BITS LAW COLLEGE, BHIWANI
NOTICE
All the students of B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. are hereby informed that a Moot Court Competition
will be organized in the college on 9th October 2025.
The Moot Proposition for the competition is as follows:
Moot Court Problem:
The Case of Ananya Mehra v. Deepak Arora & Ors.
Facts of the Case:
Ananya Mehra, a 22-year-old law student at a prestigious university in Mumbai, Maharashtra,
begins receiving anonymous threatening messages, explicit deepfake images, and morphed
videos on her social media accounts (Instagram and X, formerly Twitter) and via WhatsApp
from multiple unknown profiles. The content includes derogatory remarks about her character,
threats of physical harm, and references to her past romantic relationships. Over a period of eight
months, the harassment intensifies into sophisticated cyberstalking: her daily academic timetable,
real-time location data (tracked via geotagged posts and possibly hacked apps), travel routes
between her hostel and university, and sensitive personal details (including her Aadhaar-linked
bank information and medical records) are repeatedly doxxed on dark web forums and public
social media groups. Private photos from her cloud storage are leaked, leading to widespread
online abuse and coordinated troll attacks from bot accounts, causing Ananya severe
psychological distress, including diagnosed PTSD and anxiety disorder as per medical reports
from a Mumbai hospital.
Suspecting her former classmate and ex-boyfriend, Deepak Arora (a 23-year-old engineering
student from the same university), due to a bitter breakup involving allegations of infidelity and a
prior unreported incident of verbal abuse during a college fest, Ananya files an FIR at the
Mumbai Cyber Crime Police Station under the relevant provisions of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (as amended). The police investigation reveals IP addresses linked to
Deepak's residence in Mumbai and his university hostel, along with metadata from the harassing
messages matching devices registered in his name. Deepak is summoned for questioning and
issued a formal warning under Section 41A of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS) not to contact Ananya or engage in any form of communication. However, the
harassment persists through newly created fake profiles on encrypted platforms like Telegram
and Signal, with advanced evasion techniques such as VPNs and proxy servers traced to
locations in Delhi and Bangalore, raising questions about interstate cyber jurisdiction.
Deepak denies involvement, claiming his social media accounts and devices were hacked by an
unknown third party, possibly a rival from his online gaming community, and provides a
cybersecurity expert's report (hired privately) suggesting malware infection via a phishing email.
Forensic analysis by the police's cyber cell is inconclusive, showing signs of remote access but
no definitive proof of Deepak's direct control. Meanwhile, Ananya receives anonymous calls
from VoIP numbers threatening acid attacks if she pursues the complaint, leading her to install
surveillance apps on her phone.
The situation culminates one rainy evening when Ananya is ambushed outside her university
hostel by two masked assailants on a motorcycle. They hurl a corrosive substance (later
identified as concentrated sulfuric acid mixed with an unidentified accelerant) at her face and
upper body, causing third-degree burns, partial vision loss in one eye, and permanent
disfigurement. Ananya is rushed to a hospital where she undergoes multiple surgeries, incurring
medical expenses exceeding ₹15 lakhs. Hostel CCTV footage captures the attack but is grainy
due to poor lighting and rain; facial recognition software tentatively identifies one assailant as
Karan Gupta, a 24-year-old unemployed acquaintance of Deepak from Delhi, with a prior
criminal record for petty theft under Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
(corresponding to old IPC Section 379). The second assailant remains unidentified.
Call detail records (CDRs) and tower location data from telecom providers show multiple calls
and encrypted WhatsApp messages between Deepak's registered SIM and Karan's phone on the
day of the attack, including one just minutes before the incident, with content allegedly
discussing "finishing the job." However, Deepak presents an alibi: he was attending a virtual
internship interview with a Bangalore-based tech firm at the exact time, corroborated by
timestamps on Zoom logs and affidavits from two witnesses (his roommates). The prosecution
counters with digital forensics suggesting the Zoom session could have been pre-recorded or
manipulated using AI deepfake tools. Additionally, a encrypted email chain recovered from
Karan's seized laptop references a "payment" from an anonymous UPI account linked to
Deepak's bank, but the transaction is disputed as potentially fabricated or coerced.
Further complicating matters, a whistleblower from the university's IT department anonymously
tips off the police about Deepak accessing Ananya's university email and cloud storage via a
shared Wi-Fi network vulnerability, potentially violating the Digital Personal Data Protection
Act, 2023 (DPDP Act). However, the tip is challenged as hearsay evidence, and the
whistleblower refuses to testify, citing fear of retaliation. Social media platforms, when
subpoenaed under Section 91 BNSS, provide partial user data but invoke data localization and
privacy clauses under the DPDP Act to withhold full logs, leading to debates on compelled
disclosure.
The prosecution charges Deepak Arora and Karan Gupta under:
- Section 124 BNS (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by acid, etc., punishable with life
imprisonment or up to 10 years);
- Section 77 BNS (stalking, including cyberstalking);
- Section 351 BNS (criminal intimidation);
- Section 3(5) BNS (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention);
- Sections 66C, 66D, 66E, and 67A of the IT Act, 2000 (identity theft, cheating by personation
using computer resource, violation of privacy, and sexually explicit content);
- Section 13 DPDP Act (unauthorized processing of personal data).
Deepak and Karan are arrested under Section 35 BNSS and remanded to judicial custody.
Deepak maintains his innocence, alleging a frame-up by Ananya's new boyfriend (an uncharged
third party) who had access to her devices and motive due to jealousy. Karan claims he was
coerced by Deepak under duress from outstanding debts and provides conflicting statements
during interrogation, invoking his right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the
Constitution.
The trial is set before the Sessions Court in Mumbai, with applications filed for joinder of
charges and transfer of cyber aspects to a special cyber court under the Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, or interstate coordination via the
National Investigation Agency if terror links are alleged (though unsubstantiated).
Issues :
1. Whether Deepak Arora can be held guilty of cyberstalking under Section 77 BNS read with
Sections 66C, 66D, 66E, and 67A of the IT Act, 2000, considering his hacking defense, the
admissibility of electronic evidence under Sections 63-65 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 (BSA), and potential violations of his own privacy rights under the DPDP Act, 2023.
2. Whether there exists sufficient evidence of common intention under Section 3(5) BNS to
jointly charge Deepak Arora and Karan Gupta for the acid attack under Section 124 BNS, in
light of alibi evidence, disputed digital communications, and the doctrine of approver's testimony
if Karan turns state witness under Section 344 BNSS.
3. Whether circumstantial evidence, including digital footprints (CDRs, IP logs, metadata),
forensic reports on deepfakes, and chain of custody issues under BSA, can conclusively establish
Deepak's involvement in planning and abetting the acid attack, especially amid claims of
evidence tampering and AI manipulation.
4. Whether the digital cyber offenses and the physical acid attack can be joined for a single trial
under Section 242 BNSS (joinder of charges), considering jurisdictional overlaps between state
cyber cells, potential interstate elements, and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under
Article 21, or if they warrant separate proceedings to avoid prejudice.
5. What remedies, compensation, and rehabilitative measures are available to Ananya Mehra
under the Victim Compensation Scheme (Section 384 BNSS), the Acid Attack Victims
Compensation Scheme, 2017, mental health provisions under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017,
and civil remedies for privacy breaches under the DPDP Act, 2023, including interim relief and
punitive damages against social media intermediaries for failure to curb harassment under
Section 79 IT Act exemptions.
Instructions:
1. Each team shall consist of three students: two mooters and one researcher.
2. Interested students may submit their names to Rajesh Sir on or before 3rd October 2025.
3. Participants are required to prepare Memorials/Memoranda for both the Petitioner and the
Respondent.
4. This competition provides an excellent opportunity for students to develop advocacy and
research skills. All students are encouraged to participate actively.
Dr. Saurabh Verma
Principal
BITS Law College, Bhiwani