satisfied.

4.2 COULD NOT QUESTION THE SATISFACTION OF THE PRESIDENT

4.21 According to Article 123, satisfaction of President regarding the immediate need of action
is required before the issuance of an Ordinance. In A K Roy V. Union of India 40, the Supreme
Court held that merely challenging the satisfaction of the President does not shift the burden of
proof to Union of India, to show the conditions that rendered it necessary to issue the
Ordinance. To shift the burden of proof and thereby, to question the satisfaction of President
regarding the Ordinance, the petitioner has to show that, there is prima facie case that there are
no circumstances which required immediate action.

4.22 In Krishna Kumar Singh V. State of Bihar, the Court noted that it would not interfere to
check adequacy or sufficiency of the circumstance. It was governed that the satisfaction of the
President would be taken to scrutiny only if there is fraud or abuse of power.

4.23 The Ordinance was promulgated so that to prevent any further clashes that can be caused
due to emergence of any new content in the social media. Already, due to the spread of video
related to Mr. Mehra, clashes and protest occurred in multiple districts. So, President did not
abuse the power conferred to him by Article 123. So, the burden of proof is not on the Union
of India.

4.3 INADEQUACY OF EXISTING PARLIAMENTARY ACTS TO DEAL WITH THE

SITUATION.

4.31 In the General Election of Indica, 2026, AI was used extensively to promote and accelerate
the work of various political parties. Large number of AI contents were emerging on the social
media platforms. During this period a controversial video appeared on various social media
platform which was related to Mr. Ayaan Mehra in which he was receiving a bundle of cash,
and was making a statement that if he loses, then unrest may follow. Due to the emergence of
this video, violent confrontation erupted in several districts. The authenticity of the content
remained in dispute because different technical assessments has concluded with conflicting

40
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710

24
opinions. To determine whether the content is authentic or synthetic, access to certain metadata
was necessary, but the current Parliamentary acts where insufficient to gain access to this data.
If the uncertainty is not resolved and further such content emerges, then provisions to take
down such content, and to access metadata required to verify the authenticity of the content is
needed to prevent clashes.

4.32 Section 7 of Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 202341, lists whenever the personal data
can be accessed. Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 42
specify the intercepting and
accessing of telegraph messages. Section 69B of Information Technology Act, 200043, laid
down the provision to access, detain and monitor the traffic data to prevent intrusion or spread
of computer contaminant. None of this provision is sufficient to access metadata or to takedown
controversial content. Before the elections discussions regarding the regulation of synthetic
political content and its effects on election happened, but the Parliament was dissolved before
the legislation could be made.

4.33 In R. C. Cooper V. Union of India 44, the Supreme Court recognised that if the existing
legal framework including the Parliamentary acts are insufficient to deal with a circumstance
which need immediate action and at that time Parliament is not in session, then the President
can promulgate ordinance.

4.34 Since the current legal framework is insufficient to take action against synthetic content
and the Parliament is not session; President is empowered under Article 123 to issue Ordinance.

4.4 REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER ARTICLE 19(2) OVER FREEDOM OF

SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.

4.41 Article 19(2) list down the reasonable restriction over the freedom of speech and
expression. According to 19(2), freedom of speech and expression would not affect “the
operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in
the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations
with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence”.

41
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 7
42
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 5
43
The Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 69B
44
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India,1970, AIR 564

25
4.42 In Romesh Thapar V. State of Madras45, the Supreme Court stated that freedom of speech
is the basis of democratic organizations. In S Rangarajan V. P Jagjivan Ram, the court held that
reasonable restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression.

4.43 The Ordinance was promogulated by the President in the interest of Public Order. Before
the final polling of the election, the public order was disrupted due to the spread of a specific
political content. There is a high probability that similar controversial content may arise before
or after the announcement of election results to again disrupt public order. So, in the interest of
the public order, the Electoral Integrity (Synthetic Media) Ordinance was promulgated.
Therefore, it comes under reasonable restriction provided in Article 19(2) and does not violate
freedom of speech and expression.

4.5 REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

4.51 In Menaka Gandhi V. Union of India, 46 the Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights
can be violated through the procedure prescribed by law and the procedure must be fair, just
and reasonable. The Ordinance was promulgated by the President in compliance of the
procedure prescribed under Article 123 of the constitution. The provisions of Article 123 are
upheld by the Supreme Court in cases like Krishna Kumar V. State of Bihar.

4.52 In State of Madras V. V. G. Row47, the test of reasonableness for evaluating whether the
restrictions imposed on the fundamental rights is reasonable or not, was defined. The Court
held that the inquiry on the reasonableness should be based on both factual and legal basis. The
proportionality between the evil that is sought to be remedied and the extent of restriction on
the fundamental right should be even. The Court should authorise both extend of restriction
and the circumstance under which the restriction is imposed.

4.53 The restriction imposed by the Ordinance is to prevent any unrest that may grip Indica
due to the spread of any content. This Ordinance provides proportionate measures to verify and
take down contents that can cause wide spread of riots or clashes. Also, during the last phase
of election some clashes occurred because the police was not able to ascertain the authenticity
of the video due to lack of access to certain metadata. Therefore, access to certain specific
metadata and the power to verify and takedown content was allowed through Ordinance, so

45
Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124
46
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
47
State Of Madras vs V.G. Row. Union of India & State, 1952 AIR 196

26
that to prevent evil sources from causing riots and clashes in Indica by dissemination of
synthetic and hybrid content in the social media.

4.54 In Superintendent, Central Prison V. Ram Manohar Lohia 48, the Court laid that if the
reasonable restriction is imposed for the interest of public order, there should be a nexus or
direct connection between public order and the reasons which rendered it necessary to impose
the restriction.

4.55 The clashes and protest in Indica during the last phase of election was a direct consequence
of the spread of video content related to Mr. Ayaan Mehra. Due to the lack of access of certain
metadata, the authenticity of the content remained in dispute which further fuelled the clashes.
So, the reasonable restrictions in direct nexus with public order were imposed by the
Ordinance.

48
Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia, 1960 AIR 633

27
 PRAYER

THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHTS OF THE FACTS STATED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED AND IMPLORED

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA, THAT IT MAY BE

GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT,

1. It is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court rule that the ECI directive is constitutionally
valid.

2. It is most Humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to uphold that the operation and
activation of NETRAGRID order by the Ministry of Home Affairs is not a violative of Right
to privacy under Article 21 and constitutionally valid

3. It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court hold that there is no lapse of investigation in the
part of the Dakshin Pradesh police department.

4. It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may held that the Electoral Integrity (Synthetic
Media) Ordinance, 2026 is constitutionally valid.

AND/OR

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT

MAY DEEM FIT AND APPROPRIATE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND

GOOD CONSCIENCE.

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

All of which is most humbly prayed,

Sd/-

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPODENT

28