Notes on NCHRC-DNNU National Moocode Competition 2020-3 Lecture

Introduction

• Welcome address to participants and judges.
• Congratulations to finalists: TC03 (appellants) and PT04 (respondents).
• Time allocation for presentations:
  • Appellants: Speaker 1 - 30 min, Speaker 2 - 25 min, 5 min for rebuttal.
  • Respondents: Speaker 1 - 30 min, Speaker 2 - 25 min, 5 min for rebuttal.

Case Overview

• Case: R. N. Chako and T. Siddique vs. State of Titania.
• Jurisdiction: Appeal under Article 136 of the Titianian Constitution.
• Key Facts:
  • Republic of Titania: Two main communities (Tsars and Thars).
  • Jack Smith: Controversial figure with anti-Thar sentiment.
  • TFT (Thars for Titania): Organization aiming for Thar supremacy.
  • TCT: Popular social media platform with user-generated content, employs human review team.

Significant Characters

• Fiona Coney: Minister of Reconciliation, controversial leader of Tsar community.
• Arun Jako: Member of TFT; reshared an offensive image involving Fiona Coney and Jack Smith.

Legal Context

• IT Act: Specifies obligations of intermediaries regarding user content.
• Case Prosecution: R. N. Chako and TCT prosecuted for hosting objectionable content.
• TCT removed the post upon receiving a legal notice, but issues of liability arise.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellants (TCT)

1. Intermediary Liability:

   • Offense by a user doesn't make the intermediary liable.
   • TCT qualifies for protection under Section 79 of the IT Act.
   • TCT followed due diligence and complied with IT obligations.
   • Pre-screening responsibility: Not legally imposed on TCT.

2. First Assertion:

   • Offense by a user (Arun Jako) does not equal liability for TCT.
   • TCT is only a platform, not a publisher.

3. Second Assertion:

   • TCT complied with obligations; removed the post within the stipulated time after notification.
   • Case cited: MySpace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.
   • Global Precedent: Delphi v. Estonia - confirmed intermediary's limited role.

4. Third Assertion:

   • Actual knowledge defined as a court order or government notification, which was absent in this case.

5. Fourth Assertion:

   • TCT's actions did not amount to censorship and did not interfere with freedom of speech.
   • Cited various international precedents supporting limited liability for intermediaries.

For the Respondents (State of Titania)

1. Conviction of Arun Jako:

   • Actions of Arun Chako created a disturbance in public order.
   • Cited Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India regarding public order tests.
   • Argued that the content shared led to violence and resignation of public officials.

2. Obscenity and Defamation:

   • Content contained obscene elements that fall under prohibitions of the law.
   • Liability attributed to Arun Jako for lack of diligence in sharing harmful content.

3. Public Order Argument:

   • Argued that the fragile peace between communities was disrupted by the post.
   • Related concepts of incitement and public safety to the case.

Final Statements by Judges

• Encouragement for all participants regardless of the outcome of the competition.
• Emphasis on the importance of mooting for practical legal education.
• Advice on maintaining professional ethics and integrity as future lawyers.

Conclusion

• Recognition of the importance of legal education and participation in competitions like moot courts.
• Reminder of the responsibility of lawyers as officers of the court in providing justice.